MrMacSon

You reckon?

Most Christian doctrine would say it was a human form of God, as irrational as that is.

EmmaZunz

There's a difference between authorial intention and reader's interpretation.

Of course the Gospels can be interpreted as historicist. If you read what I said, I agree the Gospels were intended as non-historicist.

GakuseiDon

How can it be contrived, when EmmaZunz has stated that there are examples of literature doing that very thing?

The problem is that this tends to get ignored. But Doherty's analysis on this question is so laughably bad, even Richard Carrier (seven years ago, but I confirmed by email that he hasn't changed his view) wrote of it as one of Doherty's "wilder flights of fancy". Here is the context (my emphasis):
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=59493&page=30

I took his book as making the case that they weren't much interested in the historical Jesus but interested in a mystical one known through revelation, who had a primarily cosmic role, which is IMO true (for those he discusses), but compatible (to my mind, but apparently not Doherty's) with their believing in a historical Jesus. This is just one of many major quarrels I have with Doherty. IMO, if we stick to his core argument, and ignore his wilder flights of fancy like this one, his case stands up much better.

Toto, Carrier gives you a reason right there: they weren't much interested in the historical Jesus, but interested in Jesus who had "a primarily cosmic role" which is still "compatible with their believing in a historical Jesus". It is only since we tend to look at Christianity through a lens of 1800 years of the Gospel Jesus that it is hard (even for mythicists!) to consider a view where earliest Christians had such a view. But this is exactly examining the early literature tells us.

Toto, why not investigate this together? Let's start with the Epistle of Barnabas. Doherty gives a date range of 90 CE to 125 CE. Are you okay with that? Was the author someone who was aware of traditions of the historical Jesus, in your view? If so:

(1) Assuming the author was aware of traditions of the historical Jesus, how much would you expect the author to have written about the historical Jesus, and
(2) How much did the author actually write?

GakuseiDon

EmmaZunz, how do you suggest that we test that possibility? As I wrote earlier, the first step is not trying to look at early Christianity through a lens of 1800 years of the Gospel Jesus. Then we need to see if we have actual examples of that very thing: people who had little interest in a historical Jesus, while still being aware of him. Don't we find that in the Epistle of Barnabas?

My view is that, until the Gospels and NT epistles became authoritative in their own right towards the end of the Second Century, the primarily item of conversion were the Hebrew Scriptures, and not the Gospels.

You write of Justin Martyr, for example, as unambiguously believing in a HJ. There is no doubt about it. But what actually converted him to Christianity? Was it stories of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus? Or was it reading the Hebrew Scriptures? Justin tells us in "Dialogue with Trypho". As Doherty explains ("Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", page 491) (my bolding below):

In Justin's account of his conversion, the philosopher by the sea has not a word to say about Jesus of Nazareth, nor about any incarnation of the Son. In chapter 7 the old man is speaking about "teachers" of the philosophy of body and soul they have been discussing. Justin asks if it is best to employ one, seeing that so many pagan philosophers have, in the old man's view, been deficient in their insights. In answer, the latter points to the Hebrew prophets "who spoke by the Divine Spirit" and foretold events that are now happening...

Here, in a specific discussion of teachers of the truth, the historical Christ on earth is not mentioned. In fact, the old philosopher has just said, in pointing to the Hebrew prophets, "These alone both saw and announced the truth to men" (my emphasis). They have been put forward as the opposite to the deficient pagan philosophers; yet there is no sign of Jesus as the prime example in this regard. The old man has even disparaged "false prophets" who seek to astonish men with miracles without offering a qualification for the miracle-working Jesus.

As Doherty put it in TJP: "Where is Jesus of Nazareth in all this? The old philosopher had not a word to say about him, nor about any incarnation of the Son." And he is right!

For Doherty, the reason is that Justin initially converted to a Christianity that had no historical Jesus at its core.

For me, it is another clear example of what we see in early Christian literature, before the Gospels became authoritative. "Jesus of Nazareth" was not the focus; it was (as Carrier put it) the "cosmic Jesus".

jdl

Your conclusion is based on the fact that you haven't read the detailed published works of mythicists. Are you going to try to defend that?

There don't need to be. It's sufficient for the current version of a document to offer indications of an earlier stage of belief.

The purpose of this thread is for you to condescend to people whom you simultaneously expect to do your homework for you.

You said:
I replied directly and appropriately to what you asked.

Toto

What examples?

This is what I think is contrived: You have some early writers that you think believe that there was a historical Jesus, but they don't say anything to confirm that. So you decide, voila! they must not be interested in the historical Jesus! Problem solved - even though you can't figure out why they would not be.

Er, there is a big difference between bad analysis and flights of fancy. "Bad" implies some logical error. "Flights of fancy" only implies using one's imagination to fill in the gaps in the record.

I'd need more context to unravel this, and I can't locate that post without a better reference.

Carrier doesn't seem to agree with you that there probably was a historical Jesus. I don't see a good case for an entire society being interested in a cosmic Jesus and not caring a bit about his human form.

I don't see the point. The author of this epistle, if it was written that late, might have known of "traditions" or might have known of fake history, but what does that have to do with actual history?

GakuseiDon

I'm saying that they appear to be aware of a historical Jesus, but they aren't interested in him. Their interest is in confirming his credentials as a cosmic Jesus through reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. And that's what the literature itself tells us. Why not go through one of these examples together to see if that is the case?

Again, I'm saying that they appear to be aware of a historical Jesus, but they aren't interested in him. Their interest is in confirming his credentials as a cosmic Jesus through reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. And that's what the literature itself tells us. That's the "why".

Let's look together at either of the examples I've already brought up: The Epistle of Barnabas, or the conversion of Justin Martyr. Why don't we examine either of these in detail, and study this for ourselves?

Let's start with the Epistle of Barnabas. Doherty gives a date range of 90 CE to 125 CE. Are you okay with that? Was the author someone who was aware of traditions of the historical Jesus, in your view? If so:

(1) Assuming the author was aware of traditions of the historical Jesus, how much would you expect the author to have written about the historical Jesus, and
(2) How much did the author actually write?

Vorkosigan

Don, that's Earl's case, right there. Except for the faith statement that the First Ones were not interested in the HJ, you've summed up the evidence admirably.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Yep. Thank you. I agree that the evidence is clear. Once Toto agrees, we can start looking at the implications in the other early Christian literature.

Vorkosigan

We can discuss Barnabas in light of your (2) above, but (1) is not supportable.

The date of Barnabas is more interesting. I'd say that, like Mark, it dates from Hadrian's reign just/at the outset of the war and the comment that the servants of the enemy will rebuild the temple is the kind of false prophecy that "Daniel" was making; the writer knew the Romans were rebuilding the temple.