figuer

I am surprised with the exorbitant fanaticism and lack of rational analysis being displayed in the mythicist camp. That the Gospels might be vaguely based on some historical occurrence later mythologized is not an extraordinary idea. That the Pauline letters do not contain historical references is not something significant. The arguments against the validity of the Christian religion and towards the characterization of the Bible as Judeo-Christian mythology are well established, and do not necessitate such undignified descent into inanity.

Toto

Doherty sees that extremely odd based on the assumption that there was a historical Jesus.

No, for all of the reason that I went though above. These so-called historicists were not historicists in the modern sense.

This is basic history. We went through this all before.

I don't know what you think we will learn that isn't already obvious - that Paul's letters were interpolated.

Toto

Who are you calling irrational and fanatical?

It is a very commonplace idea. How would you propose to test it?

That's why GDon started a thread on that strawman argument.

It is apparent that you have no familiarity with the arguments against a historical Jesus.

show_no_mercy

I think there's a false dichotomy between MJs and HJs. Wonder Woman is based on her creator's wife. Does this mean that Wonder Woman is historical or myth? It really depends on how you define those terms (like "historicist"), which is one of the points I think Toto makes.

gurugeorge

As people have been saying here, you're trying to influence the terms of the debate a certain way, but it won't wash. In the very quote of Doherty's you mention, he's saying "apart from Justin", and that's where it gets interesting, it seems to be particularly in Justin (and "Ignatius") that you see the beginnings of this strong emphasis on a certain time and place and certain details.

All Christians were "historicists" in your sense, they all seemingly believed in some historical facts of the matter about Jesus, even if merely that he had lived and died and risen again at some vague time in the not-too-distant past. Even on Doherty's Middle Platonic view, they may well have still believed in some Earthly event that was the instantiation of the Platonic Ideal liberative event. Supposed historical details are common in myths. It's more a question of growing emphasis (as I said, and apparent growing emphasis, doctrinally, the necessity to believe in certain particular historical facts to be called a "Christian"), and on the other hand the the closeness of Paul to the events (out of all the materials we have) making his silence particularly striking.

GakuseiDon

Well, yes, exactly. :huh: So we three -- you, me and Doherty -- all agree: If those Second Century writers thought that there was a historical Jesus, it is extremely odd for them not to have mentioned details. Weird, even! Right? We all think of that as weird, correct? It is a good point?

I mean "historicist" in the sense that they believed that Jesus walked the earth and interacted with people at some time in history.

Let me rephrase:

Now, let's assume for the moment that I am correct, and that the "extremely odd" silence in the Second Century was the product of writers who believed that Jesus walked the earth and interacted with people at some time in history. Do you think I have a point (assuming I am correct) in wondering how that should affect how we see the odd silence in the First Century?

GakuseiDon

Justin wrote around 150 CE. Nearly all (if not all) of Doherty's "something odd" writers wrote AFTER Justin. Shouldn't it have been the other way around, if there was a curve distribution?

That is Wells' mythicism, although more recently Wells has come to believe that Q strongly suggests there was an itinerant preacher around the time of Jesus upon whom many of the myths became attached.

Isn't that closer to the orthodox view? (IMHO Doherty's Middle Platonic views don't appear to be representative of the Middle Platonic views of the people of the time).

I suggest having a look at Tertullian's "Ad nationes", written around 200 CE, for the details he gives about a historical Jesus. What does "Christian" mean, according to Tertullian? He writes:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.

Toto

No. It would be odd of them not to mention details if there had actually been a historical Jesus. It would be odd of them not to insert relevant details about Jesus into their sermons, if such details were known. If they simply accepted that Jesus manifested in the flesh for theological reasons, it is less expected that they would work those details into their sermons.

I think you are persistently working your way into a blind alley that will lead nowhere.

People expect that Paul might have mentioned details about Jesus because Jesus lived in his time, and he knew people who knew Jesus. There were presumably oral legends about Jesus circulating. The fact that he mentions no details, even when they would be relevant, casts doubts on these assumptions.

For the second century apologists, you need to construct a similar case. What would it be? They didn't know anyone who knew Jesus. They were converted to Christianity by studying Greek philosophy or reading the Scriptures, not by hearing stories about Jesus.

I am done with this thread. It seems pointless for you to just keep repeating that this is odd.

GakuseiDon

"No"? "No"????? How in the name of Earl J. Doherty can the answer be "No"??? I'm saying EXACTLY what you put after that "No": that it would be odd of them not to mention details if there had actually been a historical Jesus. Holy Ravioli! What if I asked whether your internet handle here was "Toto"? I'd suspect you'd say "No! It is Toto!"

Oh well. My point is that it is indeed weird that these Second Century writers didn't include those details IF they were historicists, which the weight of the evidence suggests that they were. I think that this should be taken into consideration when looking at First Century writers. There may be perfectly good reasons to expect historicists (assuming that they were) in the Second Century to be "weird", and good reasons to not expect ones in the First Century to be "weird". But "the elephant in the room" is that mythicists generally ignore the wider literature. When we look at it, we see that Paul may be "weird", but he is not unique. Certain historicist writers shared the same "weird" trait with Paul.

Agreed. Thanks for your time.

figuer

Not you ... I think it is quite easy to observe those behaving in such a fashion.
It can be analyzed in context: Do people mythologize historical figures: Yes. Were there Jesus like figures in that time frame? Yes. etc. etc.

It is apparent you did not understand my point, since I am referring that it is not necessary to display the fanaticism and irrationality I have observed by some here, not that it is unnecessary or baseless to argue against a historical Jesus.