The Evil One

This is the best argument I have yet seen against Doherty's position, but the question is easily answered:

because Paul was writing at a relatively early stage in the development of the myth. He has the bare bones, as Amaleq has pointed out.

Later stages DO add details of birth narratives, marriages (well... a prostitute-companion), events and companions. IE the gospels.

We expect myths to develop, so early writers not mentioning every detail of the myth is to be expected. Historical facts, however, if there were any, would have been historical facts from the moment they happened, so it is a lot less easy to explain why Paul doesn't know of them.

GakuseiDon

Yes, that is the usual reply - Paul is quite happy to follow a MJ who he regarded as the Son of God even though he knows few details of the myth, but there is an assumption that he wouldn't be happy following a HJ who he regarded as the Son of God even though he knows few details of the history.

The thing is, Doherty's Paul didn't regard Jesus as "mythical". He thought that Jesus was a real entity, who was born of a woman and a descendent of David and Abraham, broke bread and drank wine with companions, was crucified, buried and rose again. It's just that all this happened on a heavenly plane rather than on earth. Were there no more details than those? If so, why didn't Paul give them? If not, why not say that Paul would not equally be happy with those as historical facts?

And Paul believed that Jesus appeared to him and to others, giving commands and revelations. That last part would be historical - yet there are virtually no details. If revelation were the primary means of communication, why doesn't Paul give more details? (Think of how much was reported about the revelations at Fatima, for example) That is the Christ acting in history, as far as Doherty's Paul is concerned.

As Amaleq and Holding says, the answer is that all the relevant details are given: sacrificed, raised, seen, returning. Doherty gives no hard evidence why Paul should have mentioned more details.

We also have evidence of 2nd century apologists who could write entire apologetic letters without mentioning Jesus, while we know they believed in a HJ from other correspondense. So there is a burden of proof on Doherty to show why Paul couldn't fall into this category.

Amaleq13

Your persist in this mischaracterization despite being shown why it is faulty. Paul's details are complete rather than "few" given his stated beliefs.

There is no such assumption involved in Doherty's proposal. There are no details given that connect a living Jesus to any specific time or place in history. The "life" of Paul's Jesus exists only so that it can be sacrificed.

It would probably be more descriptive to think of him as "spiritually real" in Paul's beliefs.

I assume that Paul would have reported details of the life of Jesus had he known any. I think this is especially true if those details resembled the depiction found in the Gospels.

You miss the point. If the Gospel stories are even vaguely true, these weren't "all the relevant details". According to these stories, the teachings of the living Jesus were important as were the miracles and signs he performed.

Doctor X

With regards to Paul, I think the only useful information in that you cannot hit it with the "could be MYTH!!!" response, is his reference to James in Galatians.

If Junior had a brother . . . he probably existed!

Of course, if ye accept that, ye still cannot say anything substantial about him. We come right back to the "there must have been someone behind the myths."

Now, I have read arguments that Paul is using a common address, but unless he uses it for others I am not really convince. I have also seen arguments that Galatians may not be a legitimate letter of Paul. That is certainly a minority opinion, however. I am unaware of any text-critical issues that show the reference could be an insertion, but that does not mean they do not exist!

So . . . once again . . . right back where we started from!

--J.D.

Gregg

These "brother" references seem to be a major roadblock for a lot of people in giving more credit to the Jesus myth idea, and Doherty recently addressed them in great depth. Check out his site.

Edited to add: Specifically Reader Feedback Set 22, response to Gerry.

Gregg

Well, I can virtually guarantee that this would not be Doherty's "usual reply." Paul knows everything about the MJ that he feels he needs to know. He never claims ignorance about any detail. He's talking about what he thinks is a divine revelation. Practically all the information he needs is in the Jewish scriptures, which God has opened up for him to reveal the mystery of the Christ.Right. Just because today we call Paul's Jesus "mythical" doesn't mean Paul thought of him that way. It's just a convenient way of talking about it vis a vis the "historical" Jesus. Nothing new here. It still doesn't make Jesus any more real than the Greek and Roman gods, who were said to have done very human things.If Paul's revelation of Christ and his sacrifice had included more details, I'm sure he would have mentioned them. As it is, what he knew was clearly enough for him.Again, correct. I still don't understand your point. Paul reported the revelation he received. Why do you insist his revelation had to be more detailed than what he reported? Clearly he'd had what he considered to be a profound spiritual experience. THAT was sufficient proof for him that the revelation was real--he didn't need a more detailed vision. The Scriptures told him everything he needed to know.Paul was dealing with Christians who claimed Jesus had not come "in the flesh" and with Christians who claimed Jesus was not crucified (probably Christians who followed a less Jewish and more Greek, Logos-styled Christianity). Yet he never points out to these people that Jesus had a mother and father, brothers and sisters, and a multitude of followers who were still alive and could testify to his existence. He never says, "Send someone to Jerusalem so he can meet Jesus' family and members of his innermost circle of followers, and see the places where Jesus walked and talked, was crucified and buried, and where he appeared after rising from the dead." Not only that, he doesn't make it a top priority to do these things himself.Actually, Doherty demonstrates that the major 2nd century apologists, with a couple of exceptions, show no sign of being aware of an HJ. This is exactly what we'd expect to see as the Gospels slowly gain wider circulation...most people continuing to talk about Christianity primarily from a spiritual and philosophical perspective, with a few Gospel details gradually finding their way into the mix. With the destruction and depopulation of Palestine severing the Jerusalem Christian connection, and the increasing popularity of the Gospels among Gentiles unfamiliar with the Greek and Jewish roots of Christianity, the HJ movement took on more and more momentum.

rlogan

There is a line of argument Holding is using that I don't see anywhere except apologetics and its variants:

The lack of hard evidence or details on Paul strengthens the HJ case.

(Supports the pattern of lack of evidence and details for things that are true).

I suppose that when you are arguing for the existence of someone who came back from the dead, walked on water, etc. then absurd arguments are the order of the day...

Gawen

One thing I have noticed throughout his thesis, as I continue to read is:

"If the orthodox picture of Christian beginnings were correct, we would expect to find reference to a system of missionary preaching which traced its impulse back to the group in Jerusalem known in the Gospels as the Twelve." From Supplimentary Article No. 1, Earl Doherty.

IF...EXPECT...SYSTEM...TRACED

These words leave much to be desired. Now, I know that Doherty's thesis simply cannot connect all the dots, especially when most of the dots are missing. But he seems to use a great deal of 'ifs', 'should haves', 'could haves', etc., and seems to be looking for things that may or may not have been and working them in. Its like Paleontologists trying to piece together the social habits of dinosaurs. But I have to tell you, he's thought of everything and continues to update. And it's easy to read, for the most part. I'm going to buy the book.

What really gets me though, is that no one has seriously come out to refute Doherty (that I know of).

I'm not going to say I believe Doherty yet...but he certainly has me thinking.

Amaleq13

I agree if it is accepted as authentic but I think there are good reasons to doubt this reference. It seems significant to me that the title "the Lord" is used rather than the name "Jesus". That requires us to assume Paul is essentially saying "the brother of the Risen Christ and pre-existent Son through whom the universe was created." Using the name "Jesus" rather than a post-resurrection title makes more sense within the context of Paul's stated theology. If he believed Jesus had a brother, Paul certainly didn't consider that relationship relevant to Jesus' post-resurrection identity.

I think it is more likely a marginal gloss possibly replacing "the Just".

GakuseiDon

So, Paul has everything he needs to know, which is that Jesus was born of a woman, was crucified, buried and resurrected, correct? So why does Doherty insist that Paul should have mentioned further details of Jesus's life if He had been historical?

Indeed. We know details of their actions, and esp about their deaths, which usually form the most significant part of the myths. So why is Jesus any different?

Imagine Paul preaching to gentiles, and saying: "Christ was born of a woman!" Isn't someone going to ask "WHO!?! What was her name?" (Shades of "Life of Brian"!). Paul said "And the Christ was crucified and was buried". Isn't someone going to ask: "WHERE?!? Mt Olympus? Sheol?" How is Paul going to respond? "It doesn't matter"?

EXACTLY! Paul used what was enough - that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected. Paul focus was on a Jesus who transcended His Jewish roots, as can be seen esp in Galatians.

Doherty can't have it both ways. If there are elements of historicity that Paul should have mentioned if he believed there was a HJ, then there are elements of historicity that he should have mentioned if there was a MJ - like the revelations. Weren't the early apostles actually speaking to the Christ, even if it was through visions? Then why the lack of details?

I've never heard that before. Which Christians of the time claimed that Jesus was not crucified?

But didn't you say that what Paul knew was enough? So why would he do those things? That is the criticism that Holding makes - that Doherty asserts that Paul should have done certain things or mentioned certain things, but doesn't back it up with any hard data.

In fact, we don't see that. There is a large overlap in the mid to late 2nd C where Christian apologists don't refer to a HJ, even though the details must have been available.