Brother Daniel

Except that the crucified Jesus of the NT starts out (in the earliest writings) as a divine figure (whose earthly biography is either unknown or not worth writing about). Your "simple" HJ hypothesis doesn't explain how Jesus came to be seen as divine. Portraying a known man as a saviour-god would involve getting over quite a conceptual hurdle -- especially in Jewish context -- and the NT gives us nary a peep about how Jesus's earliest followers managed to get over that hurdle.
The affinity between John's gospel and Philo is pretty good evidence of early Christianity being a weird amalgam of Jewish and Greek myth.

- - - -

But you are quite right to bring up Occam's Razor.

Here's how I picture the way an MJ/HJ debate ought to go. Take a scoresheet with two columns. Score points to each side based on the difficulties faced by the other side. Evidence that has to be too-cleverly explained away by one side counts as points for the other. (How many points, exactly? That's the hard part.)

To give one example: There are two different ways that an HJ-er could look at Romans 13:3.

Either...

(1) You can argue in a big logical circle: "What's the problem with that? There was an HJ, so obviously Paul didn't mean to imply that there wasn't."

...or...

(2) You can acknowledge the awkwardness of fitting Romans 13:3 with a standard HJ position, and score a point or two for the MJ. Then you can go on to face the numerous other ways in which an HJ scenario is awkward. Nevertheless, you may still claim that there are still more (perhaps even far more) points in favour of the HJ.

If you're a "type 1" HJ-er, you're not worth arguing with. If you're a "type 2" HJ-er, then ... fine. You may even be right.

(See also my post #32.)

Amaleq13

I know for a fact you are wrong about Doherty (as I see Michael has pointed out) and I'm pretty sure you are wrong about Wells, also. I'll have to check the books of his I have when I get home. From your comment about Doherty, alone, it seems pretty clear to me you are not informed enough about what these men actually say to offer criticisms of their work.

youngalexander

Thanx Toto, that was a useful link.
Finney in The Invisible God has given the question of Roman judicial persecution of early Christians considerable analysis. On p18 he states

'before the mid-third century anti-Christian charges of atheism, superstition, and sexual misconduct did not have a judicial status'

However, he does not query the authenticity of the Pliny letter, which may be unfortunate considering that he later concludes, p86

‘Why do we have no third century portraits of Jesus and Mary, of Peter and Paul? Perhaps it is Pliny…’

Perhaps it is something else?

Amaleq13

And you are wrong about Wells, too. He has at least 14 pages about Q in his most recent book, Can We Trust the New Testament? (or via: amazon.co.uk).

How does one so blatantly ignorant of the subject matter become so convinced of their conclusions?

Vorkosigan

Yes, that's right. Because as everyone knows, all social action is conspiracy.

Vorkosigan

This is not a correct reading of the MJ/HJ disagreement. Within its interpretive framework the HJ is 100% supported by all tests and methods. At issue is the framework itself. Off to discuss this key point elsewhere.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

A movement of scholars to not accept a certain hypothesis because of a social stigma against that very hypothesis is the epitome of conspiracy. I can imagine it now - a room at the SBL where scholars are saying "o the christians! we better not accept the Jesus Myth hypothesis in any of its forms else we'd be ostracized by the christians, nevermind the fact that Robert Price still can go to church."

Of course, Vorkosigan blames society, when in reality the twisting of the evidence, the excessive parallelomania, and the circumventing of normal means are the reasons for ignoring the hypothesis. Adhere to a stronger methodology and publish in respectable journals and then we begin to start.

aa5874

The Jesus accepted by the authors of the NT and Church Fathers is not an HJ, but a god-man, that is, a figure with a spiritual characteristics but born from a woman, a god-man, son of the Holy Ghost, who was resurrected and ascended after death.

If you read Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Ignatius or any other Church Father, they all accept, establish and present a god-man, crucified and resurrected, never an HJ. And this god-man is a myth by description.

robto

Yes, Doherty rehashes a lot of what others have said about the layers of Q, and then he .... what? In my universe, p. 181 of The Jesus Puzzle has a lot of questions and "possibilities", but no definite proposal about how it all came together. Then on p. 182 the chapter ends with "This is of course speculation...." Dang right.

Let's have a hypothesis - then it can be tested against the evidence. A bunch of mushy "could haves" isn't a serious scholarly position.


Amaleq - sorry, I haven't read Wells's latest. But in The Jesus Myth, he accepts that Q's Jesus was based on a real person, essentially abandoning the MJ line. Has he reversed himself again?

robto

C'mon guys, I'm still waiting to find out which of the Nag Hammadi documents justify Toto's comment that "in the wide spectrum of Gnostic beliefs in the second century, there are spiritual saviors who resemble Doherty's mythicial Jesus".

If there's positive evidence for the MJ, let's have it. Surely all you folks that are claiming I'm an ignoramus can give me a quote? Just one little quote?