darstec

Actually if one sticks with those considered to be the authentic epistles of Paul, the revelation comes from god of the Old Testament, god the father in the gospels. It might appear in English that Jesus is speaking, but not in the Greek.

gurugeorge

Apologies for late response, was afk for weekend.

Staying at the general level (which, as I indicated, is my preference in this thread), my response to your above would be: isn't "their aims" an even more dicey level of "interpretation" than the level we were talking about at the beginning of the thread?

IOW, to me, as an interested amateur, I want to see texts that have been through the philological mill, so I have before me a translation that represents something as accurate as possible in terms of the plain words, as they were used in those days. Then, at another level of "interpretation", I want to see some filling in of the background historical and cultural context, so that I can have some idea of what any unfamiliar (but then-contemporary) terms of art and jargon might mean.

Must I add a further layer of "interpretation" in trying to figure out what the "aims" of the writers were?

But where can I find out what their "aims" were other than by looking at the (scant) texts they left?

And if the plain, philologically clarified, historically and culturally translated text appears to represent an all unearthly/no earthly Christ, why shouldn't I take that as a straightforward presentation of what they meant, according to their "aims"?

Do you have some secret information that isn't available to anyone else, that's in some texts that only you have access to, that gives you a hotline to their "aims", other than what seems to be their "aims" given the plain meaning of the texts (i.e. that they were honestly presenting an all unearthly/no earthly version)?

(Incidentally, given that you're not pursuing the positive v. negative thing anymore, can I take it that you accept and understand that Doherty's and my usage of the terms makes sense, at least in our own terms? i.e. that if, as Doherty tries to show, the "positive" representation of (roughly) the unearthly Christ, seem to fill up the relevant Christ-space in those early Christian texts, leaving no room for the earthly version, then that's a puzzle for the HJ position? Granted you don't hold that it does, of course, but just for the sake of the argument ... )

gurugeorge

However little information the Gospels have about a historical Jesus, they have enough to have made people think, for nearly 2,000 years, that there was a historical Jesus!

And yet it is roughly that amount of information which seems to be missing from the early writers, and its place taken by information about a non-historical, unearthly Jesus.

Again, the puzzle is, since this confluence of earthly and unearthly, in its full-bloodedness, is of such intense interest to all Christians later than the early Christians (mainly because of the "kenosis" thing, and the thing about Him taking on our fleshiness, warts and all, and giving us an example of how a fleshly being should live), why is it of no apparent interest to them? Especially considering (as Doherty points out) how un-Jewish the idea of a God-man would seem to have been at the time, and how needful of some kind of explanation?

I can sort of understand what's being insinuated: that they were, so to speak, so "bowled over" by the resurrection, that they immediately sang the praises of the unearthly Christ (and, subtext: doesn't this show how amazing Jesus was, and wouldn't you , shouldn't you, also be "bowled over" by such an amazing event?) But again, this doesn't quite work for me, because precisely the fact that there was a human aspect to this entity, would (it seems to me) have been part of the reason why his resurrection was so amazing.

I mean, it's no surprise that God can do as He wills, or that one of those mythical Johnnies could perform such a miracle - but that an apparent man should have risen from the dead, and claimed to be God made flesh, is what's so outre, and supremely worthy of mention (as it has been for all Christians since - one is tempted to say ad nauseam ).

GakuseiDon

Well, that's my question. Why was there apparently so little interest in the details of a historical Jesus by those who believed that Jesus was historical, like Ignatius and 'Barnabas', and Polycarp, and Aristides, and so on?

And if it wasn't of interest to the early historicists, then why assume that it should of been of interest to other early writers? (That's not a rhetorical question, btw)

gurugeorge

It's natural for Christians to do that, of course; but it's surely a necessary intellectual exercise for non-Christians to try and look at the material without the "Gospel Jesus" filter.

It's also a possible exercise for Christians who are intellectually curious.

gurugeorge

Again, there seems to be sufficient interest in a HJ in those writers for you to claim those fellows as fairly obviously in the HJ camp.

So whatever amount that is, you tell me: is it present in, say Paul? How about "Octavius"? Athenagoras? Didache? Hermas?

And if roughly that amount of HJ isn't present in these, what reason is there to claim them as part of a stream coming from an HJ?

(For myself, I can see Ignatius and Aristides as plainly HJ, because they seem to present more or less mini-proto-Nicene creeds, but I'm not sure about Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, etc. I'm still trying to get a grasp on all this material, and how I wish there was more time in the world to do that - oh, and in the original language, please! - and all the other million and one important things that need to be done! )

GakuseiDon

We should also try to look at the material without our 21st century preconceptions, like "they should have mentioned historical details". We need to compare against the literature of the day, where possible.

gurugeorge

"Historical details"? I'd be happy with any mention of a historical Jesus!

GakuseiDon

They make unambiguous statements placing Christ on earth, and that's about it. There is no interest in detailing Christ's life. One of the earliest letters is the Epistle of Barnabas. See for yourself how many details it contains: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

I would say similar to Paul, yes. "Octavius" and Athenagoras wrote apologetics, which are a different genre. I'm not sure what to make of the Didache and Hermas.

Well, exactly. And vice versa.

Me too. No argument there.

gurugeorge

So what unambiguous statement placing Christ on earth does Paul make, that's comparable to Ignatius, say?

As to the early apologists, it's precisely there one would expect there to be unambiguous statements placing Christ on earth! If that's what the writers believed in. (Btw, I don't buy the line that they were being sly and hiding things, that would only be counter-productive if, as you believe, the rough outlines of the Gospel Jesus were sort of widely known anyway. And if they weren't known, an apology would seem to present a sterling opportunity to introduce the fellow!)

But OTOH, you do indeed find unambiguous statements in many of these early texts - e.g. unambiguous affirmations of a purely philosophical and/or moral "Christianity"; unambiguous references to a Gospel given directly by God; unambiguous references to various Son/Logos-like/Redeemer concepts, etc., etc.