Gamera

Which is why I'm sympathetic to Marcion. But being the first christian to propose a canon (that we know of) and the first to identify the "problem" of authorized texts, he raises some impediment to your thesis. You would expect the earliest Christians to be steeped in the OT texts in order for the JM to coagulate out of them. But there is Marcion, the first Christian to raise the issue of what texts are relevant to Christianity, and significantly he disinvites the OT texts. He is an anamoly you would need to explain.

Malachi151

I don't think so, I think that he shows how the Old Testament scriptures are the basis for the humanity of Jesus, since he was not concerned with the OT and did not believe in Jesus' humanity.

Toto

?

Marcion included in his canon what is judged to be either an early version of Luke's gospel, or an edited version of orthodox Luke. There is no evidence that he was aware of Mark.

Malachi151

My mistake, that's what happens when you talk off the top of your head. I was thinking about the fact that his version had no birth story.

jgibson000

Are you actually saying that Marcion did not believe that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If so, can you provide me some evidence for this claim, especially in the face of Marcion's acceptance and use of GLuke?

JG

mountainman

MJ Theories: Summary of postulates

List of possible postulates for MJ Theories
Here is the original list of 8 items.
(nb: "stories" refers to "Gospel Stories")

1) the Jesus stories are mythology, itself a "transformed earlier myth"
2) Story characters are arbitrarility ficitious or historical
3) christianity grew organically without founder, later invented a story
4) stories are based on Hebrew scriptures (not an HJ)
5) Paul and his letters are "historical" (eg: Doherty's MJ)
6) stories are "mythical" created by an historically unknowable "storyteller(s)".
7) stories are "mythical" created by an historically knowable "storyteller(s)".
8) stories create a universal Saviour (cf. ethnic/national oriented God)


Simplification attempt #1

1) christianity grew organically, out of intiquity, without a founder
2) universal stories (myths) developed by unknown "storyteller" (Hebrew?)
3) stories create a universal Saviour (cf. ethnic/national oriented God)

4) Paul and his letters are "historical" (eg: Doherty's MJ)


Analysis #1



It seems clear enough (to me) that the postulates listed 1,2,3
would exist in the above diagram somewhere in the green region
marked (3), perhaps within the "mythical core".

On the other hand, postulate 4 must necessarily fall within the
common "history/myth" region number (2).

How does this sound?



In addition, as errata, the other points presented are worthwhile
listing again:

Other relevant (analytical) considerations:

1) MJ theories may not necessarily share common postulates
2) HJ theories may not necessarily share common postulates.
3) MJ and HJ theories may share a common set of postulates.
3) MJ and HJ theories may share common postulates.
4) HJ may be an unnecessary postulate (Occam's Razor) for MJ


Note that these are more or less operational considerations
employed in the review and analysis of all available data,
and in particular theories which use these postulates.


List of postulates for HJ Theories

1) Sufficient historicity - the actual history of the time
can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance
that one obscure person existed.
2) HJ Core (assumed as an unexamined postulate).
3) Evidentiary - because "of the fact" that christianity exists,
it may be concluded that some HJ, or charismatic founder,
or "NRM personality" started it.
4) Textual core written records are historical evidence of an HJ.

5) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek
6) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
7) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct
8) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
9) Paul and his letters are "historical"

Toto

I'm not sure where this is going. You seem to have a mish mash of what might be postulate, plus things that can be reasonably concluded from the evidence, plus things that are not contradicted by the evidence, even if they are not proven.

jgibson000

Thanks finally for actually responding to me.

But I have to note two things.

First off, what you have posted above hardly answers what I asked of you, even if it is an example of what you claim appears in "a lot" of the "early defenses" of Christianity (it's not - nor is it representative of the reasons Justin had or offered for assuming that there was an HJ).

If you'll recall, in response to your claim that

Quote:

A lot of the early defenses didn't even rely on the Gospels, they went straight to the OT, defending the "humanity" of Jesus using passages from Isaiah and Daniel, and other such things, saying basically "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"

I wrote:

Quote:

I'm curious about this claim. It it is vague. And, more importantly, it is (as of yet) utterly unsubstantiated.

And then I asked you to do several things:

1. to define what you mean by "early"?

2. to state exactly how many of these "defenses" (apologies?) there actually were

3. to say who it was who wrote them these early "defenses",

4. to give me the exact number of these "early defenses" that do what you say they did? and

5. to cite where specifically it is within the particular "early defenses" that purportedly say what you claim they say may that we actually find the assertions that "basically" run "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!"?

But how on earth does a quote from Justin tell me what you mean by "early"? Moreover, and more importantly, how is your posing of it and it alone in reply to my questions in any way responsive to what I asked? How does it serve in any concrete fashion to answer my questions on exactly how many of early Christian "defenses" there were (was there, despite your claim that there were a plurality of them, only one?), who their authors were (did Justin write them all?), how many exactly out of all the "early defenses" that Christians produced actually do what you claim "a lot" of them did (again, was it in the end only one?), and where specifically (i.e., in what book, chapter and verse of any given "defense" that does what you say "a lot" of them do) do we actually find assertions that "basically" run "Jesus had to have walked the earth in the flesh because the prophecies say so!".

The answer is, of course, that it doesn't tell me what you mean by early; it isn't responsive to my questions; and it in no way serves to provide anything remotely resembling concrete answers to them.

So, despite an initial appearance otherwise, you have once again not been responsible for your claims.

Secondly, if you think that the quote you provided from Justin is evidence that Justin at least "didn't even rely on the Gospels" to defend the humanity of Jesus, but instead postulated and believed in the historical existence of Jesus because of, let alone only because of, what "the prophecies" in the OT say, and that Justin explicitly says as much in this quote, then you are woefully unfamiliar with Justin's writings, his use of Gospel material, and his theology (as well as with what constituted acceptable and expected rhetoric in apologia); but you have fundamentally misread the thrust and intent of the quote which you adduce in support of your claim.

The passage you quote is not concerned with defending the humanity of Jesus. It is part of -- and serves to further -- a defense of the "divinity" of the Logos/Son and the claim that God fulfilled his purposes in Jesus. The humanity of Jesus is the presupposition of all that Justin notes here.

And so I call upon you once more either to finally put your money where your mouth is -- or to admit that with respect to "a lot" of the "early defenses of Christianity did and said, you do not know what you are talking about.

JG

mountainman

I'd agree; there is a room for vast improvement.
But in theory, that is the purpose of a forum.

Which of the following items are possible candidates
for being a vaid postulate for a MJ theory? (Note that
below, "story" may be substituted for "gospels".)

1) the Jesus stories are mythology, itself a "transformed earlier myth"
2) Story characters are arbitrarility ficitious or historical
3) christianity grew organically without founder, later invented a story
4) stories are based on Hebrew scriptures (not an HJ)
5) Paul and his letters are "historical" (eg: Doherty's MJ)
6) stories are "mythical" created by an historically unknowable "storyteller(s)".
7) stories are "mythical" created by an historically knowable "storyteller(s)".
8) stories create a universal Saviour (cf. ethnic/national oriented God)

Clivedurdle

Maybe I am not being clear. There is a difference between Cleopatra thinking herself a goddess and christians believing a god in human form walked around Palestine.

I am arguing that all xians up to possibly the eighteenth century actually did not think in terms of cleopatra walking around with godly attributes but of the equivalent of zeus's son walking around with human attributes - born of a woman. Docetism is a logical variation on this, not an abberation.

We have only recently - in the last few hundred years - made ths story human centred and therefore historicised it. Prior to that all of christianity would have no problem with a god becoming human, because that is how they understood the universe. A few proto atheists did demur.

Christianity has therefore always been mythologically based until recently. Historicism can be explained as a reaction (like the counter-reformation to Protestantism) to the enlightenment questionning of the supernatural. They have moved to a position of supernatural with human bits.