Toto

GDon: As Doherty notes, there is a silence about the HJ amongst the extant Second Century apologists that is almost the equal to the silence in the First Century writers.

Toto: That's because Jesus is a theological construct with no real history. There were no 'historicists' in modern terms. They only cared about a "historical" Jesus because their theology and their interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures told them that the Savior had to have taken on human form. They did not have any evidence of this historical Jesus, and too much time and destruction had passed for them to expect to find any evidence..

GDon: Okay. So the same could be true of Paul and the other First Century writers. [I don't recall you saying that, but ...]

Toto: Well if you concede that, there is no evidence at all of a historical Jesus. But the first century writers were in a different situation, because they theoretically could have found some evidence of the real historical Jesus. Doherty points out that Paul would have had a hard time preaching to first century Jews or gentiles and avoiding answering any questions about the object of his preaching.

GDon: Can you tell me how you, 2000 years later, know how "human nature" 2000 years earlier would have dictated how they wrote?

Toto: It's human nature, so it would have been the same. People are naturally curious about other people. Look at how the gospel writers and the noncanonical gospel writers felt compelled to fill in the details about Jesus.

Now if you want to concede that the first century Christian authors cannot be used as evidence for a historical Jesus, we might be able to agree on that point. But then I wonder why you spend your time attacking mythicists.

GakuseiDon

But those Second Century apologists DID have evidence. They had the Gospels. For example, Wells notes that the late Second Century writings by Athenagoras contained a "total silence about Christ, while nevertheless betraying knowledge of the gospels." Why didn't Athenagoras write about the Jesus of the Gospels?

In the letters we do have, does Paul ever preach to non-Christians? Or is he preaching to first century Jews and gentiles who have already converted?

Really. According to the Gospels, what did Jesus look like? Was he tall? Short? Was he married? How long was his ministry? In GMark, how old was he? When was he born?

But to get back to my question: How do you know how people in a high-context culture 2000 years would have written? Wouldn't the obvious thing to do be to compare against the literature of the day, at least as close as we can establish.

And if it is human nature for Paul to have included details about Jesus' life, when does that fade away to what we get in the Second Century? Give me a rough ball-mark figure, e.g. 25 years, 50 years, and then tell me why you think that.

I don't attack mythicism. I don't care two hoots about Tom Harpur, Mountainman and many others. I think there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, so that if there were one, he is pretty much lost in the mists of time. According to Doherty himself, I'm "99% mythicist". Though not much later on and on the exact same points Doherty describes me as an "Internet apologist". Darn! Only 1% difference between a mythicist and an apologist! That explains much.

However, I do care when people like Doherty and Acharya S distort ancient writings to make them say things they do not. We're only just getting over "the virgin-born and crucified godmen were a dime-a-dozen" nonsense that used to be prevalent here, and that's because people stopped accepting those claims uncritically.

Here's another question for you Toto. Doherty floats quite a lot of controversial ideas. Is Doherty wrong on anything? I don't mean any points you don't accept because you are unsure, but a point where Doherty is actually wrong.

Toto

I suspect that the second century writers knew that the gospels were a recent invention and were allegory, not historical evidence.

It appears that Paul made some converts, so at some point he preached to non-Christians. He has to remind them of what he told them.

Now it might be that there were non-Christians who asked about Jesus, and he brushed them off, and only managed to convert the few who didn't have the normal human curiosity about this Jesus guy. You can construct some scenario that fits about anything.

You can find some of these details in the later non-canonical gospels, as the urge to fill in the details grew.

Sure. Compare Christian literature to the stories of Apolloneus of Tyana, or Hercules, or any of the subjects of Greco-Roman bioi. Why wouldn't Christians want to record the same level of detail?

This doesn't make a lot of sense. I see the dividing line as the Jewish Wars.

You don't attack mythicism, but you try to smear all mythicists. You try to smear Doherty by associating him with people who are easily refuted, like mountainman (who is not a mythicist.)

If you are 99% mythicist, it is only because you have had to recognize that 99% of the standard case for the historical Jesus is unsupportable. But you won't give up on that last 1%.

A lot of Doherty's arguments are speculative, but I have found that he admits that he is speculating where the evidence is lacking. I can't say that I have devoted the time to searching through his works for errors - I figured you would do that, or James McGrath.

avi

a. why "first century"? Can you provide a link to a site, perhaps in some thread on this forum, for example, where the evidence that Paul wrote in the first century is offered? Sometimes it helps to be completely lost, for then, one confronts, in ignorance, to be sure, the underlying tenets, taken for granted by all educated folks. I have no idea why anyone thinks that Paul wrote in the first century. I acknowledge that most folks do accept that idea, I just don't understand why they think that he was a first, rather than a second century author.

b. Here's (from Stephan Huller's thread on Paul's epistle to Thessalonians 4: 14) my thoughts on why Paul did not write in the first century:

First, I am going to copy Thessalonians 4: 14, 15, 16, and 17, highlighting just a couple of words, for emphasis.

14: ei gar pisteuomen oti ihsouV apeqanen kai anesth outwV kai o qeoV touV koimhqentaV dia tou ihsou axei sun autw

15: touto gar umin legomen en logw kuriou oti hmeiV oi zwnteV oi perileipomenoi eiV thn parousian tou kuriou ou mh fqaswmen touV koimhqentaV

16: oti autoV o kurioV en keleusmati en fwnh arcaggelou kai en salpiggi qeou katabhsetai ap ouranou kai oi nekroi en cristw anasthsontai prwton

17: epeita hmeiV oi zwnteV oi perileipomenoi ama sun autoiV arpaghsomeqa en nefelaiV eiV apanthsin tou kuriou eiV aera kai outwV pantote sun kuriw esomeqa

a. the entire section highlighted in Green, looks to me like an interpolation: remove it, and the message of condolence does not change, nor does the theology change. This collection of words strikes me as nothing more than marketing hype, perhaps a third or fourth century addition to the original epistle....Anywhere I see "cristou", I think interpolation, since Jesus was condemned as a mere gangster, not crowned as king, and annointed.

b. arcangel? not a voice like a "god", but rather a shout like an angel???

What?

Why?

This text is not indicative of something praising the trinity, if Jesus is obliged to bear "God's trumpet", instead of his own, to gain legitimacy....

Don, why would Jesus need to shout, in any event? Are the ordinary folks not listening to the apostles? Are they listening to other sects?

Such text makes no sense if written in the aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion, i.e. in the first century. It makes a lot of sense, if one is in competition with other sects, like the Mithraists, or the followers of Mani.

Why would Jesus need to descend to earth, to herald the end of days? Is God not omnipotent? Can he not simply snap his fingers and cause every person to die, immediately? Then, what need have we for a guy to blow a horn and shout, to signal that event? This is second century marketing stuff (with some extra fluff, from the third or fourth century) : join our congregation, and you too will be given a ticket to paradise. The price of the ticket: not much: just all your worldly possessions.

avi

GakuseiDon

Well, that is "something is going on". There are various explanations for it -- Wells', Doherty's, yours -- but it needs to be recognised and factored in when looking at First Century literature. Whether that is pro-Doherty or pro-Wells or anti-HJ, it needs to be considered when we are discussing Pauline and First Century silence. IMHO anyway.

That's the study we need to do. Burridge has done that. I'd be interested in seeing a mythicist case along these lines.

I group Doherty in with Acharya S rather than mountainman. Mountainman is more concerned with Fourth Century Christianity which is outside my interest, though he has a great website with a lot of information on gnosticism.

Both Doherty and Acharya S 'play the man' rather than the ball. Both have speculative ideas about pagan beliefs that are presented as cases that have been made, and both place the onus on the scholarly community to disprove their cases rather than them taking up the challenge to bring their cases to the scholarly community.

Okay.

Fair enough.

GakuseiDon

I think there have been several threads on this topic. It is interesting, and part of the pattern of "something going on", that Paul doesn't just not refer to HJ details but to few historical details about anything. And that's why Paul is hard to date. (Edited to add: And it isn't just Paul. It's hard to date much of early Christian literature for that reason: few historical markers about anything)

As for the rest, I have no idea about ancient languages involved, so can't answer your questions I'm afraid.

If the writings generally attributed to Paul are Third Century writings, would you expect there to have been more Gospel details in Paul?

archibald

Toto, quick question. Why was 'Jesus' crucified?

(inverted commas to imply I mean the 'described character Jesus' )

archibald

(speaking on behalf of the person you are addressing)


No. He could have still written it.

Oops. That answer works for 1st C too.

archibald

Maybe the Romans thought he was just a gangster............but how can you tell at what point he was first considered by followers to have been the messiah?

Toto

.
Doherty actually tried to get the scholarly community to engage with him. I don't recall where he has tried to put the onus on anyone else to disprove him.

Acharya S more of a journalist.

But even if they had that one point in common, there is nothing else to justify your continual attempts to link them.