maryhelena

Hoffmann looks to be going after the theory, upheld by some mythicists, that the gospel crucified JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC. About time, methinks, that the JC historicists point out the holes in this theory. Perhaps then such mythicists will go back to the drawing board and attempt to uphold their ahistoricist gospel JC position with more rational arguments.

maryhelena

Doherty on gMark's JC figure: "He brought the latter’s heavenly Messiah to earth".

And yet, Doherty also maintains that gMark got his crucified gospel JC from scripture and that this figure "cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ".

gMark did not need the Pauline cosmic crucified JC. All he needed was scripture for his gospel crucified JC.

This historicizing theory, upheld by some mythicists, that the Pauline cosmic crucified JC has become historicized as the gospel crucified JC, cannot be supported either by the Pauline epistles or the gospel story. There are holes in this theory - as is evidenced by Doherty's own contradictory statements above.

my bolding

Tenorikuma

Mary Helena, have you looked at John Dominic Crossan's view of the scripture-historicization process in The Cross That Spoke?

maryhelena

No.

Is there something in it that could be of interest to the OP re Hoffmann and the claim, by some mythicists, that a Pauline cosmic crucified JC was historicized as the gospel crucified JC?

Scripture-Historicized? That type of argument will not work with Hoffmann. The title of his article is: The Historically Inconvenient Jesus. I think Hoffmann will focus on history first and foremost. Scripture first and foremost is open to accusations of interpretation. One has to work from a sure base. And in the case of the HJ/MJ debate that base has to be Jewish history. Sure, we don't know yet what Hoffmann is going to present in his argument - but, methinks, he will aim to bypass scriptural interpretations as his base.

Tenorikuma

I am curious to see what he comes up with when he finally gets down to brass tacks. It is hard to see how anyone can be the "historical Jesus" if he is not the Jesus of the Gospels in some way.

It still looks like he's preparing to make a case for Brian of Nazareth.

maryhelena

Probably just an argument from plausibility for the historical JC.

That's not the problem - Hoffmann is not going to be able to do anything more than arguments re plausibility. The bigger problem, for those mythicists who uphold the theory of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC being historicized as the gospel crucified JC, is that if Hoffmann goes after this particular mythicist theory - it's going to be found to be wanting....

A bit like the historicists argument in reverse. The ahistoricists/mythicists can pick holes in the historicists argument. Hoffmann, if he is wise, will not be trying to prove a historical JC - he will more likely concentrate on the weak points of this particular mythicist argument.

aa5874

Again, Hoffmann confirms that the HJ of Nazareth argument is extremely weak.

There is virtually NO credible history of Jesus of Nazareth.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...venient-jesus/

Hoffman fails to understand that the Gospels are totally useful as Mythology and it is precisely why it is virtually 100% myth from conception to ascension.

From the author of gMark to the author of "Church History" and beyond, it was proclaimed Publicly to Emperors of Rome, like Hadrian, Antoninus, Verus and Constantine that Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

For hundreds of years, even today, the Jesus cult ARGUED that Jesus was actually born of a Ghost and there is NO evidence at all that any Jesus cult writer wrote that they personally SAW Jesus ALIVE.

There is NO corroborative evidence in the ENTIRE history of mankind for Jesus of Nazareth.

The historical Jesus of Nazaret is a modern fiction derived from admitted "USELESS sources".

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...venient-jesus/

Hoffman seem incapable of understanding that Mythology is for the most part totally useless as history.

The Gospels are Precisely Myth Fables.

From the very start Hoffman will have to INVENT his own fiction story about his Jesus.

Effectively, Hoffman's Historical Jesus is a Myth--a character derived from Useless sources.

Hoffman's Jesus is a Jesus of his own Faith.

Vorkosigan

"Mythtics" ???

Vorkosigan

If only there were actual contradictions between the two statements, you might even have a case. But there are not. One reference is to a cult similar to the Pauline Christ cult, the other denies that it can be shown that the Markan Jesus figure is created out of the Pauline Christ. I think Earl is wrong in the second claim, but your position that he's contradicting himself is incorrect.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena

Here are the two statements by Doherty:

Statement #1

The crucified Jesus came from scripture. Mark adding this death and rising dimension. This Markan death and rising dimension cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ.

Statement #2

Mark added another dimension based on the Pauline Christ. He brought this heavenly Messiah to earth.

On one hand Doherty says that the Markan JC cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ. On the other hand Doherty says that Mark brought down the Pauline heavenly Messiah to earth.

So? Did Mark or did not Mark bring down the Pauline Messiah Christ to Earth - or did he not base his dying and rising gospel JC on the Pauline Christ? To uphold both of these positions is to uphold a contradiction.

my bolding