ApostateAbe

Yeah, that would be an unlikely explanation, though of course it would be more likely than Sheshbazzar's proposition. There is already a plausible reason for why such a heresy would exist if we rely on the perceptions of early heresiologists as generally accurate: gods and men were thought to be incompatible.

ApostateAbe

You have done a service, and Earl Doherty secretly thanks you for giving more attention to his book than it deserves.

Sheshbazzar

Circle jerk boys.

Toto

Why exactly is it unlikely? Do you think it unlikely that the heresiologists would misunderstand the gnostics? It is likely or unlikely that the heresiologists would accurately describe the heresies?

I can't make any sense of this. Who thinks that gods and men were incompatible? Not the ancients.

mountainman

The faulty assumption essentially can be reduced to the rejection of the notion that there was nobody who was recorded anywhere in the saga of "Christian Origins" saying that Jesus was not an historical figure. The evidence does not reveal this fact, but that does not immediately preclude the possibility that people were saying this but the evidence of this has been dramatically tampered with by century upon century of imperially controlled censorship, refutation and the destruction of manuscripts. The faulty assumption is automatically assuming everything in this instance is "above boards". Everything was "harmonious" reports the heresiologist Eusebius. Nothing could have been further from the historical truth. We know that Gnostic codices were manufactured and buried for their preservation at that epoch. These codices exhibit a different picture of Jesus, certainly not historical, far more wildly romantic and impossible, and far more popular with the common people of the 4th century that were the books of the canon. Evidence establishes that the preservation of the "other stories about Jesus" (ie" the gnostic gospels and acts) were in thre hands of the Arians - the followers of the "words of Arius" - during the post Nicaean epoch.

And on the basis of all the available evidence, and the best explanation for it, I will take that extra step and date this new and strange religious revolution. As far as I can see it, the earliest time that the Historical Jesus appeared on the planet Earth was in the publications and public orations of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I would suggest that they ask themselves how integrous is that evidence in the context of all the available evidence of the first five centuries of the CE.

The reception of Earl's thesis that Jesus was neither God nor Man but rather Myth should make people sit up and realise that the new testament does not contain any history. While Earl and others may assume that the myth making exercise of the Mythical Jesus was some natural scribal process, itself shrouded in 1st and 2nd century events, it is also just as likely, that the assertions by key figures in the 4th century Christian Revolution are, in the words of Jacon Burckhardt "thoroughly dishonest".

Gibbon has already testified that Constantine degenerated "into a cruel and dissolute monarch," one who "could sacrifice, without relectance, the laws of justice and the feelings of nature to the dictates either of his passions or of his interests." Gibbon also held that Constantine was indifferent to religion and that his Christian policy was motivated by purely political considerations.

Modern scholars have attempted to balance Gibbon's presentation of Constantine, with a few exceptions, the foremost imo being the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano, who alludes to a massive Christian revolution in the 4th century, which "carried with it a new historiography", courtesy of Eusebius, and his 4th and 5th and later century "continuators".

Quite obviously, the resistance to, and the rejection of, the idea of the Historical Jesus at the time of Nicaea c.324/325 CE has been swept clean by the orthodox heresiolgists, but the tell tale signature of this resistance can still be seen on the anathema clause in the Nicaean Creed.

If the Historical Jesus was not historical but mythical then sooner or later objective and critical scholars seeking the historical truth to this fabrication must extend their search patterns out of the 1st and 2nd century, and take in the epoch that at least includes the closure of the NT canon, after the death of Julian, and after the censorship of Julian by the Doctor of the Church, the master of Christology, murderer, pyromaniac, terrorist boss and thug, nephew of the despotic miltarist Theophilus, Bishop Cyril of Alexandria.

ApostateAbe

It is certainly not unlikely that Christian apologists would have misunderstood their opposition. It is merely unlikely that they would have unanimously misunderstood their opposition in a specific way that suits a theory of modern authors otherwise without evidence. It is essentially the most shameless variation of rewriting history. You can do that if there is corroborating evidence or if the heresy as understood by the Christian apologists truly did not make sense.
Indeed they did think of Gods and men as incompatible. It is a major theme in Christology, explaining very many of the heresies, including Ebionism, Adoptionism, and Monarchianism. Evidence is again seen in the fourth century, with the emergence of a different heresy known as "Apollinarism." It was the belief that Jesus had a human body and a divine mind, not a mind both human and divine.

"We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man." -- Seventh Anathema of Pope Damasus, 381 CE.

TedM

You could make the same kind of argument for a many of the claims about that Jesus. 'No man could raise another man from the dead. Therefore Jesus never existed.' 'No man can rise from the dead or walk on water. Therefore Jesus never existed.' It's similar to saying 'No man can embody Logos. Therefore Jesus never existed.'. The MORE likely argument would stop before saying Jesus never existed and just say he wasn't the Logos. I don't think supernatural claims given to a man who was widely believed to have been historical naturally lead the doubter to claim that man never walked the earth. A much more reasonable objection is to the claim that he possessed the supernatural attributes given to him.

It's too hard to suppress information that effectively. Sure, if there were only a few documents, but by the time Roman Legions could do such a thing there may have been hundreds of copies of these documents, and a surely a following among the anti-Christian crowd (subject to input from others..). IF the anti-historical thought was that widespread I don't think we'd have, as Abe said, records of heresies, records of related beliefs far and wide, and ZERO record of the anti-historical Jesus opposition.

Even further, if the Catholic Church was willing to keep records of other heresies, why not this one? There were enough documents around which they could use to support a historical Jesus (the many gospels, the fraudulent gnostics, etc..) that I would think they would have been happy to keep apologetic records that refute the non-historical thesis. They seemed to be more than willing to condemn a number of clearly-widespread heresies (to their orthodox position). Why be so afraid of another one that they dare not even mention them, and instead employ Roman armies to gather up hundreds of copies and burn them so effectively that nary a trace of the idea remained after 200+ years of being in the historical record? And, if they were going to the pains of making a historical Jesus unquestioned why in the world wouldn't they have edited Paul's writings and other early epistles to put in more gospel elements? Your idea just doesn't seem plausible or reasonable.

mountainman

The Gnostic literature does not support an historical jesus.

The petitions of the attendees at Nicaea were ceremoniously burnt in the presence of the petitioners. The literature of Porphyry was subject to destruction by fire. The books of Arius of Alexandria were subject to destruction by fire. The books of the Manichaeans were subject to destruction by fire. The books of Emperor Julian were subject to destruction by fire.

What they kept TedM, were the orthodox refutations and representations of the heretics - Contra Julian by Cyril for example. Or the accounts of Hegemonius and Ephrem Syria "against the Manichaeans". These christian heresioloogical accounts concerning their enemies the heretics are notoriously non historical and full of polemic.

It was a pckage and Paul was just its weakest link but who had any opportunity to disagree with Constantine's personal assertions regarding the HJ at the Antioch "Oration"? Rescripts were issued after this council to torture that pagans and gain their confession. The idea is plausible, but only in the appropriate chronological and political context.

Sheshbazzar

As I am quite convinced that the Scholars and Philosophers did, until The Church silenced their voices and burned their books.

It must have been horrible for the learned ancient philosophers to have to watch as their civilization, and high theological concepts of the Logos as articulated by Aristotle, Plato, and Zeno were subverted, plagiarised and applied to that Jewish cartoon character invented by Christianity.

Again you go with your assumption. There is NO actual evidence from the first 3 centuries that this Jew was widely believed to have been historical.
The evidence on the ground, and in 2nd century documents, rather indicates that most of the ancient world had never even so much as heard of any Jesus of Nazareth.
As many undoubtedly did from the first time they heard these ridiculous and outrageous Christian claims
I expect they objected to ALL of the horse-shit these Christians were shoveling their way.
And the fact that it is lacking, where it most certainly SHOULD exist, at least in some small measure, is the damning evidence of concentrated suppression, murder and cover-up.
My view, The early Christian Church was the operation of some of the worst, most nefarious criminals this earth has ever seen.
As I stated just above, the 'Jesus of Nazareth cult' of the first two centuries was no where near as large or influential as invented Christian 'history' <sic> has made it out to be. These other 'heresies' were not as pressing or threatening.
The acquisition of, and an uncontested and exclusive claim to the ancient sacred term 'The Logos' for their god alone, however, was an absolute imperative, one which without, the Christian religion could not succeed.
You are far undervaluing the gain, and the importance to the religion of Christianity of the wresting away of, and the cashing in on of the ancient Hellenic capital of the doctrine of The Logos.
No one was about to deny The Logos, and all that it implied in Hellenic philosophy, what they couldn't stop was Christianity's virtual THEFT of the ancient and honored Hellenic sacred term, to apply it to their stupid idol Jebus.
Far too well known, with far to many copies already being circulated and venerated, well before they gained the necessary traction or power to make such changes. They had no choice but to run with basically what had already been accepted by their supporters.
Hey, the Mafia don't expect perfection on the part of its operatives, the work is messy, and often leaves evidence that they have had a hand in the 'business', but all that counts is that they get the 'job' done, and rake in the profits. It has worked for thousands of years, under different aliases.

TedM

Gnostic literature referenced a Jesus on earth, so yes it could have been used to support a historical Jesus against in an apology. IOW any non-historical thesis would not have been seen as much of a threat...





and here is what I said: we seem to be in agreement.


not clear to me what you are saying. The fact that Paul's writings remained so free of gospel references (Cor 2:9--easily could have put in Pilate, for example) shows that there was no strong anti-historical Jesus movement that the Church had any reason to counter.

Sheez started this by saying that this was such an obvious heresy that should have existed in spades, so therefore it was highly suppressed. Yet, there is NO evidence for it and the things one would reasonable expect if that were the case don't exist. I'm just not a big fan of conspiracy theories, and I believe they mostly reflect a distorted distrust of authority, which carries over to a distorted view of the evidence.