Originally Posted by Steven Carr

My first impressions could be wrong though, but it is interesting that Bart wrote peer-reviewed articles questioning the identification of Simon Peter and Cephas, and can now write that they are 'of course' the same person, even though he himself wrote scholarly articles arguing that they may very well not have been the same person.

Should he hide his own views from the readers of this book?

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I wouldn't claim that the denial of the historical Jesus is just as unreasonable as the denial of the Holocaust, but the degree of difference between the probabilities is not important. If not for Godwin's Law, it would be a helpful comparison all the same. Mythicism, like holocaust denial, is a position of skepticism of a powerful historical conclusion, a skepticism characterized by improbable ad hoc explanations for all points of evidence, it is ideologically driven, the advocates either lack a positive explanation of the historical evidence or they are variously scattered in their explanations (most holocaust "deniers" merely take the holocaust to be not as severe as historians believe), and they take everyone else to be ideologically deceived. The evidence for a human Jesus is not as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, but the case is strongly conclusive all the same.

Originally Posted by hjalti

What do you mean by it being a "powerful historical conclusion"?

I don't think it's characterized by "improbable ad hox explanations for all points of evidence" at all! Even if you think it is too ad hoc, don't you at least admit that you're overstating the case here? "for all points of evidence"? I think that both HJ and MJ have some of the evidence that doesn't fit as well into the theory, e.g. how does HJ explain Romans 13?

And sure, some mythicists are probably ideologically driven, but I don't think that's the basis for a generalization. I really don't think that people like Price and Carrier take the MJ position because they hate Christianity. The Jesus that I think is the most effective against Christianity if Jesus the failed end-of-the-world-prophet.

Historicists are also "variously scattered in their explanations" of the evidence. :huh

Originally Posted by hjalti

What do you mean by it being a "powerful historical conclusion"?

Originally Posted by hjalti

I don't think it's characterized by "improbable ad hox explanations for all points of evidence" at all! Even if you think it is too ad hoc, don't you at least admit that you're overstating the case here? "for all points of evidence"? I think that both HJ and MJ have some of the evidence that doesn't fit as well into the theory, e.g. how does HJ explain Romans 13?

Originally Posted by hjalti

And sure, some mythicists are probably ideologically driven, but I don't think that's the basis for a generalization. I really don't think that people like Price and Carrier take the MJ position because they hate Christianity. The Jesus that I think is the most effective against Christianity if Jesus the failed end-of-the-world-prophet.

Originally Posted by hjalti

Historicists are also "variously scattered in their explanations" of the evidence. :huh

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....They are somewhat divided in the teachings of the historical Jesus, but they are unified in the biographical basics. Mythicists, like other fringe theorists, don't have anything approaching consensus on the barest basics.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, what is it about Romans 13 that needs an explanation?

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So commentaries on Romans skip over that chapter with the words 'This chapter needs no explanation.'?

Originally Posted by hjalti

The theory strongly expects the evidence? Haven't you read scholars wondering about the puzzling silence of Paul?

Originally Posted by hjalti

How can a man who thinks that the government executed the innocent son of god say that the government only punishes the evil-doer and so on?

Originally Posted by hjalti

So you think that the cause is that mythicists have a bias against the bible, well, that might be, but that isn't the same as being "ideologically driven". I.e. they aren't mythicists because they want to debunk Christianity. Seriously, do you think that it's better to use mythicism rather than the doomsday-Jesus when "debunking" Christianity?

Originally Posted by hjalti

Ah...the biographical basics being: executed by Pontius Pilate?

Originally Posted by Don

Let's be clear on what you are claiming:
• Tatian and co were members of a self-described Christianity that had no historical or (Pauline) mythical "Jesus Christ" at its core.
• These Christians complained about being persecuted for their name. The accusations against these Christians were the same kinds of accusations made against the historicist Christians at the time.
• Some of these Christians portrayed themselves as members of a group that was wide-spread
• Some of these Christians portrayed themselves as members of a group which pronounced their Christianity to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers.
• Some of these Christians wrote in the second half of the Second Century
• There are no direct references to such a Christianity in the writings of extant contemporary heresiologists.
• if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers.
Does that accurately portray your position?

Originally Posted by Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.499-500

Although Philo of Alexandria was building to some extent on predecessors, he is a handy figure from which we can trace a theoretical line of development (though not one confined to him) from the beginnings of an intermediary Son philosophy to a Logos religion in the 2nd century. The latter has bypassed or ignored the paraphernalia that has been attached to it in other quarters [e.g., in Paul & Co.] and taken its own place on the 2nd century stage, capable of presenting itself to the emperors and pagans in general as the proper “Christian” religion. The essence of it is the Logos as revealer, the intermediary channel to God, enabling one to be “saved.” As Justin has put it in relating his conversion experience: “If you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God…you may become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated, live a happy life.” Justin’s ‘initiation’ no doubt refers to a rite of admission, probably a baptism.

An expression of that religion is found not only in the well-known apologists of the 2nd century, but in a little document lurking lonely and largely ignored on the sidelines in most examinations of the documentary record: the Discourse to the Greeks erroneously attributed by ancient commentators to Justin Martyr. It epitomizes the two elements I have accorded to the 2nd century circles we can see represented by the apologists. The first four chapters are devoted to a strong denunciation of the divine mythologies of the pagans and the immorality they give rise to. The fifth and final chapter offers the alternative:

Henceforth, ye Greeks, come and partake of incomparable wisdom, and be instructed by the Divine Word, and acquaint yourselves with the King immortal.…For our own Ruler, the Divine Word [logos], who even now constantly aids us, does not desire strength of body and beauty of feature, nor yet the high spirit of earth’s nobility, but a pure soul, fortified by holiness, and the watchwords of our King, holy actions, for through the Word power passes into the soul….The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals gods; and from the earth transports them to the realms above Olympus. Come, be taught; become as I am, for I, too, was as ye are. These have conquered me—the divinity of the instruction, and the power of the Word….the Word drives the fearful passions of our sensual nature from the very recesses of the soul….Lust being once banished, the soul becomes calm and serene. And being set free from the ills in which it was sunk up to the neck, it returns to Him who made it. For it is fit that it be restored to that state whence it departed, whence every soul was or is. [ANF]

This is hardly speaking of Jesus of Nazareth. The Word/Logos is an entirely spiritual entity, worthy of worship: not the bowing-down kind, but a reverence of morality, guidance and perfection, and a knowledge of the true and estimable God. While the Logos has become more personalized, this is a natural outgrowth of Philonic philosophy, and it is in the same vein as so much of what we find in the apologists, including aspects of Justin. Chapter 10 of Book 2 of Theophilus is a thorough definition of the Logos along the lines of Greek philosophy but with an input from Jewish personified Wisdom (he quotes from Proverbs). This exalted description of a cosmic Son and Word—“the Spirit of God begat within God’s own bowels, a helper in the things created by Him, governing principle who is Lord of all things fashioned by himself”—not only lacks an identification with a Jesus of Nazareth, it would strike any reader as ludicrous to encounter such an identification of this divine spirit force with a human man.

For these believers, the Logos was the antidote to the base mythology of paganism. Remember that this broad trend of belief is rooted in Judaism, appealing to Jewish concepts and especially the scriptures. Apologist after apologist says that it was the Jewish scriptures that determined their beliefs and orientation, and that led to their conversion (thus identifying themselves as being ethnically non-Jewish, though there may well have been Jews in the movement). Thus the adoption of a term like “Christ” and “Christ-follower” (Christian, as Theophilus defines it in relation to ‘anointing’) would be in keeping with that foundation. It has become a widely-used term for the Logos in the movement as a whole. It is part of many of its members’ inherent opposition to their own pagan traditions and especially to the mythology of their traditional gods. This is why the most prominent aspect of so many apologetic writings is an attack on the old Greek and Roman mythology. The Logos-followers have an undying disdain for it all. Not only do they see it as ridiculous, it compromises morality and intellectual integrity. They would like nothing better than to pull down the whole rotten structure. To replace it, they offer the Jewish God, but he is a God that can only be approached and understood through the Logos, the “intermediary Son,” and thus the Logos itself becomes a central object of faith and even worship.

Originally Posted by Don

No, that's Carrier's position. He wasn't ascribing this position to you.