GakuseiDon

Ted, can we rule out M Felix and other Second Century writers as evidence towards a First Century belief in an ahistorical Jesus? Were their beliefs stand-alone, or was there influence from the First Century?

The reason I'm asking this is that if there is no connection between the Second Century mythicists and the First Century ones, then the Second Century mythicists can be ruled out as evidence towards a Christianity that started with a mythical Christ. (In the same way that I'm sure you'd agree that Second Century historicists shouldn't necessarily be used as evidence of First Century beliefs).

Roger Pearse

My understanding is based on the reviews in the Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea, plus a Czech article on Tertullian which explicitly states this, plus a range of other articles. If anyone actually knows -- rather than wishes -- different, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'm not sure on what you base your comment -- would you explain how you know what the consensus of scholarship is? Do you follow the scholarly literature on the topic, which seems to be mainly in German? If so, I'd appreciate your comments on Axelson and Becker.

Who precisely in the last 15 years has stated that there is no consensus? Even Gilles Quispel -- a defender of the priority of MF -- acknowledges the philology points only one way, or so I gather.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

Rule out? Your meaning is unclear.
Asked and answered. I answered this yesterday.

Meaning they developed their beliefs from a vaccum? Does that sound possible to you?
Ruled out, to me means, "eliminated and no longer regarded as part of a set". In your passage, its unclear what you mean.
Who are 1st cent mythicists? Who are 2nd cent mythicists? Why is this coming up when we are discussing MF?

GakuseiDon

Given the late date (160 CE or later) and the fact that M Felix refers to himself as a Christian, this can only be a reference to Christ.

It sounds possible to me. What is the evidence to the contrary? Did earlier Christ mythers influence M Felix, in your opinion? If so, what is the evidence?

It is part of the analysis of MJ writings that I referred to earlier. I'll leave you to sort out who the first century mythicists were who may have influenced M Felix. If there were none, then we can rule out M Felix as casting any light on Christian origins. (I believe Carrier made the same point when discussing the Big Bang concept of Christianity with you).

Ted Hoffman

So, let me understand this: you have read the arguments and have the sources but will not share them with us?
What happened to the scholars who did not share that alleged consensus? They all got persuaded?
Michael E. Hardwick's article at your website is a good starting point. I dont see consensus there.

Start a new thread for that. What is relevant now is whether or not you will provide an outline of the alleged Philological arguments that prove that MF copied Tertullian, so that we can evaluate them.
You gather? What does that mean? Could you please cite the relevant passages?

It is fine if you choose to claim a priveledged access to obscure sources in different languages. But without sharing the arguments, we have no way of scrutinizing your basis for declaring that a 'philological' argument settled the matter - a matter which you OTOH want to win on numbers. It doesnt mean that you could be bluffing: it simply means that we have no reason to believe what you are saying.

I would appreciate it if you just outlined the argument. A matter that becomes clear ceases to concern us.

GakuseiDon

What, then, is the context that we need to consider?

Ted Hoffman

And this wicked man that is referenced in ceremonies who suffered on the deadly wood of the cross is not Christ? Who is it?

Ted Hoffman

Everything else written in the text(s). Every source we have that exposes MF's beliefs and Tertullian's beliefs.

GakuseiDon

Given the late date (160 CE or later) and the fact that M Felix refers to himself as a Christian, this can only be a reference to Christ.
OK.

Ted Hoffman

It will be interesting to see your argument.
It is likely that MF was just a pagan who converted. And he converted to a Christianity devoid of a HJ. Probably a logos-centric Christianity. Or a theocentric one which had the logos playing a minor role, or one where Christ was an intermediary saviour figure.
In any event, his brand of Christianity detested the idea of worshipping a chap who suffered at the cross. That is primary to the MJ hypothesis because he is a towering example of a Christian who rejected the idea that a man died and through that conferred salvation to those that remained.

Yes, Carrier made that argument. But his argument entailed declaring Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Ascension of Isaiah, Epistle to Diognetus, MF etc as non-Christian documents.

You want to adopt his argument? go ahead. But you have a lot of revision to do.