Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-08-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Suppose for the sake of argument that you say that these Christians thought that Jesus walked on earth, but were not concerned about historical details. Why would that be interesting? What conclusion would you draw from that?

Doherty believes that there is some kind of transition period from MJ to HJ, where the Christians believe in a Jesus who manifested on earth, but aren't concerned or unaware of the details. That is the tension point I'm addressing here.

Doherty also believes that all of the documentation on this tension point has been lost - either destroyed or just lost.

Quote:

The next step is looking at the implications for other early literature, and then judiciously applying Occam's razor. What other early writings fall into this category? What ones don't? How can we decide? etc.

Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.

I don't think there is enough evidence to pin this down. This is where Doherty becomes speculative - because there is just no hard evidence.

There are further difficulties. You don't have the original texts, and the dates of these texts are all somewhat speculative. How do you know where later Christians have interpolated a few key phrases into the text?

That and I don't think any early Christian can be described as historicist, for the reasons I have previously stated.

maryhelena · 04-08-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Do you think Barnabas provides an example of Christians who believed that Jesus walked the earth, but nonetheless were not concerned in historical details?

The sands keep shifting. I have stated what I think early Christians like Barnabas thought - that Christ manifested himself on earth in some sense. Perhaps he walked, perhaps he floated slightly above the ground.

Thank you...

Barnabas believed that Jesus came in the flesh, which kind of rules out a docetic Christ. He also wrote that Jesus taught, performed miracles and selected apostles, without appearing to be aware of Gospel details. But we already have a thread on Barnabas, so I'll continue over there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Suppose for the sake of argument that you say that these Christians thought that Jesus walked on earth, but were not concerned about historical details. Why would that be interesting? What conclusion would you draw from that?

Doherty believes that there is some kind of transition period from MJ to HJ, where the Christians believe in a Jesus who manifested on earth, but aren't concerned or unaware of the details. That is the tension point I'm addressing here.

The next step is looking at the implications for other early literature, and then judiciously applying Occam's razor. What other early writings fall into this category? What ones don't? How can we decide? etc.

Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.

I don't know if Wells used that term "100 BCE Christ". Do you have a link?

Two books that do reference that term are:

Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) Alvar Ellegard

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?
G. R. S. Mead

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me..._100/index.htm

The Mead book is online at the above link.

As for Wells:

Quote:

If Paul envisaged any historical circumstances for Jesus’s death, he may well have thought of his ‘Christ crucified’ as one of the victims of earlier Jewish rulers. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing near the end of the first century A.D., tells that Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria in the second century B.C., and the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus, of the first century C.C., both caused living Jews to be crucified in Jerusalem (Josephus expressly notes that in these cases this punishment was not inflicted after execution, as it often was). Both periods of persecution are alluded to in Jewish religious literature (for instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls); and Jannaeus’s crucifixion of 800 Pharisees left a strong impression on the Jewish world. Paul’s environment, then, would have knows that pious Jews had been crucified long ago, although dates and circumstances would probably have been known only vaguely.

The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk) G.A. Wells

maryhelena · 04-08-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

<snip>
Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Doherty's theory re a crucified JC in a spiritual realm could not be negated even if there was a historical gospel JC. Why? Moral issues come into play here. Unless you want to have Christianity founded upon a theology of flesh and blood crucifixion, of flesh and blood sacrifice as having supreme value - then one has to consider an alternative scenario which enables 'Paul' to give 'salvation' potential to a crucifixion. Sure, Doherty's sub-lunar scenario is questionable - but it's a spiritual, non-earthly, non-flesh and blood 'crucifixion', that is relevant for 'salvation' potential. How 'Paul' envisaged this, how 'Paul' imagined such a 'crucifixion', is something that is subject to the intellectual world of his time. But to ascribe to 'Paul' the monstrous idea that a human flesh and blood crucifixion has supreme salvation value would be a serious injustice.

Yes, by all means, take Doherty to task re his early christian origins theory - indeed, that is the weakness of his position...

Quote:

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.

I don't know if Wells used that term "100 BCE Christ". Do you have a link?

I've read a lot of stuff, so I may be misremembering Wells on this occasion. The context was something like Paul believed that Jesus existed 100 to 200 years before himself. But I'll see if I can track down the link.

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

<snip>
Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Doherty's theory re a crucified JC in a spiritual realm could not be negated even if there was a historical gospel JC. Why? Moral issues come into play here. Unless you want to have Christianity founded upon a theology of flesh and blood crucifixion, of flesh and blood sacrifice as having supreme value - then one has to consider an alternative scenario which enables 'Paul' to give 'salvation' potential to a crucifixion. Sure, Doherty's sub-lunar scenario is questionable - but it's a spiritual, non-earthly, non-flesh and blood 'crucifixion', that is relevant for 'salvation' potential.

I'm not really interested in the moral issues in this. My concern is Doherty distorting ancient Christian and pagan beliefs to get them to fit his theories. If his theories encouraged people to investigate the ancient world, that would be a positive. Even Acharya S can be a positive in that sense.

EmmaZunz · 04-09-2012, 02:12 PM

I'm not entirely certain what you mean Toto, but EH definitely doesn't believe all evidence of the MJ/HJ transition is lost.

He thinks Ignatius indicates it at Trallians 9.

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

It's not entirely clear Ignatius is talking about mythicism, as he goes on to say this about docetists in Trallians 10:

But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?

Possibly Ignatius first establishes historicity, and then goes on to tackle docetism, as two separate issues. Otherwise why make the points in chap. 9 that even docetists agreed with in their own way?

Also at some places in the non-Pauline epistles like 1 John 4:2-3:

every spirit that confesses that JC has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

Now is that anti-mythicism or anti-docetism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Doherty believes that there is some kind of transition period from MJ to HJ, where the Christians believe in a Jesus who manifested on earth, but aren't concerned or unaware of the details. That is the tension point I'm addressing here.

Doherty also believes that all of the documentation on this tension point has been lost - either destroyed or just lost.

Toto · 04-09-2012, 02:25 PM

IIRC - while some mythicists think that docetists were in fact early mythicists, Doherty thinks that they were a later phenomenon.

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Personally I think further analysis would show that this "limited" historical Christianity undercuts Doherty's theory in favor of Wells' "100 BCE Christ" one.

I don't know if Wells used that term "100 BCE Christ". Do you have a link?

I've read a lot of stuff, so I may be misremembering Wells on this occasion. The context was something like Paul believed that Jesus existed 100 to 200 years before himself. But I'll see if I can track down the link.

I can't find where I read Wells directly state this. I may have gotten it from Doherty:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm

Professor Wells has always maintained that this is the way Paul regarded his Christ Jesus, as a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time.

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 03:23 PM

Again, the Belief that a Divine character existed has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the argument for an historical Jesus.

People of antiquity believed Angels, demons, evil spirits and Holy Ghost were on earth.

The historical Jesus means a NON-DIVINE Jesus--not a resurrected Jesus.

A pre-existing Jesus is Mythology.

There is an ON-GOING QUEST for an historical Jesus because the Jesus of the NT is considered to be DIVINE--Non historical--A Myth.

EmmaZunz · 04-09-2012, 03:36 PM

A hypothesis: docetism was how some original mythicist Xians responded to the new historicist claims they were hearing.

Some would have denied HJ (cf. Trallians). Some would have accepted HJ but minimised his human side (non-Gnostic docetists). Some would have zealously adopted HJ - the Gospel tradition is nothing if not a great meme ("mainstream").

When mythicism takes root, there's going to be a lot of work needing to be done on topics like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

IIRC - while some mythicists think that docetists were in fact early mythicists, Doherty thinks that they were a later phenomenon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2012, 02:25 PM	#107
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	IIRC - while some mythicists think that docetists were in fact early mythicists, Doherty thinks that they were a later phenomenon.

04-09-2012, 03:23 PM	#109
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Again, the Belief that a Divine character existed has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the argument for an historical Jesus. People of antiquity believed Angels, demons, evil spirits and Holy Ghost were on earth. The historical Jesus means a NON-DIVINE Jesus--not a resurrected Jesus. A pre-existing Jesus is Mythology. There is an ON-GOING QUEST for an historical Jesus because the Jesus of the NT is considered to be DIVINE--Non historical--A Myth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.