squiz

Despite your disclaimer, I still feel the need to respond to this. I find this almost impossible to read. N00b that I am, I thought txtspk might be some sort of speach processor, hence the lack of capitals. But then I find that it is short for the shorthand used when wrighting an sms. Lack of capitals is ok for a short message, but bloody hard to read for anything more than a couple of sentences.

Did you type this tome with your thumb?

gurugeorge

I think you're making a sharper dividing line than Doherty makes. There's no real sharp dividing line betwen MJ and HJ in terms of doctrine, it's a continuous development. Even the apparently historical references in some of the earlier texts may mean no more than references to Mt Olympus in Greek myth.

The real sharp dividing line comes not from any theological concept but from the purely "political" concept of Apostolic Succession, whereby proto-orthodox bishops at first insisted on a lineage connection back to a strongly historicized Jesus, in order to gain psychological and social ascendancy over their brethren.

I strongly believe that "apostolic succession" is the tail that wags the "historical Jesus" dog. (Not that HJ was invented for that purpose - I'm sure it was initially just an innocent variation on the Jesus theme - but that it's functionality for the purpose of sociopolitical control made it attractive for those who wanted order and/or power.)

And it's this concept that enabled the proto-orthodox churches to be better organised than the loose "charismatic" communities (many of them uncaring about organisation because they were waiting for the end of the world) that probably formed early Christianity. Better organised, richer, able to promulgate their views easier.

Doug Shaver

I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to the opening post of this thread.

Doug Shaver

I would assume that whatever Paul was thinking when he wrote the letters, his immediate readership would have understood him the same way. That is not necessarily what other readers a hundred years later would have thought.

I don't understand the question. What happened to what or to whom?

gnosis92

Let me put it this way, what-if the MJ hypothesis is correct: Paul and the early Christians in Rome, Corinth, were all originally MJ. THey were actively proseltyzing their religion. By the time Mark was written, perhaps 110 CE, 100% of all Xians were MJ. The original MJ had been spreading their MJ gospel w/no competition from HJ for almost a full century, ordaining preachers in the MJ belief.

Around 120 CE what % would XIans would you expect to be MJ and what % HJ? What about 130ce, 140ce, 150ce, 160ce, 170ce, 180ce, 190ce, 200ce?

krosero

I hope you’ll use regular typing. I skipped over your entire OP at first, because I rarely use or read txtspk – and I am not by any means a Luddite.

I would not have read your OP at all except that I gathered from the responses what type of argument it is – and it’s a good one.

As someone who has studied Doherty’s work closely, let me just say that what you have here is basically correct, except the line: “according to doherty, once mark was widely circulated, the original x-mythicists seemed to vanish, without a trace.” It sounds like you’re saying that this is what Doherty is openly advocating. But several times he has said that the process of transition from the MJ to the HJ was a long one.

This of course just accentuates the problem, because if the MJ belief lasted a long time, then it lasted well into the period of the heresiologists, and we would expect them to be contending with it (and I think you argued as much below) – particularly if the orthodox had Paul’s writings in common with the original MJ’ers. The orthodox had those writings in common with Marcion, and fought with him about Paul; but they do not mention fighting about Paul’s letters with those who interpreted them as proclaiming the heavenly crucifixion of a Jesus who never came to earth.

I agree with you that the MJ texts identified by Doherty do seem to stop at a certain point AS IF the communities themselves disappeared. That’s a problem (I wrote about it here). Doherty’s theory may IMPLY that the original MJ belief vanished without a trace. But that is not the same as “according to Doherty”.

You seem to know this, but I think your presentation of Doherty’s position needs to be more carefully worded.

Kevin Rosero

Doug Shaver

OK. We're going to see what that implies?

Maybe, maybe not. The hypothesis is about what Christians of Paul's time believed about the Christ. It has no necessary implications about their proselytizing activities. More to the point, it has no implications about how much or what kinds of competition they had or how successful we should expect them to have been in that competition.

I doubt that.

Competition from historicists would have come fairly late during that hundred years, yes, but that doesn't mean there was no compeition. No sect of Christianity has ever had anything like a monopoly, although some have come close on some occasions since Constantine's time.

The available evidence enables none but fools to even attempt to answer such a question.

gnosis92

Can you provide a link?

It's my understanding that Iraneus, Papais, Clement, Polycarp, Marcion, Valentinus were all HJ, based on what I've read. The authors of the Gnostic Gospels were evidentally also HJ, in some cases Docetic HJ.

gnosis92

Well I wrote an argument against Doherty's claim that the Odes of Solomon was not a Christian document, in regular sentences and no one replied.

:crying: :crying: :crying: crying: crying:


but "But several times he has said that the process of transition from the MJ to the HJ was a long one.

This of course just accentuates the problem, because if the MJ belief lasted a long time, then it lasted well into the period of the heresiologists, and we would expect them to be contending with it (and I think you argued as much below) – particularly if the orthodox had Paul’s writings in common with the original MJ’ers. The orthodox had those writings in common with Marcion, and fought with him about Paul; but they do not mention fighting about Paul’s letters with those who interpreted them as proclaiming the heavenly crucifixion of a Jesus who never came to earth"

is my point and "You seem to know this, but I think your presentation of Doherty’s position needs to be more carefully worded" is correct,

Not just Marcion, but the author of Luke-Acts, and the forgerer of Paul's letters, all understood Paul as speaking of HJ not MJ.

"Doherty’s theory may IMPLY that the original MJ belief vanished without a trace. But that is not the same as “according to Doherty”.

While I've not read AOI I'm not aware of Doherty showing any heretics or Church fathers identifying what Doherty claims to be the middle Platonist period, nor anyone in the second century, not even hostile critics like Celsus or Tacitus or Josepheus identifying anything that can be described as support for Doherty's reading of Paul. I agree that you can split hairs, but if something is a logical conclusion of Doherty's theory, I would regard that is equivalent to saying “according to Doherty”.

Toto

gnosis: I think you are referring to this:

Has anyone here read Odes of Solomon? Is it Christian or proto-Christian mythicism? which you started on June 11 and which got no replies.

If a post that you start gets no replies, it might be because people can't figure out what you are asking, or because your presentation was not clear, or perhaps because you start a lot of threads.

You also use words that make people suspect you are not actually an expert on the matter but like to use big words in an attempt to impress: Multi-variate analysis? Please.

Trust me, you do not understand what Doherty's position is, and it shows. In order to debate someone, you need to be able to understand their theory from their point of view. Otherwise, you end up arguing against a parody of that theory, and your arguments are a waste of time.