GakuseiDon

I certainly, absolutely and unequivocally agree that mythicists have other points. I'm only looking at "the lack of historical details" part of the argument. I apologise if I have suggested otherwise.

Toto

The modern historicist case depends on claiming that Jesus was a historical figure BUT the early Christians were only interesting in speaking about his cosmic aspects. This is a possibility. In fact, it is the only possibility that is consistent with the surviving literature.



Do examples exist of letter writers dated to the mid first century who include no historical details?

Look at the broader Greco-Roman society and the literature that influenced early Christianity. They tell stories - stories with human interest details. The non-canonical literature is full of the missing details of Jesus' life. The inclination for this sort of story telling is basic to human nature, not confined to modern times.

Once Constantine and his mother became Christians, they started looking for the artifacts of their Lord and Savior's sojourn on earth. The market for these sort of items brought forth a supply of forged relics.

So the modern historicist has a conumdrum - where are the stories from the first or early second century? Are you saying that early Christians from the first and second centuries were so unlike later Christians and so unlike every other society that anthropologists have a record of, that they did not preserve stories and artifacts of their founder?

It is possible that the real historical Jesus was so embarrassing that all details were erased from the historical record. Is that your position?

You can't just throw up your hands and say that you can't explain this, but obviously it doesn't mean that there was no historical Jesus.

Toto

Are you apologizing for this whole thread then?

Toto

Catching up

You seem to assume that the gospels were immediately accepted as history in the modern sense. I don't think this is true.

Ignatius has most likely been heavily interpolated. I have been intrigued with RParvus' hypothesis which identifies Ignatius with the figure Peregrinus who was satirized by Lucian.

No Robots

They did preserve the stories of their founder: that's what the Gospels are. However, there are embarrassing aspects to these stories that lead many of his followers to hesitate to talk much about them to outsiders, or even to other insiders for that matter.

Yellum Notnef

I think the elephants name is Dumbo and he shows up whenever you try to talk about Jesus with Christians.

Ben C Smith

Okay, rephrase: They did this both before and well after the details of the life of Christ were accepted as applying to a real personage as per Justin Martyr.

That is fine. I have a few reservations about Ignatius myself. But then, GDon was just following Doherty, I think.

Ben.

aa5874

Why do you assume Jesus of the NT had followers? What century did Jesus have followers? Why do you think you know what is true in the NT about the supposed Jesus and his so-called followers.

You are just guessing and making stuff up.

Please, provide some historical evidence for your assumptions.

GakuseiDon

Certainly, based on what Paul didn't say. Another possibility (based on what Paul didn't say) is that Paul didn't think that Jesus was historical.

Not that I'm aware of.

Sure, broadening the scope of the literature to pagan sources may weaken the force of my argument. What occasional letters similar to Paul do we have from that time period? I think that is really the next step. But my point here is that comparing First Century writings to Second Century writings shows that Paul is not unique, at least when looking at Christian writings.

I think they preserved as well as made up stories, though the ones that survived were those that provided evidence towards Jesus being the Messiah, i.e. could be backed up by Scriptures. I don't think they preserved artifacts of their founder for various reasons, mainly because they didn't have many to begin with.

All I have is speculation about why they wrote that way. My point is that they did indeed write that way.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the silence in Paul is not just unique to Paul, and in fact we have good reason to believe that later writers who were historicists wrote similarly.

GakuseiDon

No. I suspect that the lack of historical details in Paul's letters is a major part of what convinces mythicists, simply because nearly any thread on historicity brings that point up very quickly. Even in threads that have nothing to do with Paul.

But I'm aware that mythicists have other reasons to suspect there was no historical Jesus:
1. Virgin-born, crucified and resurrected godmen were a dime-a-dozen in those days.
2. Pagans thought that their myths were carried out in an "overlapping dimension".
3. The Jesus story was patterned along astrotheological lines, as were myths worldwide.
4. Eusebius et al forged all the early literature

But this thread is just about what Paul didn't say.

What do you personally think is the strongest argument in favour of mythicism, Toto? And where would you put the lack of historical details in Paul in that list?