GakuseiDon

Which second century writers appeared to be unaware of a HJ? And are you saying that some knew the story of a HJ, but weren't convinced that there was a HJ?

Vorkosigan

<shrug> Obviously, some had to be lying. Someone constructed the gospel of Luke, forged the Ignatia, the other letters of Paul., etc. Were the forgers believers in an HJ? Luke obviously wasn't for he recognizes Mark's sources and mines them for further parallels, which he could not have done had he understood Mark as history, IMHO. How do you think an honest historian would have acted if he had thought that Mark was writing history -- as Luke did, adding things, deleting others, and extending and deepening parallels to the OT? Don't think so.

GakuseiDon

Vork, I'm interested in your comments on the second century writers. You said that "Certainly some of them [2nd century authors] were convinced of an HJ, while others at least knew the story. Still others appear not to."

Which category do you put Luke and the writer/s of the Ignatius letters? Did they believe in a HJ, IYO?

I see no reason to assume that any of Doherty's "MJ" 2nd C writers believed in a non-historical Jesus. Which is the latest mythicist work and what date do you put on it? Are there any in the 2nd C, IYO?

Vorkosigan

Those are some damned interesting questions. I doubt Luke believed in a historical Jesus, or if he did, he wasn't very interested in the question. The forger of the Ignatia was orthodox, probably an HJer, since he is later than all the gospels. Mark is probably the last mythicist narrative in the orthodox trajectory *what's your position on the gnostic writers?). Mark is first half of the second century -- I thought maybe the second Jewish War, but Andrew raised a very cogent point against it -- an apparently dependent document that also mentions the same war.

Vorkosigan

Julian

Is it proper to put Mark in the orthodox trajectory simply because it was canonized? Mark is an out and out adoptionist/separationist document on one hand and a strong polemic against apostolic tradition on the other. That clearly makes it not just fictional but also an MJ story. Although a man named Jesus appears in the story, it is the christ spirit that enters him after the baptism and leaves him at the crucifiction that is the important message. Although, since a human being was involved, it is not strictly mythical it can be argued that Jesus is marginal to the story since the gospel is only concerned with the time period during which the christ/holy spirit is active.

For those reasons I would not consider GMark part of the orthodox trajectory despite its inclusion in the canon.

As for mythicism being widespread it is worth noting that gnosticism, decidedly mythical in most instances, was far more common than orthodoxy in many places. It is reasonable to assume that educated people, meaning upper middle class and above, would be familiar with purely mythical deities. This would also explain why orthodoxy eventually won out: it is easier to comprehend and therefore appeals to the largest population segment, the masses.

Just my $0.02...

Julian

freigeister

This was a common practice in contemporary Judaism, as we see with Hillel.

The methodology is this: Jesus is either a man, a god-man, or a myth. The second and third options are prima facie absurd, therefore we establish the first option as our operating hypothesis, and test the available data against it. This is a valid scientific approach.

graymouser

Why is this prima facie absurd? I'm not an expert, but Jesus being a myth and Apollonius of Tyana being a myth seem to me to be rougly equivalent, and nobody's running around discussing the Historical Apollonius...

-Wayne

Johnny Skeptic

If you disregard 1st Corinthians 15:3-8, which is not at all difficult to do, what do you have left in 1st Corinthians to make a case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Paul's claim of the 500 eyewitnesses is not corroborated elsewhere in the New Testament. There is no credible external evidence that states that the surviving disciples consistently defended their status as eyewitnesses thoughout their lives. There is no evidence that in the 1st century more than a relative handful of people believed the supposed eyewitnesses. Claims made by Paul and the Gospel writers and claims consistenty defended by eyewitnesses are two entirely different matters. What external evidence can you provide regarding interviews with the eyewitnesses at various times in the 1st century?

Peter Kirby

Why do you say that? I think that there's a historical Apollonius.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

Has the full text of the Life of Apollonius ever been made available online?

Stephen