Amaleq13

I'm not sure that it is true that Doherty never explicitly mentions that one of the most significant differences between the pagan Mysteries and Christianity was the historicity of the central figure. The primary importance, IMO, of this fact is that it renders moot all claims that nobody was directly questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Either it is yet another example of the absence of the concept of "historicity" in the minds of the early Church Fathers or it is yet another example of the development of the historicity of the story of Jesus into a central tenet.

The pattern of the evidence seems to be:

1) Beliefs about Jesus Christ

2) Stories about Jesus (confirmed to be least spiritually true by the HB)

3) Assertions that the stories are literally true

Does this reflect the development of a mythical character into an historical character?

or

Does this reflect a developing need for a change in emphasis in response to "heretical" competition?

The biggest problem, again IMO, with the latter is that we have evidence of "heretical" competition even at the first stage but the opposing arguments don't show up until much later.

GakuseiDon

I mean, Doherty never explains that HJers also wrote apologies to the pagans without mentioning details of a HJ.

How can it be a development. In the same year, Tertullian wrote two apologies: one to the pagans, which didn't mention any details of a HJ; and another which did mention such details.

Everything is against the idea of a development of a historical position. Nearly all the examples that Doherty uses were written around the same time (around 170 CE), to the same audience, and contains most of the details that other HJers used in their other apologies (to the Jews, for example) where they also mentioned details of a HJ.

We have lots of evidence of heretical positions. None of those positions are ever described as a purely mythical Christ.

I don't know about Doherty's 1st C evidence, but AFAICS his analysis of 2nd C writers is woefully incomplete.

Amaleq13

It is a "development" if it doesn't exist in the earliest evidence but gradually becomes more important in later evidence. My comments and summary list were presented within the context of the entire body of evidence which starts with Paul.

Nonsense. The evidence is completely consistent with the notion of the importance of asserting the historicity of the Gospel stories developing over time. We have nothing from Paul, followed by the appearance of the Gospel stories, followed by minimal references to specific details in those stories, followed by an ever-increasing emphasis on the literal historical truth of the stories.

That, my friend, is evidence of development whether one posits an historical Jesus or a mythical one.

GakuseiDon

Of course, I wouldn't see it that way. We have a few basic historical references in Paul, then a gradual conglomeration of pericopes into proto-gospels, as oral traditions are replaced by written traditions. Papias indicates this.

At no time do we see any beliefs in a mythical Jesus. In all the lists of heresies, why no information about a MJ position?

Amaleq13

Whether you choose to accept it or not, what you have described above is clearly a development over time. You have ZERO historical references in Paul. What you do have are references to an incarnated Christ in no particular place or time. I agree with Carrier that locating that incarnation is the part of Doherty's theory that requires the most support but, even if we assume that Paul believed the incarnation involved a real guy on earth that is short of Paul believing it happened at a specific time or place.

Papias provides evidence of "oral traditions" of questionable reliability becoming accepted as true by some and sometimes put in writing.

Your use of "mythical" seems anachronistic to me. Paul's belief in a pre-existent Son of God is belief in a mythical figure but it certainly wasn't heretical. You seem to have lost track of Doherty's thesis. The belief in a spiritual Christ BECAME belief in an historical Jesus. Part of that process was an attempt to oppose those who claimed that the spiritual Christ did not literally incarnate and/or that the spiritual Christ never really experienced suffering. Asserting the literal truth of the Gospel stories clearly denies both those "heretical" beliefs.

Ted Hoffman

Muller,
You are historical. Therefore your parentage must have a historical person behind it.
There is no evidence that Jesus existed as a historical person Therefore we cannot say a HJ is as historical as you(r father).

Human father called who? How did Paul know Jesus had a human father? Did he talk to anyone who witnessed Jesus' life?
Woman called who? Born of virgin like in Isaiah 7? Do women give 'virgin' births to historical personages?
In flesh (kata sarka) refers to the wordly platonic layer where the 'heavenly' birth took place. It does not entail that Jesus came from a sperm. Even Dionysus had a father and mother. Doesnt mean a damn thing.

MJers say.
For the following reasons:

1. Because the letters do not refer to any other source outside themselves for details regarding the miracles and historical deeds of Jesus. Therefore the author wanted readers to understand Jesus as a spiritual being. The author's experiences with Jesus, like dying, suffering and resurrecting with him are all, evidently, spiritual.

2. The letters indicate Paul knew about Jesus not from historical sources but from the OT and revelation.

3. If Paul knew a HJ, he could have written about a HJ.

4. If Paul knew about a life of Jesus on earth, he could have mentioned them. He could have drawn from the apostolic tradition, but there was none at his time. An apostolic tradition was created in the second century.

5. If Paul knew about a HJ, he could have drawn examples from the and earthly teachings of Jesuswhich would have been more powerful and acceptable than revelatory sources.

6. A HJ is not necessary to explain the story of Jesus. An MJ thesis wins in terms of the argument of the best explanation plus is more parsimonius compared to a HJ theory and is consistent with the writings of the Apostolic fathers like Shepherd, Didache and 1 Clement.

The whole HJ idea was manufactured gradually from the late first century.

A humble mortal Jew was not worthy of ANY mention. NONE AT ALL.
What was so humble of him that he deserved mention? A humble person in historical books is a contradiction in terms. What did he do to deserve mention? What made the historical radar detect him?

Because if they did, there would have been no Marcionite controversy (docetic Jesus), no Christ Logos, and no contradictions regarding the nature of Jesus. Nobody, knew: everyone was guessing.

There would have been a tomb (people called 'Christians' assume Jesus was buried ina tomb, there would have been site veneration (golgotha etc), Josephus would have known and written about him more than twice etc.

Which eyewitnesses? Those who had visions of his resurrection?

I have addressed kata sarka but the oblique and unrelated staccato quotes you provide can't be used to construct a HJ.

Gakusei,

So now its "incomplete"?
So now, his work is correct and his arguments sound except its incomplete? How would you know an analysis is complete anyway? When your favourite authors have been mentioned?

The Jesus Puzzle is NOT a book about 2nd C writers.

Is it your informed opinion that a complete survey of the works of 2nd C writers can be done in 20 pages? Do you know the amount of relevant literature from that period? You even have the temerity to mention Theophilus, Athenagoras of Athens, Epistle to Diognetus and Minucius Felix!
can you confidently place the works of these authors before c. 180?

In any case, I thought you said you were going to spend your time waiting for Kirby to update the date ranges on his website?
Have you decided to believe in those dates anyway - just to make yourself feel better and Doherty look bad even if you have no idea how the datings were done?

You are satisfied to throw some red herrings and be confident that you have refuted Doherty? I pointed out how you picked a phrase out of context (regarding Ignatius) from Doherty's work and how your refutation failed to meet the necessary criteria to qualify as a refutation, but you are obviously not keen to actually rebut his work.

You not only need to be fair in your criticism, but also sensible.

Woefully incomplete!? Are you qualified to make that judgement? You really have some nerve!

NOGO

Sorry but this simply does not cut it and here is why?

The "first-born" of all creation ...
So the Word is a "Son" not because he was born of a woman but because he was begotten from the Father when the Father created the world.
Christians are all over the map on this one. To the Gospels He was born of a woman. To Paul He became "Son of God" after his resurrection.
Take your pick.
GJohn also speaks about this in chapter one and takes the same view as Theophilus.

Now what does Theophilus says about incarnation?


So the Word of God, who is also His Son, created the world and spoke through the prophets .

This is exactly the kind of incarnation that GJohn talks about.

Also compare this to Hebrews 1:1-2
Again Christians are all over the place in their beliefs.
How can anybody believe that one man was the source of all these beliefs?
And if you agree that one man was not the source of these beliefs then what can one person so or say to trigger all these belief?
The standard answer to this is that he ressurected.
If that were true then all focus would be on his person and life.
It was not!

If Jesus of Nazareth was a real person then his story was picked up and assimilated into an already thriving Christian faith in the Word of God.

GakuseiDon

This does not cut what? You're quoting the author of the Tertullian website whose looking at what the 2nd C authors believed about Jesus Christ.

You mean Paul and the Jerusalem Group?

You mean Paul and the Jerusalem Group?

GakuseiDon

If the analysis hasn't included all the evidence, then it is incomplete. In this case, some HJer apologists also wrote apologies that didn't include "Jesus", "Christ" or any other historical information. As this is a point that Doherty uses to establish some of the authors as MJers, I think it shows that his analysis is incomplete.

I'm not refuting the book. The title of the OP is "2nd Century Silence: A look at Doherty's claim". It is a look at Doherty's article called "The Second Century Apologists". I conclude that "I think there is enough evidence there to show that the silence in the 2nd C isn't as great as Doherty suggests."

Where do I say that I'm trying to refute his whole book?

Relating to the relevant Christian writings in that period, yes.

Who have I left out?

Yes. I have been using the same authors as Doherty. Who has Doherty left out?

I use the conventional wisdom listed on earlychristianwritings for those authors. AFAIK, they are uncontroversial. Three of the four are dated after 160 CE. We have quite a few examples of writings pre-160 that refer to a historical Jesus, esp Justin Martyr and Ignatius.

Where Doherty gives dates, he agrees with earlychristianwritings. Where he leaves out dates, I supply them from earlychristianwritings. If the earlychristianwritings' dates are wrong, please let me know and I'll adjust my post accordingly. You may also need to inform Doherty that his dates are wrong as well.

I'm willing to argue the evidence. I'm not refuting Doherty's comment that a number of apologists didn't mention "Jesus" or "Christ". I agree with him. (Please understand that before one of us dies).

I'm trying. I appreciate any attempt to point out where my criticism is unfair or not sensible.

I'm probably not qualified. All I can do is put up the evidence that supports my conclusion, and see what more qualified people think.

spin

Is this you speaking or are you out and this is a computer generated response? Yes, earlychristianwritings uses conventional wisdom on dates. Many of these dates have been contested here and to use the dates you want YOU have to show that they are valid and useful, and not based on opinions resting solidly in the third or forth century. Relying on conventional dating which has no historical foundation is saying nothing useful.

I have already given you evidence that the dates that you are using are either wrong or not solid enough to use. You used Aristides once and that comes in thirty years later than the date you supplied. The dating you accept for Ignatius is in dispute and has been so for well over 100 years and (some of) the letters attributed to him are either bowdlerized or simply spurious.

Not for the dating. You just shut up for a while, then come back with the same old stuff.


spin