judge

Yes please quit dodging.

dog-on

Don, I would say that all the documents of the NT were created by Mythicists.

Or is your argument simply that the writers were only mythicists, when they fail the smell test?

judge

I think Don really would like to get Vork to front up on this.

GakuseiDon

Okay. So the 'proto-orthodox historicists' couldn't get one lousy forged epistle into the NT. So what and when was the first piece of literature by 'proto-orthodox historicists'?

:huh: Let's keep focused on the claim by Doherty:
So what and when was the last piece of literature written by an 'ahistoricist' Christian writer?

dog-on

As far as the NT is concerned, I would say that Luke/Acts is the first quasi "historicist" work. (Though, of course, still mythical, in reality). So I suppose one of the non-Pauline epistles would have to qualify for this honor, though I wouldn't call any of these guys an ahistoricist, in any modern sense of the word.

dog-on

Missed your edit.

They didn't need to get one lousy forged epistle into the NT, they simply needed to reinterpret the existing writings to conform to their current view. It's not as if this should surprise or shock you, as it happens all the time.

In my view, the day someone realized the benefit of claiming a direct authority, via apostolic succession, was the day that myth became history.

judge

Do you ever get the feeling you wont get a straight answer, just dodging?

dog-on

Judge, if you would be so kind as to provide publication dates for the individual books of the NT, it might help us answer Don's question more specifically.

EarlDoherty

What part of "ignore" don't you understand?

Earl Doherty

P.S. In the interests of clarity, let me point out that Don has been fudging the distinction between the Pauline type of sacrificial Christ cult, and the broader more general idea of "ahistoricist" belief systems. The bulk of the 2nd century apologists subscribed to a type of Logos religion which did not involve a sacrificial Christ or historical Jesus. That religion, if we can trust the dates of Athenagoras and Theophilus, extended in some circles up to around 180 (though I have given reasons in my book for not placing full trust in that late a dating). The Pauline-style cult, OTOH, was probably essentially "dead" by the mid-2nd century, though it still had surviving cousins within gnosticism. But Vork is right, the issue is when did proto-orthodoxy based on an historical reading of the Gospels start to reinterpret the earlier epistles as reflecting an HJ. Marcion may be the first we can see to have done so, though in a gnostic context. The Roman Church, when it formulated its own collection of Paul and other epistolary documents which eventually formed a canon, did so soon after in response to Marcion. Offhand, the last document clearly reflecting a non-Gospel Pauline-style cult seems to be the Epistle to Diognetus, probably near the mid 2nd century. With Justin, we see the changeover having been made, at least within his circles.

bacht

Thanks dog-on. For some reason I don't hear these kinds of explanations on tv...