Carrier, Doherty and GDon's 10th year anniversary of not posting about mythicism!

[Peter Kirby]

The first two (on Tatian and Justin Martyr) were discussed extensively here, usually with Doherty's direct involvement. I think his view on Q came up, though I can't remember a lot of discussion here. But then again, maybe my experience is limited since I don't visit many forums and I stay off social media. Perhaps I should have qualified my claim to "Doherty would become irrelevant on this forum".

Honestly I don't even remember either of these two ideas. I do remember the stuff about Minucius Felix and other second century apologists besides Justin and Tatian. I know that you have focused a little more on the mid-to-late second century stuff that Doherty has talked about, but I don't think any of that is central to Doherty's ideas. Similarly to how Doherty has discussed the Ascension of Isaiah but didn't make it the foundation of his arguments.

The mid-to-late second century stuff does seem central to your rebuttal of his ideas (this is just how I'm seeing it) because it is one of the ways in which you attempt to show that Doherty can't tell the difference between people with an earthly Jesus view and without.

[neilgodfrey]

I'm saying that Doherty's theories have become irrelevant. . .. . All of which I predicted ten years ago.

Yet here you are raising the very same points Doherty addressed years ago. That's why "mythicism" has never gone away and -- my prediction now -- never will. The arguments are declared irrelevant and the same old points that gave rise to mythicism are repeated as if they settle the matter. A state of affairs that I suspect Doherty himself did predict or would have predicted.

The problem is not the simplistic faith-driven question "did Jesus exist? yes or no" -- but an inherited set of methods that sets New Testament histories in a world far apart from other historical fields. But so long as those inherited methods allow for such a colourful array of theories and speculations they will always remain attractive and held steadfast by those with the most to gain.

[neilgodfrey]

The thread was created by Earl Doherty and called "Gakusei Don and Old Tricks"
https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... 469&page=7

............


I've kept to that commitment of not debating on Doherty's theories since then. Admittedly Doherty retired (which I genuinely hope he is enjoying) soon after so hasn't posted any new material, thus there has been no impetus for me to do otherwise.

I think I was correct that his theories have become irrelevant, at least as a point of discussion on the Internet. No-one cites Doherty anymore, despite points of difference from Carrier, like his views on Q (which personally I found very interesting) and on how nearly all the extant Second Century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus.

...............

So what do you think? Has Doherty's ideas as a viable theory disappeared into history and joined the other dead mythicist theories of the past?

And has Carrier's books (as well as his blogs, appearances at conferences and Youtube interviews) made a difference within the scholarly community, even if indirectly?

"Old tricks" indeed --

The reason Doherty "retired" from the scene was, according to my correspondences with him at the time, because he was hounded out of the public scene by some of the most vicious personal attacks along with blatant misrepresentations and outright distortions of what he wrote -- he simply did not consider the hostility, mockery and twisting of what he was saying to be worth the effort. That's why he "retired" and is no longer a presence on the web. Compare Ben Smith's "retirement" from this forum having something to do with Stephen Huller.

on how nearly all the extant Second Century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus

This is a mild form of the kind of thing Earl Doherty got tired of rebutting. Doherty simply nowhere claimed that "nearly all the extant Second Century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus". What he wrote was,

But the 2nd century scene, for much of its course, was anything but united in the new views of Jesus and Christian history. This is nowhere so evident as in the Christian apologists of the period 130-180, men like Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens. Once again, as in the 1st century, we encounter diversity, a lack of common doctrine, no centralized authority and a weak concept of apostolic tradition. We also encounter a telling range of silence on the reputed founder of the movement.

. . .

There is little to suggest that the religion of the 2nd century apologists proceeded out of the 1st century branch of Christian development surrounding Paul. Nor is there any of the Gospels' focus on the Messiah or the end of the world. The apologists' views of salvation are rooted in Greek mysticism, not Jewish martyrology for sin. Instead, the two expressions seem like separate branches of a very broad tree.186

Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it 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, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers.

JNGNM 475, 476

And earlier,

. . . of the five or six major apologists up to the year 180—after that, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are all firmly anchored in Gospel tradition—none, with the exception of Justin, introduces an historical Jesus into their defenses of Christianity to the pagan.

Jesus Puzzle 277

He excluded Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius ( from his list and addressed the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, the Epistle to Diognetus, Tatian and Minucius Felix.

What Doherty wrote about those earlier apologists remains very relevant to the question of Christian origins. But he never said "nearly all second century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus".

The way apologists win is by hounding the heretics out of the room with personal attacks, misrepresentation until they finally retire and can be safely ignored.

[andrewcriddle]

Happy Anniversary, lol.

I think you have a fine idea to look at Carrier's whole argument rather than just the highlights.

And has Carrier's books (as well as his blogs, appearances at conferences and Youtube interviews) made a difference within the scholarly community, even if indirectly?

Compared with what? I think well-conducted poll results in some developed countries showing 20% (+/- depending on where) of adults who say their beliefs about Jesus are better described as a "mythical or fictional character" than as a "real man who actually lived" pack more whallop. The economic basis of any discipline is widespread or well-heeled voulntary acceptance that the field is doing something worthwhile. Erosion for NT studies is already visible, and unless new evidence changes the game, there's no particular reason to think the erosion will abate.

Just my personal opinion.

Is Carrier responsible for the current apparent respectability outside the academy to acknowledge that Jesus may not have been a real person? Carrier is due some credit, sure. A lot? I don't know. He stands on the shoulders of giants, as the saying goes. I think those giants get some credit for what seems to be a multi-generation scale social change.

I have no hard evidence for what follows, but I doubt if most of this 20% are supporters of Doherty/Carrier type mythicism. I suspect that many of them would regard Don's extremely minimal historicism (the Gospel accounts of Jesus are fictional) as quite close to their position.

Andrew Criddle

[Paul the Uncertain]

I have no hard evidence for what follows, but I doubt if most of this 20% are supporters of Doherty/Carrier type mythicism.

I, too, doubt that. Regardless, that isn't what people were asked (in the polls I have in mind).

I suspect that many of them would regard Don's extremely minimal historicism (the Gospel accounts of Jesus are fictional) as quite close to their position.

They weren't asked that, either. It would seem to me that there is potential for difference splitting. Asked to choose between "a fictional or mythological character" as opposed to "a real man who actually lived," perhaps some people would have preferred to answer "Jesus was a real man who actually lived, but he is now known mainly as a fictional or mythological character." That description would apply to many minimal or minimalist historical Jesuses, possibly including GDon's.

[GakuseiDon]

Asked to choose between "a fictional or mythological character" as opposed to "a real man who actually lived," perhaps some people would have preferred to answer "Jesus was a real man who actually lived, but he is now known mainly as a fictional or mythological character." That description would apply to many minimal or minimalist historical Jesuses, possibly including GDon's.

I describe my own approach as: "Some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the existence of the earliest texts that we have, but the amount of verifiable evidence is so little that he may as well not have existed."

My picture is built off the pre-Gospel texts, where Jesus is portrayed as "humble', etc, as the main description, and 'exaltation by God' because of his 'obedience until death', as per earlier in this thread. I see that kind of Jesus as consistent with contemporary leaders like Simeon ben Gamliel (as per OP also), who were martyred by the Romans. For some reason, Jesus' followers had visions of him after his death. I think they were appearances at ecstatic mystery religion gatherings, by early Christians like Paul, where Jesus was invoked like any pagan god. The appearance to 500 believers at the same time is consistent with that.

This leads into the development of Christianity into the Second Century where magical Christianity merged with philosophical Christianity, which I have my own 'head canon' about. But my views are all guess work, and not much more than fan fiction. It's as speculative as anything Doherty produced!

[neilgodfrey]

My picture is built off the pre-Gospel texts, where Jesus is portrayed as "humble', etc

And they are assigned as "pre-Gospel" because there is the assumption that the texts were exactly what they claimed to be (Paul) and/or were writing about such a "pre-Gospel" historical figure (gospels). No independent confirmation required. The "hermeneutic circle" lives.

[Paul the Uncertain]

I describe my own approach as: "Some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the existence of the earliest texts that we have, but the amount of verifiable evidence is so little that he may as well not have existed."

Now that you have formulated your approach and position, have you given any thought to where they fit within the field of known scholarly positions on the Question of Jesus (besides contrast with Carrier)?

For example, there is Bertrand Russell's famous statement, "Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him," from his 1927 lecture "Why I am not a Chrsitian,"

https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Your short statement seems recocilable with that. Maybe other "landmarks" are relevant.

My picture is built off the pre-Gospel texts, where Jesus is portrayed as "humble', etc, as the main description, and 'exaltation by God' because of his 'obedience until death', as per earlier in this thread.

You would probably have an easier time of it (at least in these precincts) by being more specific about your source: Philippians and perhaps Paul's few other comments about Jesus's natural life, including the silences in Paul. Fine to say (I think) that you'd rather look to Paul than to the Gospels, and even that you think Paul is pre-Gospel (yea verily, that the Philippian Hymn may be pre-Paul in whole or part). But if you just compress all that into claiming to rely on "pre-Gospel texts," you'll draw tangentially relevant pot shots about the uncertainties about dates.

I see that kind of Jesus as consistent with contemporary leaders like Simeon ben Gamliel (as per OP also), who were martyred by the Romans.

Eventually, you will be pressed on that. Simeon seems to have been very much a leader in life with a reputation for participating in public affairs (e.g. lobbying to prevent and later to reverse Josephus's appointment as commander in Galilee).

BTW, is Paul's Jesus a martyr? We're all mortals; some among us have a calmer attitude about that than others. Is Paul really committed to more than that regarding Jesus?

For some reason, Jesus' followers had visions of him after his death. I think they were appearances at ecstatic mystery religion gatherings, by early Christians like Paul, where Jesus was invoked like any pagan god.

You might want to meditate on the term follower. After Jesus's death, some degree of organization apparently emerged with leaders and followers. Paul seems to quote (or pretend to quote) various Corinthians identifying themselves as followers of Peter, or Paul, or Apollos, and Paul dubs himself a follower of Christ.

OK, self-described followers after Jesus's death. But what about when he was alive (as you suppose him to have been)? Might he have had admirers who wouldn't have described themselves as followers? Might he have had "supporters" (perhaps in the informal but literal sense that they'd toss him an obol now and then so he could get something to eat) who weren't followers, or wouldn't describe themselves that way?

The appearance to 500 believers at the same time is consistent with that.

I wouldn't trust Paul's capacity to count to 500, and he wasn't there anyway. Just a head's up.

This leads into the development of Christianity into the Second Century where magical Christianity merged with philosophical Christianity, which I have my own 'head canon' about. But my views are all guess work, and not much more than fan fiction. It's as speculative as anything Doherty produced!

You might also wish to consider how separate magic and philosophy might have been. It seems to me that the two concepts have an on-again off-again relationship throughout ancient times. Pythagoras, for instance. Just a thought.

[GakuseiDon]

I describe my own approach as: "Some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the existence of the earliest texts that we have, but the amount of verifiable evidence is so little that he may as well not have existed."

Now that you have formulated your approach and position, have you given any thought to where they fit within the field of known scholarly positions on the Question of Jesus (besides contrast with Carrier)?

No, believe it or not I'm not really interested in the question of the existence of a historical Jesus, since I don't think we can recover anything verifiable. It's pretty much speculation. I'm much more interested in how ancient people thought in those times via the early texts.

My picture is built off the pre-Gospel texts, where Jesus is portrayed as "humble', etc, as the main description, and 'exaltation by God' because of his 'obedience until death', as per earlier in this thread.

You would probably have an easier time of it (at least in these precincts) by being more specific about your source: Philippians and perhaps Paul's few other comments about Jesus's natural life, including the silences in Paul. Fine to say (I think) that you'd rather look to Paul than to the Gospels, and even that you think Paul is pre-Gospel (yea verily, that the Philippian Hymn may be pre-Paul in whole or part). But if you just compress all that into claiming to rely on "pre-Gospel texts," you'll draw tangentially relevant pot shots about the uncertainties about dates.

Good point. Since I'm using my theory in juxtaposition with Carrier's, I'll use Carrier's dates.

BTW, is Paul's Jesus a martyr? We're all mortals; some among us have a calmer attitude about that than others. Is Paul really committed to more than that regarding Jesus?

I'm not sure what you mean here? I think Paul believed that Jesus died rather than breaking God's Law. The best explanation for that is someone with authority -- either Romans or Jewish leaders -- put him to death.

For some reason, Jesus' followers had visions of him after his death. I think they were appearances at ecstatic mystery religion gatherings, by early Christians like Paul, where Jesus was invoked like any pagan god.

You might want to meditate on the term follower. After Jesus's death, some degree of organization apparently emerged with leaders and followers. Paul seems to quote (or pretend to quote) various Corinthians identifying themselves as followers of Peter, or Paul, or Apollos, and Paul dubs himself a follower of Christ.

OK, self-described followers after Jesus's death. But what about when he was alive (as you suppose him to have been)? Might he have had admirers who wouldn't have described themselves as followers? Might he have had "supporters" (perhaps in the informal but literal sense that they'd toss him an obol now and then so he could get something to eat) who weren't followers, or wouldn't describe themselves that way?

Those are good points. I'll have to look through the early letters to see if they justify my conclusion that Jesus had 'followers' in life. If I can't then I'll need to find some other word.

This leads into the development of Christianity into the Second Century where magical Christianity merged with philosophical Christianity, which I have my own 'head canon' about. But my views are all guess work, and not much more than fan fiction. It's as speculative as anything Doherty produced!

You might also wish to consider how separate magic and philosophy might have been. It seems to me that the two concepts have an on-again off-again relationship throughout ancient times. Pythagoras, for instance. Just a thought.

Well, I phrased that poorly and in haste. What I'll do is try to trace various ideas running through the NT, then Papias, Ignatius, going onto Justin Martyr, showing how I think Christianity developed. The "magical" stream as represented by Paul and Simon Magus will be one stream.

[andrewcriddle]

I see that kind of Jesus as consistent with contemporary leaders like Simeon ben Gamliel (as per OP also), who were martyred by the Romans.

Eventually, you will be pressed on that. Simeon seems to have been very much a leader in life with a reputation for participating in public affairs (e.g. lobbying to prevent and later to reverse Josephus's appointment as commander in Galilee).

BTW, is Paul's Jesus a martyr? We're all mortals; some among us have a calmer attitude about that than others. Is Paul really committed to more than that regarding Jesus?

The Jesus of the Pastorals is certainly a Martyr/Witness

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,

This is post-Pauline but I suspect Paul would have agreed.

Andrew Criddle