the_cave

So which one did I get right?

Actually, I put a lot of thought into who might be included on the list. You asked for 10 late-1st century Christians who believed in an HJ. I think it's clear the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John did. I argue that whoever wrote the passion narrative did as well. I argue that whoever wrote the signs gospel did as well. I argue that whoever wrote Q in its final form did as well. And I argue that the author of the Gospel of Thomas did. Papias, Clement, and Ignatius were all alive in the late 1st century--and they all seem to say things about an HJ in their writings (even if they wrote later). I don't deny there are arguments you could make against these examples--by all means, make them if you wish. You simply asked for 10 examples, and I gave them.

Amaleq13

At the risk of being accused of being a traitor to the mythicist camp, I'm not convinced that the absence of location veneration in early Christian writings can be considered relevant. That is still part of this thread, right?

Within the context of an historical Jesus:

No tomb veneration because the idea of a tomb is a Gospel creation. The actual fate of the body was probably unknown and, assuming (wisely, IMHO) that Joseph of Arimathea is a fabrication to specifically deny that ignorance, the body probably ended up rotting in a common grave while the Disciples went into hiding.

No veneration of the location of the crucifixion because that is just plain creepy. Also, if Jesus was crucified, it was because he was convicted of sedition which supports the Gospel claim that the Disciples took off at the arrest. Nobody friendly to Jesus witnessed the crucifixion (again, the portrayal of certain female followers or even the "beloved Disciple" as being present are fabrications to deny this ignorance) so no specific location could be identified aside from "Golgotha". In addition, given an execution for sedition, gathering at the site of that execution would probably not be seen favorably by the paranoid Romans. Sounds like a great way to obtain one's own cross!

What else is there for an early Christian to venerate?

IMHO, I'm satisfied that the earliest Christians could have been too focused on the rapidly approaching End Times to worry about any earthly locations enough to cement them in the community memory banks. By the time this "gold rush" excitement about the imminent End Times had diminished enough to allow Christians to focus on more worldly concerns, nobody had any credible information about specific locations.

Lack of early veneration seems to work within both contexts given the above assumptions.

Ted Hoffman

Angels are mythical beings - just like dragons. And the IPU.
OTOH, you could define what a "historical figure" means.

Does he state categorically that Jesus rose from the dead?

My argument was that he doesnt mention Jesus. Because (a)he knew of no Jesus or (b) he disbelieved the story of Jesus.

A Christian apologist arguing about Christianity without mentioning Jesus is very suspicious indeed. Its only comparable to someone talking about a wedding without mentioning the bride / groom.

The Son of God - thats exactly my point. There was a son of God, yet there was no Jesus. This is like Sophia in Proverbs - a personification of wisdom. This son of god, as found in Shepherd, Odes of Solomon etc, is the mould that a HJ was fabricated to fill.

It means Tatian either rejected the concept, or was embarrased to mention it.
If a HJ was factual, there would have been no reason to be mum about him and not invoke his life and deeds as evidence of the potency of the word of God - over those of Hercules etc.

We have students who disagree with their mentors all the time. IIRC, even Vernon K. Robbins' greatest critic is a former student of his.

CJD,
Would you characterise such a person as historical?

At the simplest level, 'myth' means 'not historical'. If aeons qualify as 'historical' to you, by all means, add them in your list of historical people.

However strongly Marcion believed in spiritual beings and their power and influence in the lives of men, they remained and remain mthical today. The strength of a belief does not confer historicity upon imagined characters.
Comprendre?
I know . It must be fun.
Attis too. Even had sex. Semele even gave birth - remember? Those were definitely historical figures.

The point is whether or not Marcion's beliefs concering the nature of Jesus are consistent with what we would characterize as historical.
The point is whether Marcionites could have had the luxury of choosing what to believe if the existence of a HJ was a brute fact.
The point is whether non-physical beings in our plane of existence exist.
The point is whether a sweating, dusty, historical flesh and blood Jesus was acceptable to Marcionites as a pure spirit.
I could ask you the same question except I don't have the luxury of seeing it as an intelligent question.

Nobody said he did.

I dont know about the rest but I will personally have some pizza. Since you are now dabbling in prophecizing. Will Doherty respond to Vinnie's post?
Stop crying. Dry your eyes.
Stop whining.
There was no JM. Sorry to break this to you.

They are.
But only after they were invented.

The answer is that its a wrong question.
Doherty states:
Doherty is concerned about the 1st century christians and writers: those that were closest to the events that took place.

Origen, Tertullian and the 2nd century apologists were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and had no strong emotional bonds to these sites. Most of them actually converted to Christianity. Its possible that they were in it for the wealth, power, status and prestige that came with being a christian - since it was the official religion then.

If people do not visit ground zero for 2 years after 911, that would be surprising. And may need an explanation. But people failing to visit it centuries later would be hardly surprising.

Thats the argument.

And its a minute argument. Not even in the 12 pieces of the Jesus puzzle.

Amaleq13

Would it still be surprising if there existed a related early belief that the destruction of the buildings heralded the imminent approach of The End where all "true believers" would be raised up into heaven?

CX

Please let's refrain from one line rhetorical comments.

Thanks.

CX - BC&H Moderator

Layman

JA, it is unbelievable to me that you think Marcion's beliefs about Jesus are consisten with Doherty's picture of the early Christians. All it shows me is that you once again do not really understand what you are talking about. You did not even know what the "Marcionite controversy" was? Now you KNOW it's consisent with the JM?

Marcion believed Jesus walked the earth. That he performed miracles on the earth. That he had disciples on the earth. That he taught others on the earth.

He believed Jesus landed on planet earth at a specific place and time. From his own gospel:

He performed exocricims in Galilee:

He travelled to places to teach, such as Nazareth:

He called men such as Peter and James to be his disciples:


There is much more, which Peter Kirby has kindly gathered together in one place:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

So, yes, Marcion believed Jesus was a historical person. He places him at specific geographical locations at a specific time duing specific things.

None of which are consistent with Doherty's "lower celestial realm" approach.

CX

Let's refrain from personal comments and stick to substantive replies.

Thanks.

CX - BC&H Moderator

CX

I have to agree with Layman vis-a-vis Marcion. Marcion's conception of a spiritual Jesus is not consistent with the JM thesis. Marcion believed and taught that an actual Jesus was present at a real point in history and was witnessed by actual human beings. That he conceived of the earthly Jesus as a wholly spiritual entity and his humanity as an illusion does not in anyway detract from his belief in an Historical Jesus in contrast to the picture of Jesus as a wholly mythical figure who did not interact in a tangible way with earthly human history advanced by Jesus myth proponents.

Vinnie

First, I am happy with your overall stance but I have a few minor qualms:

1) One cannot assume that one knew the spot where Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a pubic act aimed at deterrence.

2) As part of viewing the tomb as non-historical I have to view the details about JofA burying Jesus as non-historical but that doesn't mean denying there were or were not women present ("watching from a distance") during the act of crucifixion.

3) Jesus might not have been convicted of sedition against Rome. If this was Jesus' crime one is forced to wonder why Rome did not crucify his closest followers as well? The fact that J was crucified but his followers were not means Jesus was not personally preaching something that may have been considered sedition.

Of course the sedition aspect ties in but it must be formulated better here. See Paula Fredriksen on this quesion in Jesus of Nazareth

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I'm responding with the assumption that the above should read "no one knew". In my comments above, I'm assuming multiple crosses (i.e. more than the three described) and a lack of knowledge of "the" cross upon which he was hung. They knew it was Golgotha but they didn't know which specific cross was used.

Actually, since Jesus is portrayed as carrying his own cross, I wonder if they were taken down and reused?

If we trust the Gospels, women (specifically wealthy women) played a significant role in supporting his ministry but they could, I suppose, have been more "behind the scenes" than the male disciples. That would allow them to attend the crucifixion without fear of arrest, I suppose, but I just don't see them wanting to witness such a horrible thing happening to their beloved Jesus. If they did, I think the "watching from a distance" is the most likely scenario. Assuming that I still think there is good reason to think they wouldn't have been keeping track of which specific cross was used so it wouldn't be likely that they would be able to point it out later. That also assumes that there were enough crosses to make it difficult to recall which one was "the" cross.

I would assume it was because they ran away and hid. The question I have is, if Jesus was crucified for sedition, why the heck would the Romans allow any of his former followers (allegedly including his brother!) to continue any religious movement at all.

What other charges could have resulted in that punishment? It was my understanding that this was reserved for sedition and murdering a Roman.