jakejonesiv

Hi GDon,

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I think you may be right on this point. I withdraw my comment about Minucius Felix being an utter hypocrite. I would like to hear Earl's response. Here is a more complete quote of the passge.

andrewcriddle

Lucian represents some form of resurrection of Adonis as part of the rituals at Byblus in Syria. We have from Origen somewhat later evidence of a resurrection of Adonis/Tammuz probably in Alexandria.

This seems to be part of syncretism between the rites of Osiris and those of Adonis, developing in Syria and Egypt in the early Christian centuries.

It is probably irrelevant to the myths and rituals of Adonis further West. (Greece Italy etc.) where Adonis dies without resurection.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Hi Jake. Yes, I just don't see that statement from M. Felix as being a problem at all, once it is understood that this is an accusation by pagans against Christians, and not vice versa as Doherty appears to state.

I'd be interested in any Christ Myth proponent's view on that statement by M. Felix and Doherty's comment.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that, Andrew. Very interesting!

Ted Hoffman

There is a troubling trend here. One is the somewhat flattering attention GDon is getting, which is largely unwarranted IMO. The other is an apparent unawareness that Doherty took apart GDon’s critique thoroughly and sufficiently. This is not to say that GDon did not make some good points. He did and does even in this follow up. But his tone is becoming distasteful. What GDon has done is write two refutations of Doherty’s theory with one as a follow up of the earlier one. The first article was well written though based on a flawed understanding and poorly argued. This second one is hastily written and full of derogatory statements towards Doherty and fails to fully respond to Doherty’s response to the first article. Again, it is poorly argued as I will partly show below.

Jakejones asks about Tammuz and why women were mourning for him if he did not die. Since discussion on that has died out, I don’t wish to restart it but I hope that due appreciation was given towards the difference between myth, ritual and history. Because he was asking historical questions about a myth and associated rituals.

Jones also writes: “On the larger question, I think Earl Doherty is much too concerned that mythical Jesus was never conceived to have had flesh (it was of an illusory docetic nature) or that Jesus never descended as far as the surface of the earth, which Ephesians 4:9 states that he did. None of that disqualifies Jesus as myth.�

Ephesians is a Deutero-Pauline epistle and as such cannot be relied on as a source of Paul’s theology. Gunther Bornkamm, in Paul, argues that name Ephesians is not attested by textual evidence and it lacks a relationship to any Church. In addition, it is not a letter but more of a theological treatise (and writing theological treatsies was not Paul’s style). There are theological conflicts with Paul, for example, the portrayal of the Church as a cosmic body with Christ as the “head� - an idea Bornkamm’ argues was influenced by Gnosticism.

Let us have a look at GDon’s “follow up�. Unlike the earlier article, this one has typos and incomplete statements. GDon accuses Doherty of restating his position and then, in a tit-for-tat fashion, says he will also “reuse� material in article one. First of all, this is careless and vitiates against the idea that GDon is a serious respondent. Secondly, it is irresponsible for GDon not to bother to show exactly how Doherty simply restates his [Doherty’s] position, instead of dealing with GDon’s rebuttal.

Several times, he leaves Doherty’s statements intact and instead spends himself reiterating on what he believes Doherty has not done or does not know. Sample the following statements:
These are essentially ad hominems and don’t help to strengthen GDon’s arguments. One can clearly demonstrate that another has failed to factor in a certain piece of information without accusing them of ignorance.

GDon writes: “As the Second Century progressed, Christians began to push Christianity as a philosophy, and started to debate with pagan philosophers…�

This argument assumes that these same Christians pushed Christianity as something other than a Philosophy before the second century. What was Christianity before they started pushing it as a Philosophy? GDon fails show this.
GDon then chooses to play a game. He offers snippets of statements and cheekily asks the readers: “Can you spot which statement below is from the MJ writer?�

This glib approach is typical of GDon’s style. First of all, how does one spot an MJ writer?
GDon doesn’t tell the readers how. In essence, he is asking readers to guess. Let us play his game anyway.
Before one answers whether the writer is a mythicist or not, GDon needs to tell the readers the following?
1. Does the writer provide Earthly Details about Jesus in his writings? Like Pilate, Joseph, Jerusalem etc?
2. What is the nature of the savior that writer believes in if any? Is he flesh and blood? Or is he made of fire and air and other non-fleshly “matter�?
3. How does that Savior emerge? In the minds and hearts of believers? Is it an incarnation of god? Is he a manifestation of God? Is he born somewhere on Earth?
4. How does the writer obtain knowledge about the saviour? Through spiritual revelation? From the Old Testament? Or from historical sources?
5. Does the writer accept that gods can assume the form of humans?
6. Who is the central deity in his brand of Christianity? Is it a theocentric Christianity? Does Jesus occupy a central role as a redeemer?
7. When did the salvific act, if any, occur according to that writer? Is it happening now? Did it just happen? Did it occur in the past?
8. How do Christians obtain salvation according to that author? Is it through grace? Christ’s death? Following certain teachings?

If GDon lacks data to answer half of these questions [as I am sure he does], then he himself cannot provide the answer he is asking for. This game is intellectually vacuous and does not advance the discussion. As an approach to argumentation, it is ineffectual and shabby.
To add some intrigue, GDon mentions Aristides Apology, M. Felix’s Octavius and Tertullian’s Ad Nationes as the sources of these fragments. His inclusion of Aristides, even in the face of Doherty’s explanation that its “literary quality and breadth of thought is very limited�, fails to acknowledge Doherty’s response and thereby negates the idea that this is a “follow up� to Doherty’s response. GDon is writing as if he is unaware of Doherty’s reasons for excluding Aristides.

It is grossly incorrect to assume that the question on whether or not a writer is an MJ (GDon consistently and incorrectly treats MJ as synonymous with a non-HJ, even in the face of Doherty’s correction) is a judgement that can be made based on a sentence or two. This apalling oversimplication of the issue exposes a poor appreciation of the matter at hand. One needs to be able to use a text to answer the questions I ask above before one can make such a judgement.
To be sure, the rest of GDon’s statements mostly entail rejection of the concept of godmen. Marcion rejected godmen yet was a Christian so these statements don’t show us much. At best, they provide 5% probability that the writer is a MJer.
GDon writes:
If I was GDon, I would simply respond to this by stating that “GDon is clearly unaware that there were Christians who believed in an adoptionist Jesus. GDon clearly has not done his homework� But I will not do that. Since my point is already made. GDon’s claim that “Christ was a pre-existent being� is false because it does not apply to all early Christians. In addition there are Christians like Marcion who believed that Christ could never “exist on earth� (existing means assuming physical form, which means becoming part of this corruptible world): Christ remained a transcendental being to them. For such Christians, this term “pre-existent� is meaningless and does not even arise with respect to Jesus.
GDon fails to account for such Christians in his arguments, which makes his presentation, to borrow his pet expression, ‘a virtual one-sided presentation of the evidence� [GDon uses this expression three times in the 20 pages that comprise his “follow up�. I assume he means “a virtually one-sided presentation of the evidence�].

In 1.2 A Dispersed Flesh: Philosophical Problems with a Physical Resurrection, GDon writes: “I stress here that Justin clearly states that he is using "secular arguments" so as convince "unbelievers". ... Justin's statements in On the Resurrection helps build the case that Christians were trying to re-image Christianity as being akin to a philosophy school�

Justin is not “apologists� and Justin is not “Christians�. This is like arguing that because one has found a mango in a basket; all the things in the basket are mangoes. GDon has to show that “Christians were trying to re-image Christianity as being akin to a philosophy school�, and not just assume it.
GDon has not provided any evidence that there were any Christians trying to re-image Christianity. GDon himself is attempting to use a rational approach to uncover Christian origins – does that mean GDon is trying to re-image Christianity? No. Yet it is exactly what Justin did: appeal to the rational faculties of the pagans.
Thirdly, Gdon’s argument uses what it is supposed to demonstrate, as an assumption, which is that the second century apologists previously held a Christianity that was different from what we see in their writings. We have no reason to believe that the early Christians: (a) wanted to re-image Christianity (b) co-opted (“pagan�) concepts they perceived as useful in the achievement of that goal – like the logos.

As far as “1.3 "What did they know, and when did they know it?": Dating Pagans knowledge of Christians' origins.� Is concerned, I think there is some difficulty with Doherty’s statement that “By this time [the 160’s] the Gospels were in circulation, and everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins.� And I am sure Doherty will address it. For lack of time, these may be my only comments on GDon’s “follow up�.

Read Shattering the Concrete Block for my response to GDon's first article. Doherty will be responding to GDon's "follow up" in a couple of weeks.

GakuseiDon

Hi Ted,

You're right that my second article was hastily written, had typos, etc. I'd rushed it out to move onto something else. I finally got a few hours on the weekend though to neaten it up. I didn't add any new data, but it should read better now.

The OP is to address one of Doherty's statements in his book. He said (Ch 25):
My response is that we see the same situation in Tertullian's Ad nationes. Without any saving qualification, Tertullian writes:
You'll note that Tertullian doesn't give any details to show how this doesn't apply to Christ in Ad nationes. To me, this shows that Christians WERE able to put forward such arguments without qualification.

I think my case is pretty clear. To me, Doherty is unaware of these comments in Ad nationes, otherwise why does he make the statement that I highlighted?

To paraphrase Doherty himself: How, without any saving qualification, could Doherty put such arguments forward since they would confute and confound essential Christ Myth points in his own mind, and leave himself open to the charge of hyprocrisy?

Johnny Skeptic

I also posted the following in the other thread:

The following excerpts are from an article by Marshall Gauvin at
http://www.infidels.org/library/his...ally_live.html:

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Toto

GDon - I keep meaning to spend more time on your argument, so forgive me if I have missed something.

It seems to me that the basis of your claim is that some clearly historicist Christians write the same way mythicists do; therefore passages by possible mythicists that make no reference to a HJ cannot be used as proof that the author is actually a mythicist or a non-HJ'er.

I think something is missing here. I can find passages from later Catholics that speak of Jesus in purely spiritual terms and interpret what might be viewed as historical facts in very mythical-gnostic sounding terms. I think that these Catholics have a fairly mystical view of their own religion but still affirm the historicity of Jesus as church dogma.

I don't know if this is the case with Tertullian, but I suspect it is. The early church fathers adopted a historicist stance as a matter of dogma, not because they had skeptically reviewed the available evidence and concluded that Jesus was a historical person, but because that fit their theological needs. But that didn't mean that they gave up the earlier spiritual language about Christ. So you might have a church father who clearly held to a historicist position for theology, but still wrote about a spiritual Christ.

It was only the rationalist post-Enlightenment Protestants who tried to ignore the supernatural Christ and find a historical Jesus compatible with modern science.

Does this make sense?

Ben C Smith

[GasukeiDon, I hope you do not mind if I barge in for a moment.]

I do not think you have missed anything, Toto, but it looks like you may be adding something.

Doherty, according to GDon, is making a positive argument against certain fathers having believed in a historical Jesus. His argument might look like this, simplified:

1. Only a mythicist would say that gods do not die.
2. Minucius Felix says that gods do not die.
3. Ergo, Minucius Felix is a mythicist.

All GDon has to do to counter such a syllogism is to find somebody known on other grounds to be an historicist who nevertheless says that gods do not die. He puts forth the following syllogism:

1. Only a mythicist would say that gods do not die.
2. Tertullian* says that gods do not die.
3. Ergo, Tertullian is a mythicist.

* Or Aristides.

Since we know on other grounds that Tertullian was an historicist (and so was Aristides), not a mythicist, we now know that at least one of the premises is false. Presuming that the texts will bear out both of our second premises, it must be the first premise that is false, and that happens to be, according to GDon, the foundational premise for the positive argument mounted by Doherty that Felix and others were mythicists.

What is proved here is, not that Jesus was historical, but rather that we cannot prove that certain fathers were not historicists just because they say that gods do not die. You seem to be slipping into the former arena when you write...:

...since why Tertullian and Aristides were historicists does not matter at all to the argument. All that matters is that Tertullian and Aristides were historicists (for whatever reason) and did in fact say that gods do not die.

I for one find at least this part of the argument quite persuasive.

[If I have in any way misunderstood or misrepresented you, GDon, please let me know.]

Ben.

GakuseiDon

Hi Toto. I couldn't give a better explanation than Ben C Smith did (thanks Ben!)

My minimum case is that there is no evidence that any Second Century writer was a mythicist, since the elements that Doherty presents as indicating non-historicity can also be found in the historicist writers, as per Ben's example.

But I actually believe that there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Tatian, Theophilus and probably 'Diognetus' were historicists, and there is nothing in Athenagoras and M. Felix to show that they were mythicists.