rlogan

You wrote words down I see, yes. Two questions without demonstrable relation to an argument and one pseudo-appeal to occam.

I think that people have sought even a specious kind of logic out of what you have failed to provide, and this is the most likely candidate. I'm happy to drop it because it is indeed a stupid argument.

What's to explain? People die for what they believe in. So? It is true of religion in general.

This is where you have no logic whatsoever. Domitian, maybe. Pliny's letter, yea. And...? What of it?



I missed the list you put on p 3. Toto responded in full, and I am in agreement with his response.


What remains is for you to have any kind of demonstratable logic of inquiry from there.


Your response to Toto was:

Toto replied. Specifically that there were very likely martyrs to the "Christ-Cult" before there was an HJ.

Now what can you even mean by "origins"? You are apparently in the dark about the notion put forward by Doherty on the "Many merging into one" as opposed to the "big bang" Jesus theory.

You can trace "origins" back a hundred years or more depending on what you mean by that term.

I felt, and still believe, that Vork gave a crucial motivation in the respect of an HJ providing a unifying authority over the polyglot of groups.

In terms of timing I am of the opinion that the HJ evolution is a 2d century development. How martyrs during the pre-HJ period is any "problem" whatsoever for an MJ hypothesis escapes me and everyone else here.

I do not see that you have conceded there is no single "mythicist" camp - and instead take the various views as a sign that any particular view is internally inconsistent. That is false.

Amaleq13

It is also possible we are dealing with the result of active competition for converts between the Baptist sect and the Christian sect. What better propoganda tool than to depict your rival's founding figure as the herald of your own and as openly recognizing him as superior?

Also, don't forget that Paul makes no mention of the Baptist let alone any relationship with Jesus. And Josephus mentions John but makes no connection with Jesus. That is only more problematic for a historical relationship if you also accept that he mentions Jesus.

If we recognize that the criterion of embarrassment is essentially worthless for establishing historicity, there is really no good reason to assume any historical relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist even if we assume an HJ. Mark's author needed an Elias to anoint Jesus so that he would become aware of his identity as the Messiah (a belief repeated by "Trypho") but the later authors didn't care for that adoptionist theology so they felt compelled to change the story. Later "embarrassment" doesn't mean Mark was embarrassed which means his story isn't necessarily historical.

rlogan

Couldn't agree more with that.

I'm inclined to accept historicity of JBapt.

The HB quote miners shamelessly used him as the "voice in the wilderness" heralding Jesus.

But whoever wrote Acts has Paul meeting Mandeans (Followers of John) who have never heard of Jesus, and the Mandeans continued on as followers of John and not Jesus.

You can see the development in the gospels after Mark where JBapt becomes increasingly subordinate to wonder boy.

webwide

What about the martyrs killed by the church? All they had to do was recant their 'heretical' minor points of doctrine.....

Amaleq13

And, IIRC, they go so far as to denounce Jesus.

andrewcriddle

It is doubtful whether the claim of the Mandeans to derive directly from followers of John the Baptist is historically justified.

Some scholars hold that part of their original roots was some form of heretical Christianity and that they subsequently justified their divergence from developing Christian Orthodoxy by claiming to follow the true authentic teaching of John the Baptist which Jesus subsequently distorted and perverted.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Are you describing Giordano Bruno?

This is a good point. If Christian martyrs are indications of something about Jesus, and the church early grew on the blood of the martyrs, why did the later church create martyrs to a different truth? Wouldn't that cast some doubt on Tertullian's belief that martyrs led to religious expansion?

rlogan

Hi Andrew.

This is an odd set of statements.

First this:

I see. So Mandeans were indirectly derived followers of John the Baptist?

That is, they followed his teaching. But we challenge this as sort of "inauthentic" because they ended up following John the Baptist after they did sometyhing else first, maybe a generation or three before?

So therefore they are non-follower followers due to holding invalid pre-follower credentials.

The amazing thing about them then was the capacity to absorb John the Baptist philosophy without any interaction whatsoever with people who knew John the Baptist teachings.

It was a sort of airborne osmosis, as it were, with John's teaching held in a state of suspended electrostatic animation until absorbed telepathically by said indirect followers.


Well that's rich. Because "heretical" Christianity would cover damn near everyone in the first century.

Can we see any irony here?

The followers of the mythical Jesus claiming that the followers of the historical John perverted the not-yet agreed upon "teachings" of the myth.



All in fun, Andrew.

GakuseiDon

Actually, they aren't. What Andrew says is non-controversial AFAIK.

???

Andrew is in a group consisting of the more sensible posters on this forum. Perhaps you'd like to join that group as well one day?

What is your view on Mandeans and the origins of their beliefs in the primacy of John the Baptist?

andrewcriddle

For a good discussion of modern scholarly views about the Mandaeans see 'The Mandaeans' by Edmondo Lupieri.

Andrew Criddle