Gregg

Just curious--what makes someone a "major" Bible scholar? Being well-known for publishing lots of books and papers that echo the party line?

Richard Carrier isn't chopped liver, and he's done an in-depth and highly favorable analysis of Doherty's thesis. But despite his education and extensive knowledge, I dunno if he'd be considered a "major" scholar like Funk or Crossan, if only because he's still a bit young and hasn't published any sensational tomes claiming to have "discovered" the HJ.

GakuseiDon

That's a good point, and in this case you are right. Passages in Paul where you would expect Paul to refer to established teachings of a HJ (as per the Gospels) is evidence against a HJ. Simply reversing the burden of proof back onto Doherty doesn't work.

If Doherty-ites left it at that, I wouldn't have a problem. But they don't. For example, in the veneration debate thread, MJers were saying that if there were a HJ, there should have been veneration sites. In that case, I quite naturally asked why weren't there veneration sites for a MJer, centered on the locations of the visions of Jesus described in the Gospels.

Doing that doesn't prove historicity, of course, but IMHO it shows that some of Doherty's ideas aren't thought through properly.

So where did Paul get his information from, then? For example, the teaching on divorce that he attributes to Jesus. Was it from a vision? Also the gospel message itself - the crucifixion, burial and resurrection.

Vorkosigan

A helluva good question. Veneration applies to either HJ or MJ sites. How come I never saw that before?

Gregg

The question makes no sense at all. There were no "MJ sites." This seems to be a case of confusing the MJ with the transcendant or resurrected Christ from the Gospels. That's another matter altogether.

capnkirk

Paul admittedly never met any HJ, not even back when he was Saul and persecuting Jesus' followers. Apparently Saul didn't get hired by the High Priest until after Jesus' execution (which would help explain why it was only Jesus' "followers" that he persecuted). If one gives any credence to Paul's identification of the Nabataean king in Damascus when he arrived directly after his "conversion", then that conversion happened between 37-40 CE. Accepting for the moment that HJ's execution was around 30 CE, as claimed, Saul's persecution would have had to have endured 7-10 years for him to have had opportunity to have actually met any HJ.

Throughout his Epistles, Paul insists on referring to ‘my gospel’ or as ‘the gospel announced by me’ (This has been toned down in some modern translations, making Paul sound more modest than he actually was.). Paul is claiming a direct line to Jesus – not only because of his Damascus revelation, but also because of other revelations (i.e.visions and transports) subsequent to it. This is important: Paul is actually claiming much higher authority than that of the Jerusalem apostles, Peter, James, and John; for their claim derived from acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, while Paul’s claim derived from an acquaintance with the heavenly Jesus, now divorced from all weakness of the flesh and assuming the omniscience of a transcendent deity.

Amaleq13

What locations? If Paul is describing his own vision, he place it in the "third heaven". How does one venerate such a "location"? It has been pointed out to you each time you bring this up that spiritual experiences do not encourage venerating any particular place unless they always (or at least often) happen in the same place (e.g. Lourdes). Otherwise, the "place" they occur is in the mind of the experiencer. This can lead to veneration of the individual but not the place.

Paul doesn't specify and that only serves to emphasize the point that where, when, or how are not relevant questions when one believes in revealed knowledge.

Paul tells us this in Scripture. Layman has insisted that the recognition of this "hidden" Scripture could only come after real historical events but he failed to support this assertion. We can't be sure whether the recognition of the Scripture preceded the resurrection experiences or vice versa. Paul's apparently kerygmatic list places the reference to Scripture before the appearances but it isn't clear if he is doing so because that is the order they actually took place. Did the first believers study Scripture, realize the hidden truth, then directly experience the Risen Christ they had discovered? Or did the Risen Christ visit them and directly inform them of the relevant portions of Scripture? Or did the original followers of a crucified HJ study Scripture in an attempt to understand what had happened?

IMO, the latter is contrary to the disregard Paul shows toward their "high reputation" (I don't see how that would be possible if it was based on their former relationship with Jesus) but I know of no evidence in his letters than supports one of the remaining over the other.

Doctor X

It is easier to set up veneration sites for a HJ because you have a tradition of "being there" set up immediately. With regard to a "MJ" the site exists only in the "vision" or "imagination" of the writer--we have no evidence that anyone else had it.

What I mean is, say Mk writes the story of the two weddings. Did he make it up? I think for literary-textual reasons he did; however, let us pretend he is transmitting a "tradition" of this miracle.

Well, "where" did it happen? If there was a tradition of the recreation room of the Savoy Grill, it did not make it to Mk! Hard to establish a "place."

Next, Jerusalem and much of the place gets "squished" by the Romans. Hard to maintain or create mythic veneration cites in that situation. Mk does not know the geography as indicated by his mistakes. However, he is not interested in establishing "places of worship."

Over time, as a religion grows, people create such places. The Greek-Roman world had plenty. "We" know have a sufficient number to keep tourists happy. I really do not think the absence of such sites argues more for a HJ over a MJ.

--J.D.

Toto

Because those locations were later fictions, and everyone knew it.

Notice that the claim in 1 Cor that Christ appeared to a laundry list of people, including the 500 brothers, does not list a place for those appearances. The place was inside their own minds.

Gregg

I would like to interject something here.

Although I defend Doherty's MJ thesis pretty passionately, I am not a fanatic, I don't agree with Doherty on everything (I think he is dead wrong about Apollos, for example), and I have no personal investment in there being no specific historical figure at the root of Christianity. I simply feel that Doherty's overall thesis explains the picture of Christian origins that we now have better than any other.

I get frustrated sometimes because I see people arguing not against Doherty's thesis, but against a strawman of it. Or, I see them hammering at a sentence or two where Doherty seems to have carried his enthusiasm too far, or made a misstatement, and acting as if this destroys his entire case. I mean, no offense, but that question "Where are the MJ 'holy places?'" shows that the questioner has no real understanding of Doherty's thesis.

It feels sometimes like HJers and MJers are talking past each other. I think this is because Doherty's MJ thesis really only begins to make sense when you undergo a bit of a paradigm shift and get yourself into some approximation of the mindset of a religious-minded denizen of the Roman Empire ca. 50 C.E. Doherty takes great pains to paint a vivid picture of the times, the religious and philosophical environment, and the mindset, but I think many people pass over that part of his argument.

I allow the possiblity that some remembered, actual crucifixion or crucifixions lay at the beginning of the Jewish Christian movement. But I also think the picture of Christian origins makes a lot more sense without an HJ at the beginning.

Gawen

...Which is why I ask (rarely) what some may think idiotic questions. There is no need for me to derail a thread because I sometimes cannot even grasp the most basic or mundane idea. I'd rather keep quiet and keep reading.
...At the beginning of this thread, I believe it was you, Gregg, that thanked me for reading Doherty's entire site (which I have not yet done) and then said come back if I had any questions. First, Doherty's thesis is beyond my understanding simply because I am not versed in the bible, ancient languages, ancient philosophy, etc., etc., etc. Well, let me back up a few tics. I can basically understand Doherty. But I could not ever hope to refute or even analyse his work like many of you can. I wouldn't even know where to start. As for 'strawman' arguments, most slip right past me. And I didn't even know what a "veneration site" was until someone explained it later in the thread.

I understand your frustration, but those of you who have mega-researched must see my (and most likely others) frustration as we try to make heads or tails out of particular writings....AND...the frustrations we feel when we ask questions here and try to make heads or tails out of the answers.
Yes Gregg, I understand your frustration. But the arguments and sources and explainations are how we newbies learn.

As for Doherty, I muddle through, reading and rereading paragraphs and even sentences. I like what he's done. It makes sense. But it only makes sense on a very basic level. Until I can compare EVERYthing that he's done with that of everyone elses findings, I know I'm not truly understanding 100% of it. And to tell you the truth, I can't see anything wrong with the Apollo thing.
So, I applaude you and those here in IIDF that have done the time and research and spent the money...no matter what sides of the fence you sit on. Just remember... some of us need a bit of nursemaiding from time to time...

Oh...and just so you know, I think Doherty is a genius.