ApostateAbe

OK. So, what are your arguments?

EarlDoherty

Yes, and you've tried your best to support your very big "If", and have failed. I've answered that point regularly over the years, including in my recent response to your review. But then, you regularly ignore what I say in rebuttal, and appeal to your preferred method of begging the question, in conjunction with a degree of circularity. Your "if" becomes an assumption, and you use it to 'prove' a similar situation in the first century which goes counter to what that situation actually reveals. The silence in the second century apologists (of course, it's more than a silence, it's an exclusion) is 'reversed' by an unproven and unprovable assumption, and that reversal is used to reverse the silence in Paul. New Testament math: 0 + 0 adds up to a firm number.

You are incorrigible, Don. Always have been, always will be. Just thought it should be pointed out, yet again in a seemingly endless repetition. To that extent, I guess you've achieved your aim.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

There's a very easy way to find out.

After all, you spend how much time and effort here? This is obviously a very important issue to you. You plunk yourself down on FRDB and pontificate about how mythicism is a crock and how you know it all, justifying that pontification. And you're not willing to spend a little money to broaden your knowledge, or at least to confirm to yourself that you're not simply making a fool of yourself through ignorance and faulty understanding?

If that's what you are determined to do, why should I impede you?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

<comment removed>

ApostateAbe

For anyone who is curious, GakeseiDon's review of Earl Doherty's latest book is here:

'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man' by Earl Doherty, Reviewed by GakuseiDon, Jan 2011

GakuseiDon

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I used YOUR statements to support my "big If". I agree with you: there are similarities between the First Century writers and Second Century writers in their silence of a historical Jesus. YOU put it down to that they both had no historical Jesus as their core beliefs. I put it down to that this is how they wrote at that time. I use Tertullian's "Ad nationes" as my example in my review, but there are others as well.

Earl, put it this way: if we had reasonable evidence that those silent Second Century writers had in fact a historical Jesus of some sort at their core belief, would that be relevant to the silence we see in the First Century? Because YOU are the one making the comparison, as I quote you earlier.

So: Second Century silence relevant to First Century silence, yes or no?

GakuseiDon

Hi Vorkosigan. Sure. My reasoning is as follows:

Doherty believes that Tatian, at the time he wrote "Address to the Greeks", was a Christian who didn't have a belief in a historical Jesus.

I think this is an incredible assertion, laughably ridiculous in fact. But I can see why he made it. Tatian doesn't appear to have a historical Jesus in mind in his apology. Tatian, along with other apologists in the Second Century, seems to avoid bringing in any details of a historical Jesus. (I go into details here and here) If Tatian and the other Second Century apologists are all silent and yet were historicists of some sort, this doesn't bode well for Doherty's points on the silence in Paul. So Doherty HAS to present Tatian as some kind of ahistoricist.

There are two ways at looking at this:
1/ Doherty is correct, and these Second Century apologists had no historical Jesus at the core of their Christian beliefs
2/ Doherty is not correct, and these Second Century apologists had some kind of historical Jesus at the core of their Christian beliefs, but for some reason they didn't mention him.

If it is Option 1, then Doherty has discovered a Christianity otherwise unrepresented in the record. This is not even a Pauline 'mythical' Christianity by the way, since it is a "Logos" Christianity that popped up at a time coincidently when Christians like Justin Martyr started introducing the "Christ as Logos" into Christian philosophy.

If it is Option 2, then we need to evaluate what this silence means in terms of how they wrote back then. We need to recognise that what **we** expect they would write is not necessarily how they actually did write back then.

Note that this is only on the question of silence. We also need to look at what the early Christians did write, as well as what they were silent on. It may well be that Doherty kicks goals in that section, such as it out ways his points on the silence. But on the question of the silence, Doherty simply hasn't evaluated the early Christians in terms of the wider literature of the time. As I point out in my review, Doherty frames the silence in terms on what **we** would expect, without examining the literature in terms of how they actually wrote at the time.

Tatian is the perfect litmus case for this. Either you agree that the evidence suggests that Tatian, when he wrote "Address to the Greeks", was some kind of ahistoricist, or you don't. If it is the former, then that's fine: you have to agree that Doherty is on the right track. If it is the latter, then you need to look deeper into the other writers of that period, and see how that impacts on the significance Doherty lays on early 'silence' in early Christian writings.

So, Vorkosigan, my question for you is this: Is Doherty on the right track with his views of Tatian's beliefs when Tatian wrote "Address to the Greeks"? Is Tatian silent because he doesn't believe in any historical Jesus, or does the evidence suggest he was some kind of historicist but he was silent anyway?

Toto

You're the one who thinks there is some sort of pattern to be discovered.

Who would you take as comparable to Jesus? Does anyone write about Apollonius of Tyana and not include some human details? I can't think of any classical work about any person that does not include details of that person, or for that matter any work on a god that does not include stories.

GakuseiDon

Toto, you said that "Are there any other religious writings that honor an individual but avoid mentioning any identifying details about him?". What are you comparing the writings about Apollonius of Tyana against? The Gospels, or the letters of Paul?

aa5874

Apollonius of Tanya was claimed to have HUMAN parents but Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost in the Gospels and "Paul" ONLY SAW the Resurrected Jesus.

If persons described as human may be myth--Jesus is in an even far worse position.

1. No body knew WHEN Jesus was born except God, the angel and the Magi in gMatthew.

2. No body knew WHERE Jesus was born except God, the angel, and the Magi in gMatthew.

3. No body knew Jesus fled to Egypt except God and the angel in gMatthew

4. No body knew WHERE Jesus was LOCATED in Egypt except God and the angel in gMatthew.

5. Gods and angels are NOT known to exist and NOT known to have actual knowledge of anything other than mythology.

Please be REMINDED that even if Jesus was described as human that such description does NOT exclude Jesus from being a MYTH character. Many Many Myth characters of antiquity were described as human.

The very Apollonius of Tyana may ALSO be MYTH.