andrewcriddle

I don't think so.

The argument that mythicism successfully explains the absence of details about Jesus' earthly life in Paul seems weakened if mythicism is compatible with such details,

In this case the absence of such details from Paul requires an additional explanation as well as mythicism and IMO mythicism probably becomes redundant as an explanation, the additional explanation whatever it is can probably serve on its own to explain the limited amount of historical information in Paul.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

What if the symbolic metaphorical meaning was intended only for those who had received adequate instruction and the initiates only knew the literal meaning? Wouldn't that be a good reason for Paul to avoid the metaphors when communicating with those not yet "in the know"?

I don't think "misled" is the right word. Within this context, Mark was written on two levels but the literal/basic level would not have been considered misleading. They would no more have been misled by the literal meaning than Paul misled his audience by initially giving them "milk" before the "meat".

Peter Kirby

It depends on how likely we see historicism under the absence of details in Paul. If that is seen as low, while the presence of details in Paul makes it a 50/50 proposition (as possibly suggested with the argument quoted from you above), then the probability could not rise above 50% on this evidence (and at 50% would be 100% chance of mentioning details).

It is possible that both hypotheses are probable enough under one state of affairs (such as mentioning details) while only one hypothesis is highly probable under the opposite state of affairs. If this is the case, then the opposite state of affairs, if probable, raises the probability of the hypothesis that is probable under that state of affairs. That the hypothesis is probable enough under the opposite condition harms it none.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

Could you clarify who you are suggesting were Paul's intended audience compared to Mark's intended audience ?

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that Paul's letters are intended as more esoteric than Mark's gospel or vice versa.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

I think there is more to it. For Doherty, the ancient pagan world was awash with mystery religions at the time and a mythical mindset was common. Apparently it wasn't uncommon for people to join more than one mystery cult, and they shared a lot of similarities.

If that is the case, then Paul would have been encouraged to present Christ in a similar way. This would be true even if (or perhaps, especially if) there was a historical Christ that Paul was trying to promote to his pagan audience. The 'outer level' that Paul would have been the common mythical/mystical expression common to those religions, while the 'inner level' was the hidden teachings of a historical Christ, who taught a message on how to achieve the Kingdom of God to his initiates. (I got this idea from Karen Armstrong, who indirectly implies something like this in her book "History of God").

Paul would have been trying to establish a mystery cult to the pagan world already familiar to such concepts, while Mark wasn't concerned with this, and wrote for a more Judaized pagan audience and thus concentrated on the historical Jesus.

According to Carrier, there is a possibility that Nero and the War disrupted the church leadership, thus destroying many if not most of those who were "in on the secret", and therefore leaving behind... well, who exactly? Wouldn't it have left pagans that Doherty said had a mythical mindset? IOW, if Doherty is correct, the trend would have been towards with the mythical, NOT towards a historical Christ. The mythicists took over the religion of Paul, and promptly moved to a historical Christ. (That's not to say that a historical Christ couldn't develop, but according to Doherty's scenario, this would have gone AGAINST the trend).

As we move into the second century, and more educated pagans with a background in philosophy (like Justin Martyr) became Christian, we see gnosticism and Logos-related ideas spring up, inspiring GJohn. But Christ remained historical. There was no apparent expression of the mystery Christian religion that Doherty envisioned to have been the common background of that era. Where did that mindset go? Why the trend towards historicity, which would have been the opposite of what we'd expect (assuming that Doherty was correct)? These are some of the things I hope Carrier might cover when he formulates his ideas on the Christ Myth.

Vorkosigan

IF you are right, then belief in the HJ is a matter of faith, since no methodologically sound evidence can be obtained from either Mark or Paul on that score. As I have always maintained, anyway.

Certainly Mark is written that way. The issue is why Paul would write that way in several letters over several years, ostensibly addressing concrete issues for Churches he had started. it's one thing to produce a single document, another to sustain such a view over many documents, to many audiences.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Paul's letters appear to have been intended for Christians more "in the know" than our hypothetical initiates but Mark's story would be intended for both. The initiate starts with the superficial literal understanding of the story and progresses to understand the deeper truth of the symbolic meaning.

Since Paul's letters appear to be addressed to Christians beyond the initiate level (ie milk/meat), they would be considered more esoteric. He can skip the milk and just talk about the meat. Mark's author, OTOH, has created a story that has a meaty center with a rich, milky coating.



PS My original comment to which you responded was referring entirely to Paul. After rereading your response, it seems as though you thought I was referring to the author of Mark.

Vorkosigan

Mark's Jesus is a total fiction, created by paralleling the OT and other sources, presented as quasi-history. The question is why, if Mark knew of a historical Jesus, he chose to overwrite him completely with other sources, and borrow sayings from the common pool, and create his crucifixion out of the Old Testament.

The proposals you make all start with the a priori conclusion that there was an HJ. But no credible evidence created by sound methodology supports that view. In order to preserve your HJ, you are now positing a situation that essentially concedes the mythicist case -- well, OK, on its face the documentary evidence doesn't support an HJ very well, so it must have been a secret teaching. But you can make any claim in that mode -- the HJ was actually an alien from the planet Glorph, and that was concealed in the Really Secret Teaching (tm) for which the Secret Teaching of the HJ was only a cover. Etc.

Really all you are doing is constructing plausible scenarios under which an HJ was known and preserved from the time prior to the 70s. But there is no need of that, and no evidence to support it. The HJ stems from Mark's story, and is a creation of Luke, both having written sometime after Josephus but before Iranaeus. He was constructed by Luke to serve the purpose of united two of the proto-othodox wings, Pauline and Petrine, and to give them both legitimacy by linking them back to a historical founder.

I pretty much agree with your analysis of the second century writers. Certainly some of them were convinced of an HJ, while others at least knew the story. Still others appear not to. The early epistles do not know an HJ, and neither does Paul. There seems to be a wide variance in early Christian belief.....

Vorkosigan

neilgodfrey

Response 1:

I've compiled a list of exactly what Justin Martyr did say about the narrative (historical or otherwise) of Christ as opposed to the so-called 'sayings of Christ' and can leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions: http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/justinnarr.htm

As for the "sayings" as opposed to narrative content, it is widely understood (Koester, Bellinzoni) that Justin was using a gospel harmony as a source. As Yuri has pointed out that interpretation raises problems since the earliest known harmony was Tatian's. If a harmony really was the source then it is perfectly reasonable and plausible to suggest, given the literary culture of the period, that our Justin literature was really the product of a later author writing under his name. (But I've discussed this sort of thing elsewhere -- e.g. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...59#post2508359)


Response 2 (my real response):

But as for the exact meaning of the call of Justin (or whoever the author behind the name) we arguably have nothing more substantial in this story of his call than a philosopher's narrative myth (c.f. Plato's penchant for teaching deeper truths through mythical stories) constructed out of the materials found in Luke's Emmaus road account. If so, the nature of the debate about Justin's belief in the historicity of Christ takes a quantum jump to somewhere else, I think. To the author, Christ is no more historical than the old man himself -- in fact he very possibly "is" the old man -- and Earl's argument carries much more weight than I think even he realized at the time.

At the risk of oversimplifying the arguments, I refer to Andrew Hofer's 'The Old Man as Christ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho' in Vigiliae Christianae, 2003, Vol. 57 Issue 1.

To list without detailed rationale Hofer's Old Man parallels with Luke's Emmaus road:

1. Someone unexpectedly appears

2. He is not recognized/known

3. He interrupts a dialogue ("The attentive reader of Justin finds that Justin is having a 'dialogue' with himself")

4. The stranger enters a new dialogue by feigning ignorance at first of the subject of the previous dialogue

5. The stranger then teachers the deeper meaning of what had been feigned ignorance on his part

6. This teaching overcomes the real ignorance encountered by the stranger in his interlocutor(s), listening attentively to him

7. The subject matter is true knowledge about what has been written concerning God's work and immortality (explaining necessity of Christ's suffering and entrance to glory / discussing soul's knowledge/vision of God and immortality)

8. The stranger teaches the truth by explaining the prophets -- this being the heart of each story as it gives the proof by faith in a conversion

9. The reader does not know in either case what prophecies the stranger has interpreted

10. The stranger speaks of Christ in the third person

11. Something is opened (scriptures/gates of light), which changes everything since understanding of this can only come from God.

12. With this opening light or sight occurs (at point of or after the stranger disappears)

13. The mysterious stranger disappears (Justin increases the mysterious tone by use of an archaic word for "left" to describe this act of the stranger)

14. A fire burns within hearers

15. Those who thus experienced Christ tell others what happened (telling the 11 and others with them in Luke / telling Trypho and Trypho's friends)


The point of all this in both Luke and Justin? The reader is compelled to wonder about those pivitol prophecies discussed between the characters but not revealed to the reader. Earl may not like this but Acts can be seen as a lengthy set of speeches that do satisfy the readers curiosity about the exposition of those scriptures hidden from the reader in Luke; and Justin's Trypho Dialogue soon swings into a very lengthy exposition of the proof-scriptures initially hidden from the reader. Acts ends with Paul continuing to expound these scriptures from Rome; Trypho ends with Justin he could have said heaps more about the scriptures but has to hurry on (to Rome?)


Other Christ-Old Man identification hints: -- again without elaborating the textual/Greek supports for many of these so the following can be little more than suggestive in most instances

1. Just when Justin expects to see God immediately (ch.2) he sees an old man -- note 'mystery of incarnation guides all of Justin's debate with Trypho'

2. The unexpected stranger is an ancient, old one. C.f. descriptions of Christ in Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of John, Ep to Diognetus, Melito's On Pascha, Acts of John, Acts of Peter, Apocryphon of John, early Christian art.

3. The old man is meek and religious. C.f. Zech.9:9

4. Sparse description of location at beginning and end calls for comment. Unnamed yet prominent sea, suggestive of creation? Galilee?

5. Words and movement of Justin symbolic of conversion to Christ. “Do you know me?� “I do not� …. Contrast naming intros between Justin and Trypho, old man never reveals his name, Justin uses his fav technical term for conversion when he “turns� to the man

6. Old man is by the sea to look for and enquire after missing members of his household. Looking for the lost? Finds Justin?

7. Play on the words philology and Logos and philosophy with potential irony that the logos may be there in the form of old man himself

8. Old man presents himself as the teacher without reference to other authorities, stresses role of Holy Spirit and truth – the marks of Christ’s teaching

9. In the old man Justin sees the only sure truth/philosophy – and elsewhere Justin insists he does not follow human teaching. Justin calls both old man and Christ “father�. (DT 3, 35)

10. DT 8 Justin says words of Christ are fearful to those who go astray – echoing old man’s talk of those of his household having gone astray.

11. Justin’s one other ref to the old man (DT 35) suggests his whole message is the word of God via the old man. A similar synecdochic rhetorical style is used in 1 Apol. 23 to use specific points/arguments as rep of the whole covered throughout the entire work; message of the old man is identified with same term used for Christ and heavenly wisdom (word of God).

12. Though converted by the old man Justin saw himself as given the understanding and grace of God to be so converted – as Jesus said none can come to him but by the Father.


Finally:

If the Old Man is Christ to Justin, Justin is continuing the apostolic traditions by imitating them as they imitated Christ. (I Cor 11:1; Gal 2:20; Ep to Diognetus 10.4). Christians were “christs� by imitation and imitation of such was the essence of true discipleship – as they “saw� Christ, so did Justin, as he appeared to them so he appeared to Justin, etc.

Could Justin really portray an encounter with an old man as an encounter with Christ? 1 Apol 55 gives the answer. Justin sees Christ and the crucifixion everywhere in everything – “sails; plows; the erect, outstretched human form; the human face; and Roman banners and trophies� (Hofer).


I suggest it is more appropriate to speak of Justin's philosophical understanding of Christ than anything approaching an historical understanding.

And if Justin's old man was indeed meant as Christ then we have a further explanation for Doherty's point about Christ as such not being mentioned by that same old man.

GakuseiDon

That's interesting stuff, Neil! Thanks for that. It makes sense that the old man is either Christ or a stand-in for Christ. It makes me look at it with new eyes, though I don't think it really impacts the question of historicity one way or the other.

Yes, indeed. But I think the way Justin has the old man referring to ancient prophets announcing Christ is a strong indication that his conversion wasn't along the lines that Doherty suggests (i.e. that Justin was converted to a Christianity without a historical Christ at its core):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

[The old man says] 'There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets... they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him'

Justin refers to the prophets thusly:

Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho," said I, "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold...

... when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would...

... But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced]...

... since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself...

There's lots more along the same lines. The spin that Doherty puts on this defies logic AFAIC.