GakuseiDon

I have most of those from his book, though I couldn't find a dating for the Gospel of John.

Earl, what date range do you give for the Gospel of John?

The following dates are from Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man". Second Century dates in Blue:

Gospels:

Gospel of Mark -- In the 90s CE (Page 404)
Matthew, Luke -- Within first two decades of 2nd C CE, though all gospels continued to undergo revision up to 175 CE (Page 404)

Others:

1 Pet, 1,2,3 Jn -- Perhaps 80s or 90s CE (Page 17)
Q document -- Q1 around 50 CE, some parts of Q2 possibly post 70 C -- Q1 (p 361), Q2 (p 403)
2 Peter -- Between 100-130 CE (Page 17)
Pastoral epistles -- Early 2nd C CE, probably 110-130 (Page 16)

Papias -- Between 110--140 CE. Appendix shows Papias as living 60--140 CE (Page 466)
1 Clement -- Early in the Second Century CE (Page 296)

Earl, correct me if I'm wrong, but every letter in the NT is conceivably the work of mythicists, with the odd bits of interpolation. (IIRC 2 Tim is the only possible exception, though it might be interpolated or worked on by a historicist writer.)

No, just his opinions on the last piece of ahistoricist literature and first piece of historicist literature.

Vorkosigan

The question shows that after all the years of debating and discussing you still don't understand what it is you are struggling against. But the answer to your question is....whatever you identify as the oldest piece of NT/early Xtian lit, that is the last and the first, because, as Jesus said, after the historicist POV reinterpreted the early mythical Jesus writings, the last became first. The question is pointless because it addresses the wrong issue. You should be asking about the evolution of interpretive frameworks instead.

As for judge, he is off in some orthagonal universe of his own:

Well, no because it is easily recovered from the early texts, as Earl and others have done.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I see.

How can you determine the evolution of interpretive frameworks if you have no sense of the order in which documents are written?

Vorkosigan

Don, I don't have a list of all my ancestors back to the first H. sapiens to leave Africa, but I know they exist.

The documents didn't "evolve" in the sense that you mean, but rather, the way the early Christians thought about them evolved. The second half of the second century and early third saw these documents reinterpreted and re-edited to make them palatable to the new interpretation of Jesus' status, which grew not out of documents but out of debates between the early Christian groups. The "evolution" of the documents meant reshaping them to conform to the new interpretation.

So, in essence, we know that a full fledged historicist view of Jesus had evolved by the fourth century. And we know that this view did not exist in the first and early second centuries, because those texts present a cosmic Jesus who is found in the Xtian's bizarre interpretation of scripture and by knowing him directly through visions. Somewhere during that time the historicist vision won out over the various gnostic and other visions. But it is impossible to point to an exact moment because at any given time the transition is occurring and it takes a couple of generations to complete.

Hope this is clear.

Vorkosigan

judge

Earl and others???

Tell me Vork, who are the others that recovered a jesus who is crucified in some sublunar realm.
There are no "others" who uncovered this idea.

In 2000 years no one ever "saw" this in the early texts. Then suddenly Earl "sees" it.

Its absurd. But you and others are forced to be obsequious before Earl because the other mythicist theories are even worse!

judge

As clear as nonsense can get. As usual here on a board supposedly dedicated for rationalism, you just make assertion after assertion with absolutely no evidence.

Vorkosigan

ROFL. Let me know when you have your critique of the Jesus Puzzle finished.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

judge, what mythicist literature have you read?

GakuseiDon

Well, how do you know the order? To paraphrase your earlier response: whomever you identify as the oldest ancestor, that is the last and the first, because, as Jesus said, after you reinterpret the earliest ancestor, the last became first. Or something like that.

Just give the order of texts as YOU see it. Is this such a difficult task? How would you order your ancestors?

You were the one who brought up the evolution of texts. I don't care who thought what. My questions were clear.

It sounds to me that you are saying that it is all but impossible to determine what documents mythicists wrote and what documents historicists wrote. Is that what you are saying?

Can you personally identify which documents are the product of mythicists and which are the product of historicists? If not, how do you know there were any mythicists at all? If so, then my questions stand:

1. Can you give the name and date of the last piece of ahistoricist literature, in your opinion?
2. Can you give the name and date of the first piece of 'proto-orthodox' literature, in your opinion please?
3. Were ANY epistles in the NT written by historicists?

judge

Stop dodging. You made another claim, now you wont back it up with evidence?
Why not just admit you were wrong. Swallow your pride.

When you quit dodging and pay me the same courtesy Ill think about answering your questions. Isn't that fair?