GakuseiDon

Ultimately, to determine whether there was an actual HJ, yes. In the case of examining 2nd C CE authors to see whether they believed in a HJ or not, no. If it's possible to show that the 2nd C authors who didn't refer to a HJ has the same content and style as authors who believed in a HJ, then it becomes difficult to claim that that content and style indicates a non-belief in a HJ.

I think Tertullian is probably the key "dagger". He wrote a letter that didn't refer to a HJ, another which has many similarities to Minucius Felix, and like Tatian he used the word "fable", in this case when referring to Gospel details of a HJ. If rlogan can show that Tertullian was not a HJer, then we can't be sure whether any of the apologists who referred to a HJ were really HJers.

On the other hand, if we can be fairly certain that Tertullian was a HJer, then that it becomes much harder to see those "non-HJ" authors as MJers.

Amaleq13

What sense does it make to call anyone who refers to the Gospel stories as "fables" an "HJer"?

This seems to me to be an equivocation of the meaning of "a historical Jesus".

GakuseiDon

This is the quote rlogan used:

Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble.

Personally I can't see much to worry about. But I should have seen the similarity to the one that Doherty uses from Tatian's Address to the Greeks:

"Compare your own stories with our narratives... Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories."

Doherty concludes from this: "The way Tatian compares them to the Greek myths implies that he regards them as being on the same level".

I'll leave off any analysis until rlogan gets back with his own investigation of whether Tertullian was a HJer or not.

the_cave

But you didn't address the qualifying phrase "-if you choose to call it so-"

It's clear that the author is not himself calling it a fable.

Toto

But that does not sound like he has actual historical proof of the tale (such as the fabled records in Rome that have disappeared). People do not typically refer to George Washington "if you choose to accept his existence." This makes the question of why Tertullian speaks of a HJ relevant.

partial plate

I am an HJer myself, but I have to admit that this is a good argument for the MJers. Tertullian was probably responding to Pagan critics, but if Pagan critics of the time did not accept the historicity of Jesus, then that is an argument that there was insufficient evidence at that time to establish the existence of one, a condition that would be compatible with the MJ position.

GakuseiDon

Tertullian follows that sentence to encapsulate the Gospel stories, including the incarnation, miracles and the resurrection, so I don't think that "fable" refers to sheer historical aspects. (I should note that, in other writings, Tertullian refers to Gospel details without using the word "fable")

AFAIK, no pagan critics of the time rejected the historicity of Jesus. Celsus, a pagan critic answered by Origen in his Contra Celsus lays a lot of charges against Christianity, but he believed that Jesus was historical. (He said that Jesus was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier called Panthera).

GakuseiDon

No one questions his historicity. But what about him chopping down the cherry tree? (I think I have the right President there)

Toto

I feel like this is retreading old ground. Pagans did not challenge the existence of Jesus, unless of course the Christians failed to preserve that part of their argument, which is not outside the realm of possibility. But there were Christian heretics - Docetists - who believed that Jesus was an incorporeal illusion. Should they count as believers in a HJ? This question is not resolved in my mind, but I tend to think that they were closer to mythicists than to HJ believers, and that those who claim that the Docetists believed in a HJ are retrojecting modern modes of thinking into the early Christian church.

And of course, there are legends that accumulate around real historical figures, such as George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, or praying on his knees (legends invented by Parson Weems.) But there are also legends with no historical person at their core, such as William Tell. We don't seem to be getting any closer to figuring out which scenario fits Jesus.

rlogan

I think what I did was bring the most essential statement in the piece to the attention of the whole ugly rabble here.

I also stated that I have a provisional observation only - and that understanding the entire piece is in order before rendering a verdict one way or the other. Still not ready to do that. I must confess some stretches in this piece are totally uninspiring.

Nevertheless, Toto has made the appropriate response. I will make it slightly stronger - Tertullian does not say to receive this factual story, which you greeks choose to insult with the term "fable".

Rather, there is absolutely no objection to the myth status. GD makes the parallel with Tatian. GD, you've been reasonable, and that is appreciated.

The presence of this statement requires a reading at face value, not an apologetic interpretation. It requires an argument from best explanation in conjunction with all the other evidence as opposed to a parsing into stand-alone interpretations that sound plausible in isolation.