Toto

Not this again.

It's one thing for a second century Christian to maintain that a first century Jesus was historical, based on his reading of Hebrew Scripture and his theological stance that the Savior was fully human as well as fully divine. You would expect such a person to avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty.

It's quite another thing for a first century Christian to not care about the historical details of a man who was his contemporary, who presumably left family members or followers behind.

What is your explanation for the way these family members and followers disappear from history?

aa5874

But, this is another problem with the HJ. It must first be assumed other figures are historical when there are no external sources to support their history.

Once it is claimed that there are interpolations in the Pauline writings then it must be admitted that the information which allow an assumption of an early dating may have interpolated.

It cannot be assumed that the Pauline writers wrote anything in the 2nd century when the passages may have been deliberately manipulated to appear to be from some time zone in which it does not belong.

Now, no author of the NT, Church writings or even the interpolators could have DARED to claim Jesus was historical since Jesus believers would have been accused as hypocrites and liars for worshiping a Man as a God.

The NT, Church and interpolators must MYTHOLOGISE Jesus as fully Divine. These writers could NOT ever write that Jesus was just a man.

GakuseiDon

WHY is it another thing? That's the question. WHY couldn't Paul avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty?

And can you provide the name of the earliest Christian writer who was a historicist, but didn't include historical details that might mess up their theological certainty? How can you tell which ones they were?

I don't understand the relevance of this question, I'm afraid.

Toto

For the second century Christians, a first century Jesus was ancient history, already lost in the fog of legend, especially since the Temple had been destroyed in the meantime and Jerusalem leveled.

For Paul, the historical Jesus should have been the subject of gossip in the marketplace. He might have decided to rely only on his vision, but how could he avoid questions from other Christians or people who actually knew the historical Jesus?

This question doesn't make any sense to me. I think that the only people who can be called historicists are post-Enlightenment. All orthodox Christians that we know about from before that time believed in a divine Jesus who was nevertheless fully human - but this belief was based on theology. Even the Ebionites seem to have decided that Jesus was human for theological reasons, not because there was any historical memory of him.

It is the historicist's job to find an early writer who thought that Jesus was historical for non-theological reasons. I don't know of one.

I can't help you.

GakuseiDon

Wait a minute. Either you are proposing that there were 'historicists' who avoided historical details that might mess up their theology or there weren't. If they avoided those details, then they are hardly going to present them, are they? That's why they didn't interpolate such details into earlier writings, at least according to what you are saying earlier.

At what point did those 'historicists' start existing? Why couldn't they have been there from the start?

Right, so could they have been there from the time of Paul himself, a few years after the crucifixion of an actual historical Jesus? Or would it have taken a generation or two?

Toto

I repeat: Paul could not have avoided the issue of an actual Jesus if in fact he lived at the same time. He would have had to deal with questions from people who actually knew Jesus.

If an early Christian only believed in a historical Jesus for theological reasons, I don't see how he is of interest to someone looking for a real historical Jesus.

I'm not getting through.

"Historicists" as I use the term only existed after the Enlightenment, as far as we have any record.

There were people in the second century who claimed that Jesus was fully human, but also fully God in some mysterious sense. They thought that Jesus was human for theological reasons, not because of historical evidence. We need another name for them.

If there were people who thought that Jesus was human because of real historical evidence, they have left no record. If they had, we would not have the debate that we have now.

GakuseiDon

(Note: I had edited my earlier post at the same time you submitted this one).

Yes, but if they avoided those details, then they are hardly going to present them, are they? And Paul seems to be avoiding something, since he stresses he only wants to know the crucifixion.

Why couldn't Paul want to avoid presenting historical details that might mess up his theology? You have already proposed that such Christians existed. Why can't Paul be one of them?

Really? I can. I'm just interested in how people thought back then. If that's what they thought, then I'm interested.

I'm happy to go with whatever name you suggest, as long as it is suitable.

aa5874

But, the Ebionites' Jesus Christ is far different to the NT Jesus Christ.

The Ebionite Jesus is distinct and separate from Christ and they reject the Pauline Epistles according to Church writings.

Based on Church writings, the Ebionites Christ, the SON of God, entered Jesus, perhaps at baptism, and then was separated from Jesus before he was crucified.

So, in effect, the Ebionite Christ, the Ebionite SON of God, escaped the crucifixion and did not suffer, die, or resurrect. It was Jesus the man who was crucified, died and resurrect.

The Ebionites would have therefore worshiped the mythologised Christ as a God and not Jesus a mere man.

And in any event, there is no historical source that can show that there was an Ebionite man called Jesus who was raised from the dead.

But, this Ebionite Jesus and Ebionite Christ clearly indicate that Jesus believers had not established who Jesus Christ was and how he came into existence. The Ebionite Jesus and Christ are fabrications, non-historical entities.


Now, the historical NT Jesus is not a question of whether Jesus was believed to exist. After all Marcion believed his Phantom Jesus did exist.

The HJ is REALLY a question of whether Jesus was only human or believed to be only human.

The Pauline writers could not have provided information to show that Jesus was just a man when he was worshiped as a God.

Jesus of the NT could not have been regarded as only human or else his followers would be worshiping a man as a God contrary to their own beliefs at a time when they themselves were asking others not to worsip men as Gods and condemned the pactise of worshiping men.

It is simply a case of futility to try to look for a man in the NT who was worshiped as a God when the NT is about a son of a God, the Creator, who was before the world was created.

Toto

At that point, you have to ask which theory fits the evidence more closely. That Paul believed in a spiritual Christ (and his letters were interpolated with key phrases to make them conform to later orthdoxy) or that Paul was converted by a vision of a man, and based his theology on the crucifixion of this man, but didn't want to know anything else about him? It seems that the historicist explanation of early Christian history needs to keep adding epicycles to explain things that don't fit.

Why are you interested? As far as I can see, much of the thinking of those years was fairly muddled. They believed in ghosts and supernatural events and the evil eye. They thought that their gods communicated through dreams, but also through the throw of dice, and through prophetesses who went into trances.

But even if you are as interested in how people thought, my point was that whatever they thought about a historical Jesus seems irrelevant to a modern search for an actual, non-theologically based Jesus.

How about orthodox? But then you can't use anything from orthodox writing to show anything about the historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon

But this is an explanation that you yourself have offered, to explain Second Century lack of interest in historical details. Here is what you wrote (my emphasis):

It's one thing for a second century Christian to maintain that a first century Jesus was historical, based on his reading of Hebrew Scripture and his theological stance that the Savior was fully human as well as fully divine. You would expect such a person to avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty.

So you have already proposed that there were Christians who would be expected to "avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainly".

You then go on to say "It's quite another thing for a first century Christian to not care about the historical details of a man who was his contemporary, who presumably left family members or followers behind."

My question is: Why wouldn't a First Century Christian also avoid historical details that just might mess up his theological certainty? Especially if he is writing to people who were nowhere near Jerusalem when the events occurred?

Toto, this is why the mythicist case needs to be spelled out. An ad hoc solution to one problem may raise problems elsewhere. But without the case clearly outlined this is difficult to access.

Well, doesn't that sound interesting? It does to me. I'm actually hoping to write a book dealing with time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (approx 160 to 195 CE) which will go into the philosophy and metaphysics of the period, though nothing to do with the HJ/MJ debate.

OK.

Hmmm... not sure about calling Second Century writers "orthodox". They have to have believed that Jesus was historical, for theological reasons rather than for the historical evidence. Perhaps if you can name one or more Second Century writers who fall into this group? What's the earliest example, in your opinion?