maryhelena

And the options are?

1) The gospel writers made these references up.
2) The specific reference is to an event in the life of the assumed historical JC
3) The specific reference relates to an element in the life of a historical figure that was deemed to be relevant for the gospel writers.

Earl Doherty:


There is nothing within the ahistoricist/mythicist position that denies that historical figures were relevant to the creation of the gospel JC figure.

Consequently, option 3) is the far more reasonable position to take - elements from the life stories of historical figures have been used by the gospel writers in the creation of their JC figure.

It is real life stories that can add color and interest to fictional characters. And, Ted, if this was not what the gospel writers have done with their JC - then there is no way that their JC story could have had the legs to travel. Hearing the gospel JC story in the early years - years when history of the gospel date stamp was fresh in the minds of people - then people would be able to say - ah, I remember that, that was what so and so did, that was what happened to so and so. If there was no historical anchor - no, not just tradition and stores but history; historical events that were well known - then the JC gospel story would never have been able to get off the ground.

The gospel story 'sold' because it reflected - as Earl puts it - some familiar concepts in real life. No, not a nobody preacher of no consequence - but historical figures with influence in the wider social/political world.

Yes, as time went on and historical memories faded - then the gospel JC would lose that anchor to history. JC would become viewed as historical. The gospel historical 'reflection' would come to be viewed as the historical image.

Almost 2000 years later - and we have the tools today to check our premises. Historical research and evolutionary theory has challenged much of what is in the OT. The NT can't escape the forward push for understanding its story in the light of modern thinking.

GakuseiDon

That's a curious comment, Vork. Doherty DID mention it, and used it as support for his ideas. That's why you'll find Neil Godfrey, Doug Shaver and other supporters are interested in Dillon's book "The Middle Platonists". Because Doherty has referenced it in the past as one of his sources.

And keep in mind that non-theists like Gibson and O'Neill (Doherty believes that his atheist dissenters to his theories "tend to be among those who react against myself and mythicism with the greatest amount of vitriol and animosity") have picked him up on these points as well.

Why not join in on the investigation? That is, see whether Doherty is right or wrong?

GakuseiDon

:huh: Well, that and also because Doherty has claimed the beliefs of Middle Platonists for support.

I'm not sure where that leaves us, Vork. If we investigate whether Doherty is right or wrong on his claims about Middle Platonists, we are chasing a red herring, and his theories aren't affected if he is wrong. If we investigate and find out Doherty is right, then his theories are supported.

I've already done the investigation (I'm interested in early pagan beliefs for their own sake), so I know where investigation will lead. But what do you recommend to Doug Shaver and any others who are interested in seeing whether Doherty's comments on Middle Platonism are accurate or not? Should they investigate?

GakuseiDon

Thanks, DCH.

GakuseiDon

Is it possible that Paul's writings are not inconsistent with a high-context culture, and with what we see elsewhere with regards to "occasional" letters? This is the usual explanation about the silence in Paul. Stanton addresses Wells on this point and in response notes that precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran. We also see the same trend in Second Century writings. And finally Paul provides few historical markers about anything.

AFAICS, Doherty has ruled out this option using argument from incredulity: Paul should have written in a way that we would expect him to have written. Are you aware of Doherty providing any deeper analysis than that?

EarlDoherty

Don, I am not committing myself to any extended discussion with you or Ted. I have been around the track with you particularly, as we all know, many times on this subject, and you have proven yourself to be deliberately devious and misrepresentative of my position, as well as capable of ignoring anything I say in counter-argument or clarification. I will not subject myself and others here to that again.

But I think that before any discussion or “investigation” takes place involving you or Ted (even if I don’t take part in it) about whatever you think my position is on “Middle Platonism” that you need to spell out exactly what it is you maintain I am saying, because everything so far has been totally woolly and too general to get a handle on, and thus impossible to discuss let alone rebut.

So would you like to spell out clearly and in detail what it is you say that I claim about the specific ideas of paganism, and Middle Platonism in particular, as supporting which specific elements of my theory. And if it is all going to simply boil down to “Doherty claims that pagans thought the myths of their savior gods took place in a sublunar realm and I can find no reference to that in the literature, or in John Dillon’s book, and thus he is a fraud and charlatan,” then you will be demonstrating yet again that your criticisms are not only superficial but dishonest, and even fail to address what I have repeatedly said in answer to that particular accusation. If you can’t come up with something more substantial than that, you deserve to be ignored and I for one will ignore you.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

Because it doesn't matter. For two reasons.

Here's why. Let me take a circuitous route.

By the beginning of the 19th century, scientists had already come to understand that species had changed over time. The problem was explaining that change. Models of this change, such as Lamarckism, were proposed. When these ideas were disproved, nobody gave up on the fact of change.

Facts are different from the models that explain these facts.

Similarly, in the US everyone has noted a curious fact, a long-term drop in violent crime. Numerous explanations have been proposed, none has gained widespread currency, as I understand. Nevertheless, the fact of crime decline remains a fact.

Facts are different from the models that explain them.

Doherty has identified a curious fact in Paul: he doesn't know anything about a human being named Jesus. Paul instead seems to be referring to a Cosmic Savior figure, complicated by later interpolation by the usual Christian forgers and fraudsters of the day. Doherty has further proposed a context or a model for understanding that fact that involves a certain understanding of the Middle Platonists.

Doherty's claims about Paul's Jesus are different from his claims about the context in which such a Jesus could have arisen. Even if he is proved totally wrong about the Middle Platonists -- and I have no doubt that sufficient vindictiveness coupled with the usual historicist defender bad faith and appeals to negative sociological judgments about Doherty's thesis can accomplish that -- it means nothing. Paul's obvious worship of a Cosmic Savior figure still remains a fact -- just one that Doherty has failed to adequately contextualize.

But there is another problem with the whole "Middle Platonist turn" that is, I think, more fundamental. Its wrongness doesn't lie in Doherty's or Gibson's understanding of a bunch of second-century intellectuals building fulsomely incorrect fantasies in the sky, but in the very fact that these intellectuals building fantasies in the sky were working with a totally different set of beliefs than the people who converted to early Christinsanity. I doubt very much that the ordinary Joe Wine-Amphorae of the second century thought of his ideas about the way the Cosmos worked in any clear-cut way. Rather, my experience is that ordinary folk beliefs tend to be cheerfully shallow, plastic, syncretic and internally contradictory, all of which the intellectual class finds messy and distasteful (Paul's letters often strike me that way). Such folk beliefs don't make sense to outsiders because consistency is the hobgoblin of intellectuals with the time on their hands to build castles in the air, especially modern westerners for whom internal consistency in moral and intellectual matters is a powerful cultural preference. And from that period of the 1-3 centuries, the Laputans are all we really have.

In other words, using the Middle Platonists as a context for Paul is like GDon of 4000 AD trying to understand the multiverse of Moorcock's Sailor on the Seas of Fate through the lens of the quantum alternate realities proposed in late 20th century physics textbooks. GIGO.

Which is why, though I frequently re-read Doherty, I always skip the discussion about the Middle Platonists. It. just. doesn't. matter.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Earl, I've done the investigation that I feel should be done. I'm happy with my conclusions. The torch has now been passed on to Doug Shaver. Doug, over to you!

Vorkosigan

Of course they are "not inconsistent" with a high context culture! But the Myth/History debate is about the content that high context border is protecting! As for the occasional letters.....

.....the epistles are not occasional letters. They are theological treatises in a sort of epistolary novel form made up of letters hacked and fit together to form longer treatises, and then redacted by the Christian forgery mill.

We see the same trend in second century writings because the historical Jesus had not been created yet.

Yes, of course, Doherty's silences are not merely "there are no concrete references there" but instead go further to note that Paul refrains from mentioning the historical Jesus where the logic of the situation inevitably demands it, as in 1 Cor 7 where he is giving instructions on marriage or in Romans where he says we should listen to the Authorities, god's representatives on earth. These silences resound throughout the Christian literature of the period.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

Please, show where "Paul" described Jesus as a man? There is NO such description in the ENTIRE NT Canon. The Pauline Jesus was described as GOD'S OWN SON.

Please, Galatians 1 does EXIST with the Pauline nonsense.

I did NOT invent the NONSENSE in the Pauline writings.

Ga 1:1 -
Ga 4:4 - The Pauline Jesus had NO human father and was of the seed of God and a woman just like The Synoptic and Johanine Jesus.

Again, you simply cannot show anywhere in the Canonised Pauline writings the HERESY that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father. NEVER.

In effect, you are promoting either propaganda or "Chinese Whispers" when you claim "Paul" described Jesus as a man.

The Pauline Jesus was EQUAL to and in the form of God.

Php 2:6 -