the_cave

Right on, Bernhard, you're way ahead of me

Peter Kirby

I think you are saying that Doherty doesn't postulate the evolution that you postulate. Doherty sees Pauline Christianity as a development within hellenistic religion with antecedents in Jewish mystical speculation tinged with Platonism (e.g. Philo) and mystery cults with the concept of a descending-ascending redeemer. And Doherty recognizes that Christianity was a variegated and uncoordinated phenomenon with many different literary manifestations, including those that don't even mention "Jesus" or "Christ" (for example the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle to Diognetus). What Doherty does not do is imagine that Galilean peasants elevated their rabbi into a pre-existent co-creator.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Could he imagine Galilean peaseants becoming convinced their rabbi was the messiah and then other, more Greek influenced Jews, elevating him to pre-existent co-creator?

Peter Kirby

That's a decent moderate view. I often believe that.

Here is Doherty's pushback: "Prof. Geering makes the increasingly common claim that the early “Jewish-Christians”, including Peter and James, still saw Jesus with Jewish eyes, that they regarded him as Messiah but that he “was not himself divine.” But I would maintain that there is no support for this view in the early record. Quite the opposite. Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem group, who were “apostles before me” (Gal. 1:17), suggests no such quantum gap between their interpretation of Jesus and his own, and in fact if Paul alone had turned Jesus into a part of God, this would have so offended Peter & Co. that any relationship between them, let alone the degree of cooperation suggested by passages like Galatians 2:8 and Paul’s collection for the Judean church, would have been impossible. This is quite distinct from, and more fundamental than, their disagreements over the applicability of the Jewish Law." (from http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/geerrev.htm )

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Missing the point: If Jesus had human ancestor he had to be a flesh and blood being! Doherty says he was not, so he's obvoiusy worng! Doesn't matter if other mythological chacters had human relatives.

Metacrock

Meta: They don't have to be Greek based. Ederhsheim shows that the Jews of the internestamenal and first century era saw the Messiah as pre-mundane (existing before the world) and simi-divine being who sits on God's throne before the incarnation, and is the "King of the universe." He is also born as a man. One might try to find some sort of Greek influence in there, but it need not be. The Jews had that concept themselves, even the most anti-hellenisitc among them.

Toto

Missing the point yourself! Paul does not state unequivocally that Jesus has a human ancestor, just that he was "of the stock" of David. Doherty interprets that as referring to Jesus' nationality, not specifically his lineage.

Sort of like saying that Rhett Butler was a son of the old South.

Bernard Muller

Yes, Doherty put a lot of things into a single pot, and, by chance, with a Jesus crucified coming from nowhere, give us a Christianity as appearing in Paul's letters! At least, on my website, I explained (with evidence) how all the ingredients, as postulated by Doherty (such as Hellenistic, Jewish, Platonic, Alexandrian) came about, and in which sequence. Doherty is very vague how all of that would have happened, does not give any road maps. He also looks in mystery cults to find the components of the early Christian beliefs, when all of them were already available in the OT or Philo's writings or already well accepted by Pharisaic Jews or even Gentiles/Diaspora Jews. Doherty does not provide any precise indication, just a primeval soup of concepts. And then he looks for evidence in dubious & controvertial books, such as the Odes of Salomon or the Ascension of Isaiah, both texts showing many signs of Christian insertions & additions and generally dated late (after the gospels according to your dating and mine). For the Odes, I got that from Doherty's site:
"The Odes were almost certainly composed in Syriac, probably in the latter part of the first century, and very likely in northern Syria, i.e., Antioch, Edessa, or some nearby center. Their tone is predominantly Jewish, though with seeming Christian overtones which are tantalizing and frustratingly obscure. The Odes show mildly gnostic features as well, and a long debate has sounded over whether they belong in this line of development. There are many parallels in terms and ideas with the Gospel of John ... Are they Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, Johannine?"
I think the Didache and Ascension of Isaiah are in the same category, that is composite texts.

The main argument of Doherty can also be said also about Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, that is that the respective historical/religious "soup", at some particular geographical location, was present at the times of the beginning of the new religion (with or without initial founder, alleged or not).

I do not have any problem with late Christian writings appearing without Son of God, Jesus or Christ (or a combination of those). To the two writings you mentioned, we can add Octavius of Minucius Felix and the apologies of Theophilus of Antioch.
I do not know what point you are trying to make. I know there were Christianities, from Paul's times and even before, and certainly after, until the times when the Catholic Church (4th cent.) started to stamp out the "heretics" (like Arianus), and bringing in line all the "marginals" (like Eusebius). Evolution allows all kind of branching out, extinction, fusion, etc. at any time during the progression.
That certainly does not mean these "branches" had to be started from the alleged "soup", predating Paul, if it is what you are thinking.

And who said that "Galilean peasants elevated their rabbi into a pre-existent co-creator."?
Not me for sure, far from that. But certainly a good argument against foundamentalist Christians and the JS.
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

I do not know what point you are trying to make. You said, "I note Doherty, like most apologists and theologians, thinks Christianity appears instantly as a block." And I responded, a bit baffled. Do you stand by that statement as it was worded? If so, why?

I'm not a Jesus Myther; my goal is understanding of the arguments.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Are you serious!?? you really think they would have a spirit being with flesh and blood anscestor? Some greek gods or demi -gods had human blood, but they were not atheisterial spritis, they were flesh and blood themselves. Hercules had to wait until he died to be welcomed as a god on Olympus. To have a human ancestor means he had to have flesh and blood! How else would human blood produce him?