Steven Carr

There seems to be a pattern in this thread.

People praise Wright's work, say it answers all Doherty's points and is not just a work of apologetics.

They are then asked questions as to what is Wright's answer to a,b and c.

We get silence back.

Makes you want to rush out and buy the book, doesn't it?

Toto

I don't think Olson has missed this point at all.

I am amazed at how apologists can twist any argument against them.

Do you honestly think that secular scholars start out with the assumption that the central claims of Christianity are false, and invent the idea that there were no miracles in order to explain the documents? Is it not more likely that scholars try to start out without any such assumptions, but find no hard evidence to support the historical claims of Christianity (whether they are central or not?)

GakuseiDon

Well... my comments to Vork were based on his astounding comment that Tatian wasn't a follower of Jesus Christ (either MJer or HJer) when he wrote the "Address to the Greeks". But I'm interested in Doherty's reply.

I don't blame Doherty for being so speculative. The number of documents available from that period is limited. But a ton of speculation must fall before an ounce of fact.

So, Doherty has a separate "non-sacrifical" stream for Tatian. If they don't mention the terms "Jesus" or "Christ", then it is still not a problem for MJers, since they belong to a different stream.

What then, does he make of Justin Martyr's Hortatory to the Greeks? (Note: this is generally regarded as not authored by Justin, but by a later writer). In it, like in Tatian, we see constant references to the Word and lengthy attacks on Greek mythology, and no mention of crucifixion, burial, etc. But there is one exception: at the very end of the letter, in the concluding paragraph, the writer associates the Word with Jesus Christ, and asks the reader to examine the prophecies "concerning all those things which were to be done by Him".

Now, Doherty may very well regard this as an MJer tract. But the similarity of this letter to Tatian's is remarkable, except that the letter writer was a follower of "Jesus Christ", who did "all those things", though nothing is mentioned in the letter. But why not? It seems that this is already known by the readers. Even if this isn't a reference to the Gospels, it is a reference to a body of knowledge about "Jesus Christ" - none of which is mentioned in the letter.

Doherty is simply wrong here. There is no movement from "Logos Christ" to "historical Christ" in the Dialogue with Trypho, so it is no wonder that he doesn't characterise this as moving to a different religion.

What we have is a philosopher who tells how he is convinced through philosophical dialogue, before going on to explain to the Jew Trypho how this all fits in philosophically and prophetically with Judaism.

What Doherty misses out on is that the old man who converts Justin does indeed seem to tell Justin about Christ:

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present (Note from GDon: he is addressing Trypho here in the Dialogue - he talks about the life of Jesus later), he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour."

Does a neo-Platonic Justin display any surprise when he learns that the Divine Word that he came to believe in from the old man turns out to have been bodily incarnated? No. There is nothing in the Dialogue. There is no further revelation, no further discovery of information. Doherty says that "his interpretation of it [Christianity] has evolved", but there is nothing to suggest that, only Doherty's speculation. For Doherty, Justin goes from believing in the Logos, to the Logos incarnated without comment.

Doherty seems to be saying that because Justin didn't say that the old man didn't mention the Gospels in that part of his letter, that he must have come to believe in an MJ initially. What is his reasoning for that? Are there clues elsewhere in the Dialogue. Not that I can see.

Is there any reason why the old man didn't discuss the "words of the Saviour" with Justin? None that I can see.

This is just Justin's literary style. First he shows how he was convinced through philosophical arguments, then how this applies to the OT, then finally details about the historical Jesus.

Evidence tells us that Tatian was a student of Justin Martyr, and a member of the church in Rome. Tatian actually refers to Justin in his Address to the Greeks:
Justin (a HJer) proclaiming the truth!!! How likely is it that a Logos believer could be a student of someone who believes that the Logos incarnated and became a human being and still claim that he "proclaimed the truth".

Maybe this wasn't about "the truth about the historical Jesus"? Compare the above with what Justin himself says about Crescens in his Second Apology
So the problem with Crescens is about Christianity after all. Remember, in this letter there is no doubt that Justin is a HJer. An ounce of evidence...

Lots of "ifs" and "seems" here. As I said, I don't blame Doherty for speculating, but he also needs to look at what evidence we do have, and how that corresponds to those authors.

I'm not an inerrantist, and I'm happy to agree with Doherty here. But it all comes down to evidence.

What does the evidence show?

The "Logos" was a term applied to a "historical" Jesus in the Gospel of John. So such a term was used fairly early about a historical Jesus (from 100 CE).

In the Hortatory to the Greeks, the author concentrates on Greek mythology, and refers only to the Word - except right at the end, when without other explanation, the author associates the Word with "Jesus Christ, Our Saviour". He said that this Jesus did "many (other) things", but doesn't feel compelled to mention them. He doesn't mention the crucifixion or resurrection either, so we see that there were writers who discussed religion on almost pure philosophical terms, even though believers in Jesus (either MJ or HJ).

Finally, Tatian was a student of Justin, a confirmed HJer. Certainly Tatian knew Justin, and regarded that he spoke "the truth". Yet in his Address to the Greeks, he doesn't even mention "Jesus" and "Christ", but concentrates on convincing through philosophical examination of Greek mythology, and refers only to the Word, or Logos.

There is no doubt that there were competing streams of Christianity for the first few centuries, and they were bumping heads with Greek philosophical positions, from Paul's letters to the Gentiles to Tatian's Address to the Greeks. Using a little speculation of my own, all it shows is that there were various streams of Christianity, some devoted to a more human Jewish Jesus (Jerusalem Group), some devoted to a more Logos oriented Risen Jesus (Paul) and others like the Gnostics (Marcion, who believed that Jesus wasn't born of a woman, but appeared on Earth fully formed).

the_cave

Sorry to reply when you're so busy, Vork--I just wanted to get a comment in.
Fine, I'm willing to accept that scenario as a possibility (I have no idea whether it's true.) However, that doesn't tell us whether the "historicist wing" was an accurate reflection of the past or not. It's actually a separate issue, it seems to me.

Vorkosigan

Don, this is really out of bounds. First, you misread my comment. I never claimed that Tatian was not a follower of Jesus Christ, whatever version, when he authored the Address to the Greeks. Rather, I kept demanding from you evidence that he was. There is no evidence from that text that allows one to conclude that he worshipped Jesus Christ in any form. So not only have I not made the "astounding" claim you attribute to me, you have not submitted any evidence that would entitle you to term any claim I make "astounding." You cannot win with rhetoric what you have lost by logic and evidence.

Don, there is no evidence for this. You cannot blithely leap from claim to claim as though in some bizarre game of historical Donkey Kong. There is no evidence that the Gospel of John dates from so early. And before you say it, p52 probably dates from mid-century or later, not before, as recent redatings have shown. See Schnelle.

Speaking of evidence, there is still no evidence that Tatian was an HJer. You cannot link Tatian to Justin and then claim that Tatian was some kind of JustinBot. My advisor in my doctoral program was a political scientist interested in evironmentalism who has never left the US, but my doctoral work is in small business and technology in Taiwan. My wife's guru believed in the supernatural but my wife does not, though she studied with him for many years. Yet both the teachers above taught "truth."

Very likely. Here's a clue, Don: what happened to Tatian after Justin died?

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Yes, like most threads on this site, nonsence becomes accepted because it is repeated endlessly until those who would classify it as such get fed up and stop responding.

I don't think it "answers" all Doherty's 'questions'... that would suggest that Wright believes Doherty actually raises valid questions that require answers. Wright, following most other scholars of today, dismisses the Jesus myth thesis out of hand.

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
-the Atheist/Agnostic historian Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, 1992.

You can't even interpret a lack of response correctly, and you think people should trust your judgement on bigger issue such as the existence of God?

Toto

luvluv started this thread because he thought that if the Jesus Mythers would just read Wright, they would find (somewhere) the answers to Doherty's prima facie case (as Carrier recognized) that there was no historical Jesus. Now you're telling us that he has nothing new to say because he doesn't even take the issue seriously enough to address it.

Tercel, I've read Grant, and he has no basis for that conclusion. He doesn't list the first class scholars who have answered or anihilated the JM position, and no one ever has, because there are no first class scholars who have any decent answer. He's just repeating what "everybody knows".

You have not shown that Carr has interpreted the lack of response incorrectly, but in any case, no one is asking you to trust anyone's judgment on the existence of God.

Layman

Quite the circular logic there, Toto. How many scholarly refutations of the Jesus Myth have you read before today?

Just judging from when he wrote, perhaps Grant had Shirley J. Case, Fred C. Conybeare, Maurice Goguel, and Herbert Wood, in mind. At least their credentials seem in order.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm

Toto

Pardon? What is circular about that? And it is nice of you to remedy Grant's omissions, although I am not convinced that you can read his mind.

I have read RT France, one of the more recent authorities that you mention on Bede's site (but not here), and his refutation was entirely unconvincing. He admitted that historical sources outside the gospels are not especially convincing, and rests his case on the gospels as history. I have glanced at Case, but his case seems to be based primarily on the authenticity of the Pauline letters and of his interpretation of them. Again, rather unconvincing.

Most of your sources argue against particular versions of the Jesus Myth, and they may be correct in their criticisms. But they do not establish a positive case for the existence of Jesus.

Layman

Since you admit that you have not read the refutations of the Jesus Myth by leading scholars you must assume they they are ineffective.

I did not claim to have read his mind. I was merely pointing out that there existed plenty of refutations of the Jesus Myth at the time he wrote. Since I am more inclined to believe that such an imminent scholar as Grant knows what he is talking about, rather than simply making it up as you assume, I merely wanted to point out that he would have had access to a number of qualitity refutations of the Jesus Myth by leading scholars. There is no need to assume he made it all up.

Actually, France does quite a good job of responding to Well's half-informed attacks on the Gospels. I admit he spends little time on the Pauline evidence.

Actually, he concludes that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic and derives from an earlier Jewish source.

I did more than just glance at Case, and found him rather perusasive, if a tad dated. Of course, I thought Gogel was the best of the older bunch.

Since you have not read them I'm not inclined to take this last staement very seriously. Not that such is a change in my approach to Totoisms.