Barefoot Bree

Forgive my interruption, but I have a small question. I'm only a part-time reader of this forum - feel free to direct me to another (recent) thread on the subject if there is one.

Doherty states (about halfway down the first page, within the Goguel section):
Is there much support (yet) among biblical scholars today for this new dating?

Rick Sumner

Hercules was believed to be born of a woman on earth. In a physical sense. Something Doherty's theory can't countenance. The analogy harms, rather than helps, his case.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

S.C.Carlson

No.

Steven Carr

To people doubting the resurrection, pointing out what their Lord and Saviour had said on the subject would have been useful.

Similarly, Paul's views in 1 Corinthians 6 could have been backed up by Jesus teachings on adultery and being a light to the world.

If I was a Christian, I could probably think of other things where the teachings of Jesus would impact my life in a pagan world.

Clivedurdle

Which raises another question.

If every culture throughout history and across the planet tells stories of heroes and gods and men and their relationships with the gods, why would xianity be the exception? Why are xian stories true and other cultures are not? Why do xians believe they are not reciting stories similar to everyone elses?

Clivedurdle

Does it? I see it strengthens the mythicist case! I have found another godman born of a woman. I think you might find other examples, as in Genesis!

Are you arguing hercules was real?

I see very similar stories about Jesus! Which is more likely, someone like hercules or I am completely unclear what you are are arguing for!

Clivedurdle

This is the crux of the problem!

The splitting of physical and spiritual is a modern idea. No one did that until recently, whole chunks of the planet still do not do this - xians believe they are bodies and souls and spirits!

They believed in gods who could do things - like make babies. Therefore they thought of gods as part of their world, able to do physical things. Many people believe now that angels intervene physically to protect them!

Only a very few highly educated atheistically minded people might have thought differently!

I'm sorry, it is really for historicists to show why xianity does not fit in a mythicist interpretation! Why should I not state Jesus and Hercules are brothers?

Rick Sumner

It might strengthen other mythicist cases, it does not strengthen Doherty's. To Doherty's case, there was no literal woman, no time actually on earth, no physical incarnation. I'm not saying that Hercules was real, I'm saying that he was being described as real. That is contrary to Doherty's argument.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Good example, Steven. Paul could have cited a dominical saying in 1 Corinthians 15. Maybe he even should have. But can we argue that Paul did not have such a saying at hand? No. He had already used one in 1 Thessalonians 4.

So tell me: Why did Paul fail to use a dominical saying about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15?

Ben.

gstafleu

I'm starting to see what you're after. Doherty's "exclamation" does indeed look a bit misplaced. Here is what I think he is trying to say (always risky to try and get into someone's mind, especially if the someone is someone else, to paraphrase YB ):

That, I think you agree, is a reasonable remark vis-avis Van Voorst.

Your example of Ehrman's AFS is an interesting one. I just want to say re MJ that the MJ AFS does not rest on just one or two places, but that it points out silence in many places where we would expect non-silence. Doherty e.g. makes arguments about the lack of mention by non-biblical sources as well. In his book he talks about the Christian Apologists. And his book is not just pure AFS. In Section III he gives an alternative genesis of Christianity.

I think that these days MJ does not just rest on the AFS, and that the AFS indeed is just a support, be it an important one. We have lots of "main stream" scholarly works that put whole segments of the NT in historical doubt (Jesus Seminar, Ehrman). Sure, they don't advocate MJ, but they have pulled out some important threads that have set the unraveling of the historical fabric of the NT in motion. Then we have the work of Robert Price, showing that a lot, perhaps all, of the NT can be seen as derivative from then-current thinking. Then we have the Mystery religions, which shows that the Jesus cult was far from sui generis. I suppose we could throw in Eisenman (not an MJer as far as I know), who does a lot of "picking apart and showing how it was done" as well.

To me it looks as if the MJ conclusion is being approached from a lot of different directions these days (not that all approachers would agree on the direction in which they seem to be heading ). The AFS is but one leg of this interesting beastie!

Gerard