Malachi151

Here is the article by GakuseiDon:

Earl Doherty, the Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings

I have some problems with this assessment, mainly how the term "historical" is used.

Some of GD's commentary regarding Earl Doherty is correct to a degree, in pointing out additional references that ED didn't address, but to call these references "historical" is incorrect, and perhaps even ED makes some mistakes in his classifications as well.

I disagree with calling this "historical". This would be corporeal, but not necessarily historical.

Saying "and the Word took the form of man and came to earth" is not a historical statement, but it does reflect a view that this individual was human.

This is not a historical statement. This is a statement of corporality, but not historicity. There is nothing there that puts this figure into history.

Again, not historical. This does mention a place at least, but "the Word came forth into the world" is not a historical statement, indeed it is a mythical statement.

His statements on the supposed descendants of Jesus are historical, and this person obviously held a historical view of Jesus, though of course he tells us nothing about Jesus that doesn't come from Gospels.

Yes, this is a historical view, again coming from the Gospels.

This is obviously both historical and mythical.

The idea that story lines that take place on earth are "not mythical" is obviously absurd, and I do partially blame Doherty for taking the excessive view that he has in trying to claim that the whole scenario and all "mythical" beliefs had to do with some sub-lunar realm, though he does hedge his bets a little and acknowledge that the Greeks and others set their myth on earth.

Samson is mythical, yet his myth takes place on earth, even within a historical setting, and was believed by Jews of the 1st century to have been a real person.

The same for plenty of people, both totally mythical Jewish figures and perhaps historical figures about whom totally mythical stories developed.

The Martyrdom of Isaiah is s "mythical" story, but of course the story takes place in a historical setting on earth. That doesn't make it not mythical.

Big foot is a myth, the Loch Ness monster is a myth, there are hundreds if not thousands of myths on Snopes, all of which take place on earth, and even in historical settings.

The most important point, however, is that someone saying that Jesus took human form doesn't constitute a historical statement. Paul say that much anyway.

A historical statement puts Jesus in a time and place, in a historical setting.

"And the Word became flesh" isn't a historical statement.

GakuseiDon

Hi Malachi. My article wasn't meant to prove historicity, but to raise questions against Doherty's version of mythicism. Even if Doherty is wrong, I haven't disproven mythicism generally. Some versions (e.g. Wells') can incorporate an "earthly" Jesus without much problem. My article was an investigation of Second Century writings to see if they support Doherty or not.

This is one of the examples of early Christian writings that Doherty doesn't include in his book. Is this for Doherty or against him?

Malachi151

First I need to make clear that I corrected myself. When I said incorporeal I meant corporal.

As for that passage, I would not say that it does anything for or against his argument. I think clearly supports a mythicist argument, though perhaps not his "sub-lunar" one.

We know for sure that by the 2nd century that there were people who believed that Jesus was a real flesh and blood being, so pointing out more people who make this statement doesn't really seem to amount to much.

Again, though, saying that someone was flesh and blood isn't a historical statement, which is my only real point here. You have claimed that these are "historical" statements, but they aren't.

A historical statement is something like "Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias", etc., it's not "Jesus descended from heaven and took the form of a man", that's not a historical statement, indeed it is a mythical statement about mythical events taking place in an earthly realm.

I think that what you are pointing out is not historical vs. mythical, but earthly vs. heavenly.

But, it's a fallacy to equate earthly with historical.

The other thing to point out about all of the passages you quoted is that they all include mythical elements. Not on of them simply talks about Jesus as a normal person, like the Tacitus quote does for example. They all include miracles, resurrections, heavenly elements, etc.

I also think that explicitly stating that some being took the form of man is itself an indication of mythicism. You don't make statements like that about real people. When you say explicitly that someone became a human, r that they took the form of flesh, this is a clear indication of a theological concept that is being employed for specific theological reasons.

Zeichman

Now I'm confused, as a bystander.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the distinction you're drawing is between events which are falsifiable/provable (historical) and those that are not (mythical). Resurrections, at least earthly ones, and miracles are in the realm of history, whether or not they actually occurred. E.g., if we had a time machine and went back to the appropriate time, we could clearly say that such and such did or did not occur. Events such as a spiritual resurrection or incarnation, would be mythical, as the time machine would not answer these questions, but only a direct inquiry to God or whatever could take care of the issue. Mythology, then, would be the interpretation of a historical event or the occurrence of a suprahistorical event.

If I correctly understood this, it seems you would also be inconsistent in your use of the term. Incarnation could both be an interpretation of someone's presence and an unfalsifiable supernatural claim, while only the latter is necessary of the statement, the former is absolutely NOT precluded as an interpretation. One can easily make mythical and historical claims about the same event, as Christians do today. Mythical and historical language are contrary, not contradictory, they are two axes of the same graph in the critical study of religion.

Malachi151

Yes, you can make claims that are mythical and historical, of course. The Gospels do this throughout. The Gospels make historical claims.

Historical means that something that ties into history has to be a part of the claim, text, or belief.

Saying "Jesus came to earth" is not historical.

Saying "Jesus came to earth during the reign of Tiberius" is historical.

Again, GD is really talking about earthly vs. heavenly, not historical vs. mythical.

Zeichman

It looks like you're referring to something completely different from what I though you were. The first claim, though, is not "not historical" but a null (unless you instead meant "not 'historical'", completely unrelated to the question of "when." "Atemporal" may be a preferable word, to avoid this sort of ambiguity.

GakuseiDon

That's the one I'm arguing against. As I said, the article isn't about proving historicity, nor disproving mythicism generally. The article is called, "Earl Doherty, the Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings". My precis reads, "This article looks at Earl Doherty's comments on second century Christian writings and the Jesus Myth in his book "The Jesus Puzzle". Doherty puts forward the thesis that some second apologists subscribed to a Christianity that was devoid of a historical Jesus. I conclude that Doherty's analysis is flawed, and that there is no reason to conclude that those apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus."

I give a definition of "historicity", and while I recognise that you disagree with it, I'm circumspect in my conclusions. I don't write "and thus historicity is proved" anywhere, for example.

I agree, and in fact Doherty would also certainly claim that that kind of statement was mythical, e.g. Tatian's. But the ones I'm referring to as "historical" are ones that place Jesus among men. This may be compatible with some forms of mythicism, but it isn't with Doherty's. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this before you understand this point, Malachi. Some forms of historicity may be valid, some may be invalid. Some forms of mythicism may be valid, some may be invalid. Disproving the Gospel Jesus (which seems to be your focus) doesn't disprove historicity. Disproving Doherty (which is my focus) doesn't disprove mythicism.

I agree that it doesn't prove historicity, and I agree that "earthly" doesn't necessarily have to be "historical". I've used "historical" to mean that the author is placing Jesus in an earthly setting among men. Perhaps that's too broad, but it is sufficient for an article against Doherty mythicism AFAICS.

Basilides's views as expressed by Irenaeus included Simon of Cyrene:

"Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

It's still not historical by the standard you gave earlier, and I wouldn't claim that it proves historicity. It may even be proof for your version of mythicism -- if so, then fair enough! But it certainly isn't support for Doherty's version, at least as he has it now.

True. :huh:

Yes, though I'm a bit confused why you think that such statements can't be employed about real people.

Malachi151

Again, to make this simple:

You claimed that this is a "historical" statement. I am saying that it is not a historical statement. Is the reasoning clear here? There is nothing in this statement that has any ties to history. In order for it to be "historical" it would have to include a reference to something or someone, like Pilate, before the destruction of the Temple, after the death of Herod, etc., etc.

Ben C Smith

I think GDon understands you perfectly here. It seems to me that you are not understanding that he was using the term in a very different way than you are. If you granted him his own definition, just for the sake of argument, do you see that such a statement fills the role he planned for it in countering Doherty?

Ben.

Malachi151

Sort of, but as in the OP, I don't agree with his definition. I think that this shouldn't be called "historical", its misleading. That's why I said earthly vs. heavenly, or corporeal vs. incorporeal is a better choice of words.