Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

(quoting GakuseiDon)Despite this acknowledgement, Doherty makes the same “stark” statements again in JNGNM.

I see now that Doherty has started a thread at FRDB (Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - FRDB ) where he responds to GakuseiDon. GakuseiDon has joined in that thread, so if there is a dispute between GakuseiDon and Doherty, it might be better for you to go there and ask Doherty directly what he meant here, rather than asking me to research it and respond.

 

[ElijahW]

I see now that Doherty has started a thread at FRDB (Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - FRDB ) where he responds to GakuseiDon. GakuseiDon has joined in that thread, so if there is a dispute between GakuseiDon and Doherty, it might be better for you to go there and ask Doherty directly what he meant here, rather than asking me to research it and respond.

I asked you what myth theory you thought was supported by evidence. You responded with Doherty's theory. Which I then pointed out from previous conversations on another board, that wasn't a theory supported by evidence. I don't need to go there and repeat what is already being pointed out to him. You need to provide the evidence for the the myth theory that you think is supportable. If you need to go ask Doherty what the evidence is for his, then that's on you.

 

[drich0150]

I asked you what myth theory you thought was supported by evidence. You responded with Doherty's theory. Which I then pointed out from previous conversations on another board, that wasn't a theory supported by evidence. I don't need to go there and repeat what is already being pointed out to him. You need to provide the evidence for the the myth theory that you think is supportable. If you need to go ask Doherty what the evidence is for his, then that's on you.

Don't waist you time brother, this guys feigns ignorance when ever it suits him.. He has absolutely no problem following a conversation when he feels like he has you on your heels, but when the tables are turned he has no idea what it going on. He is not here to explore anything, he simply wants to wear you down in a argument. It appears this is how he feels he can have the last word on a given subject.. apparently the last word means he wins.

 

[AlexBP]

None of this proves Mark was wrong about the existence of Jesus, though it does leave plenty of room for legendary development. The point is not that Mark is too late to the party, but that those who arrived first gave a very different viewpoint of Jesus from Mark. Books that likely preceeded Mark include Q, I Thess., Philippians, Galations, I Cor., 2 Cor., Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, Didache, Gospel of Thomas, and James (approximately in that order). If you read them without first reading the gospels or Acts, you will find the story of the earthly Jesus strangely absent. There is no mention of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Judas, Pilate, the trial of Christ, the earthly miracles, etc.

It sounds like you're already aware that all dating of material in this period involves some sizable question marks, so I won't belabor that point. However, a few specific things are worth mentioning. The Gospel of Thomas does indeed consist only of sayings of Jesus and a few dialogues between him and the apostles. Our earliest text of the Gospel of Thomas comes from the third century and indeed we have no reason to believe it was written before the year 200 A.D. Nicholas Perrin in his book Thomas and his Sources has shown that Thomas depends on the Diatessaron, a summary of the Gospels written in Syriac in the year 170 A.D., so that puts a lower bound on the date of composition. Hence Thomas plays no role in any discussion of Christian beliefs in the early first century.

 

[AlexBP]

Don't waist you time brother, this guys feigns ignorance when ever it suits him.. He has absolutely no problem following a conversation when he feels like he has you on your heels, but when the tables are turned he has no idea what it going on. He is not here to explore anything, he simply wants to wear you down in a argument. It appears this is how he feels he can have the last word on a given subject.. apparently the last word means he wins.

I really wish you wouldn't post attacks here. merle has been very polite and willing to admit when he's wrong, both properties that are rather rare in online debates. But in any case we should be polite no matter how the other guy behaves.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't understand. Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.

If that was the case he could provide plenty of examples of that thinking but he even seems to admit that he doesn’t have evidence to support the thinking he is suggesting of Paul.

Huh? Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that "there were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods?" Are you serious?

For the record, here is some information about Greek gods.

List of Greek mythological figures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greek Mythology
Greek-Gods.Info- Greek Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece
Greek Mythology
​

See. That was easy!

From the review earlier:

So how did Doherty know? For several years I questioned Doherty on this topic, asking him where the evidence for his reading of the mystery cults came from. For example, I referred Doherty to one quote from TJP, page 122:

The Greek salvation myths inhabit the same mythical world. They too can spin stories about their deities, born in caves, slain by other gods, sleeping and dining and speaking. None of these activities were regarded as taking place in history or on earth itself.
I asked him many times for the source of that and similar claims. Finally Doherty responded:

The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case. While I have often pointed out and argued for ‘indicators’ of such a view, there is no clear and direct statement about any particular pagan mystery cult deity which says that devotees or philosophers regarded the activities of its myth as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in heavenly layers above the earth (whether above or below the moon).

Despite this acknowledgement, Doherty makes the same “stark” statements again in JNGNM. For example:

Some of these circles--though again not all--envisioned this Jesus as having undergone self-sacrifice in the supernatural world, the same realm where the activities of other savior gods of the era were now seen as having taken place. (Page 85)

Uh, it appears that Doherty is saying that the Greek myths do not each come with the clear disclaimer that the gods in this story were not human beings. Of course not! There was no need for such disclaimers. If you read and study Greek mythology, it is evident that it is talking about gods, not humans.

For instance we read this summary: "Zeus overthew his Father Cronus. He then drew lots with his brothers Poseidon and Hades. Zeus won the draw and became the supreme ruler of the gods. He is lord of the sky, the rain god. His weapon is a thunderbolt which he hurls at those who displease him. He is married to Hera but, is famous for his many affairs." (from Zeus)

Can anybody possibly suggest that the writers of the stories thought Zeus was a human being who lived next door and married the human named Hera down the street? Come on, this stuff is mythology and everybody knows it. Why must I prove to you that Zeus was not thought to be a human being living on earth?

I think I have explained my reasoning multiple times in this thread. What more are you asking for?

I’m asking for you to provide evidence for your position, whatever that may be. Instead of being the judge and jury for the evidence of a historical origin, show us what the evidence looks like for the myth theory, to see if it can hold up to the same level of scrutiny.

I have not presented a "myth theory".

I am simply saying that Paul may have seen Jesus as a mythical creature, even as Zeus was considered a mythical creature.

I was only pointing out that you were repeating unsupported information/internet memes about savior Gods.

Come on, be serious. Are you really suggesting that the Greeks didn't believe in gods? Or are you suggesting that the stories never told of the gods doing anything to benefit humans?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No I was saying that if what Doherty or you were suggesting was supportable with evidence, he would have provided it by now.

Doherty wrote an 800 page book, and he says he has layed out the evidence for Greek savior gods in great length in several chapters. Have you even read the book?

Doherty started a thread on the Internet (Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - FRDB ) to defend his postion against the critique on the very website you mention. It is huge, and I scanned through it last night. Have your read his response?
Doherty has indeed presented his case with pages of evidence. Why do you pretend he didn't?

If you want to dispute that Doherty is not providing enough evidence--and that appears to be your claim--then you need to actually read his work and his defense of his work.

Gods aren’t understood as mythical but myth is understood as trying to describe spiritual elements like Gods/angels/spirits.

Well you tell me? Did Zeus exist as a human being? Did he walk on earth and marry somebody's neighbor.

I tend to think Zeus might have been mythical.

Because I don’t think you can provide any evidence. Pointing out that your personal expectations aren’t met by evidence of a historical Jesus isn’t evidence of whatever theory you are pushing.

No sir, it is not simply pointing out that my expectations are not met. If a savior God really existed on earth, then we would all expect that the earliest followers would be clearly writing about it. That is the point.

If you don’t have any evidence for what you think happened then asking for undeniable evidence for the other side is absurd.

Yes, yes, asking for undeniable evidence in this case would be absurd!

And asking others to store purple elephants in their basement would be abusrd.

And asking people to jump over the moon would be absurd.

But I don't ask people to store purple elephants in their basement, or jump over the moon, or to supply undeniable evidence.

So why even bother to make up such hypotheticals?

I mentioned mythical savior gods once I think, and as I explained before that is not at all key to what I am saying. I'll look into it, but it really has very little to do with the point I am making.

Isn’t that the context you are trying to interpret the Jesus story by?

I am interpreting what Paul says about Jesus in terms of the beliefs of the times, in which people believed in gods, demons, angels, spritis, and all sorts of creatures besides humans.

The known thinking of the time was spirits and angels and demons and gods and other heavenly beings.

You gave me three terms but you haven’t laid out what the thinking in regards to them was or the evidence you use to support that understanding.

Uh, I count 5, not 3.

So are you going to not only question what I learned in history class about the Greek gods, but also what I learned in arithmetic?

And no, I am not going to write a disortation on what the ancients thought about demons and gods, or prove any of that to you. There are plenty of books that tell what the ancients thought of gods, without me needing to write another one.

We can assume the standard nonsensical understandings of those terms and imagine a magical world where they exist temporally and can be crucified and interact but can you provide evidence that the ancient thinkers literally thought that way back then?

Can I prove that ancients taught about ancient gods that interacted?

Here are a few links that may help you.

List of Greek mythological figures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greek Mythology
Greek-Gods.Info- Greek Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece
Greek Mythology

You mentioned Hellenized Jews earlier so you are familiar with the influence but you need to make sure you understand what influence the Greeks had on Jewish thinking. To understand that you need to understand the Greek conflict between Poetry and Philosophy and how they depicted spiritual elements. The poets had Gods that could involve themselves in plots and the platonic philosophers understood them as constant which makes the whole notion of what Doherty is suggesting counter to what the educated people of the time were promoting.

Maybe Paul followed the Greek poets?

 

[doubtingmerle]

(sorry, duplicate post.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

I asked you what myth theory you thought was supported by evidence. You responded with Doherty's theory.

Uh, no, that is not exactly what you said.

But anyway, my response was, "I find the ideas at Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle fascinating."

Which I then pointed out from previous conversations on another board, that wasn't a theory supported by evidence. I don't need to go there and repeat what is already being pointed out to him.

Uh, and I pointed out to you where in open discussion Doherty showed that his ideas were indeed valid.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In contemporary Jewish belief, the messiah was a flesh-and-blood human being who walked the earth, and could not possibly be anything else. If Paul thought that the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus--and he did, given the number of messianic prophecies Paul applies to Jesus--then he thought that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person.

But what interpretation is Paul putting on these texts? We have already seen the example that Paul took the promise to Abraham of many descendents, and interpreted it to mean one particular descendent, Christ.

Its an interesting exercise. Every time Paul quotes the Old Testament, look it up in the Old Testament to see if the verse means the same thing in context as the meaning Paul uses. It seems that Paul took it upon himself to creatively interpret scripture.

Could he have been spiritualizing the messiah to be a heavenly being?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is only one mention that the Jews were responsible for his death, (I Thes 2:15) and that is thought to be a later insertion.

Thought by who, exactly? Last night I looked in all three of my Bibles, which are careful to note verses whose authenticity is in question, and find no mention that this verse is. I looked in Dr. Bruce Metzger's three volume series The Text of the New Testament, which is the definitve work on textual reconstruction, and found no mention of any reason to doubt the verse. So obviously the verse is not thought to be a later insertion according to mainstream sources.

Good point.

We don't have any variant readings of that text, but there is good reason to think that passage may have been changed somtime after 70 AD but before the book was widely copied. Doherty cites "Mack, Koester, Pearson, Meeks, Perkins, Brandon" as sources who dismiss I Thes 2:14-16. (see Jesus Project Demise ). The two main objections are that v16 says that "wrath is come upon them [the Jews] to the uttermost," an obvious reference to the events of 70 AD having already occured. Also Paul's outcry against his own nationality, the Jews, is totally out of character, as Paul is always reserved in his condemnation of Jews. These two hints have convinced many that this (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 - Passage Lookup - American Standard Version - BibleGateway.com) was added later.

...Exactly which mythical gods are supposed to have had a "sacred meal" in any way similar to the last supper narrative? Can you give any evidence that any such narrative for any other god pre-dated Paul's writings about the last supper of Jesus?

MIthras, for instance. See Mithraism - The sacred meal and the ascent to heaven .

Many people are no aware of how often the epistles make mention of the teaching of Jesus. For example, in Romans 12, Paul mentions: "Bless those who persecute you", also "bless and do not curse", also "Do not repay anyone evil for evil", and others. In Romans 13 Paul gives an abbreviated list from among the ten commandments just as Jesus did, and then concludes that all commandments can be summed up in the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself, exactly as Jesus did. In addition to the direct quotes there are a great many more passages in Romans alone that include paraphrases of certain sayings and parables by Jesus, or that contain imagery and other clues indicating that Paul had direct knowledge about what Jesus said and taught.

Well, yes, there is great similarity between the teachings of Paul and Jesus, but others of the day also taught similar things. Are we merely seeing similar products of the times here? Paul never attributes anything he says to the earthly words of Jesus.

Moreover, as Dr. David Wenham has demonstrated in his article "Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition", the order in which Paul presents quotations and other material in Romans matches up well with the order in which we read it in the Gospels.

I'm curious how he deterimined that, since it is well known that Matthew and Luke completely mix up the order of the sayings of Jesus. Matthew groups much of it in the Sermon on the Mount, wheras Luke spreads the same teachings throughout his book in a different order.

 

[ElijahW]

Huh? Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that "there were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods?" Are you serious?

I can’t believe you are still asking if I’m serious about you providing evidence for your position.

Thanks for the links but to help your and Doherty’s case you need to provide the primary source from the time period that illustrates the thinking being assumed by Paul.

Uh, it appears that Doherty is saying that the Greek myths do not each come with the clear disclaimer that the gods in this story were not human beings. Of course not! There was no need for such disclaimers. If you read and study Greek mythology, it is evident that it is talking about gods, not humans.
For instance we read this summary: "Zeus overthew his Father Cronus. He then drew lots with his brothers Poseidon and Hades. Zeus won the draw and became the supreme ruler of the gods. He is lord of the sky, the rain god. His weapon is a thunderbolt which he hurls at those who displease him. He is married to Hera but, is famous for his many affairs." (from Zeus)
Can anybody possibly suggest that the writers of the stories thought Zeus was a human being who lived next door and married the human named Hera down the street? Come on, this stuff is mythology and everybody knows it. Why must I prove to you that Zeus was not thought to be a human being living on earth?

It’s not about proving they were human beings. It’s about proving they existed in a magical realm temporally. It’s proving that the Zeus story you mentioned should/would be understood as literally happening in a magical realm or is it symbolically explaining the origin of the universe?

I have not presented a "myth theory".
I am simply saying that Paul may have seen Jesus as a mythical creature, even as Zeus was considered a mythical creature.

You presented Doherty’s; regardless if you want to still try to defend his theory you would still need to defend (with evidence) the understanding of Zeus you assume is so obvious.

Come on, be serious. Are you really suggesting that the Greeks didn't believe in gods? Or are you suggesting that the stories never told of the gods doing anything to benefit humans?

I’m unsure about what the “benefit humans” relates to. I’m suggesting that the understanding of gods you are working with is unsupported by texts from that time. I’m sure there were people who though like you assume but they weren’t of the educated variety who were leaving texts to be examined later

Doherty wrote an 800 page book, and he says he has layed out the evidence for Greek savior gods in great length in several chapters. Have you even read the book?

Doherty started a thread on the Internet (Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - FRDB ) to defend his postion against the critique on the very website you mention. It is huge, and I scanned through it last night. Have your read his response?
Doherty has indeed presented his case with pages of evidence. Why do you pretend he didn't?

If you want to dispute that Doherty is not providing enough evidence--and that appears to be your claim--then you need to actually read his work and his defense of his work.

I don’t need to read his work. I need to read the primary text he is working from to build his understanding of the universe at that time. He admits he doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding; you just seem unwilling to accept that. Within the “pages of evidence” what did he present that convinced you? What text would I need to go read to see the understanding of his mythical savior that he thinks Paul is working with?

Well you tell me? Did Zeus exist as a human being? Did he walk on earth and marry somebody's neighbor.
I tend to think Zeus might have been mythical.

To reiterate you’re not trying to make an argument against or for the gods being understood as people walking around earth but as walking around in a magical realm like people do here. Acts 17:28 is a quote that was originally attached to Zeus by Epimenides. The understanding of gods being used there isn’t of an entity that exists spatially and temporally in a magical realm where casting lots with his brother is possible.

No sir, it is not simply pointing out that my expectations are not met. If a savior God really existed on earth, then we would all expect that the earliest followers would be clearly writing about it. That is the point.

That is clearly your expectations… you even use the word. “expect that the earliest followers” You have expectations that aren’t being met but you don’t have any actual evidence to support an alternate theory or that your expectations and criteria for evidence is reasonable.

Yes, yes, asking for undeniable evidence in this case would be absurd!
And asking others to store purple elephants in their basement would be abusrd.
And asking people to jump over the moon would be absurd.
But I don't ask people to store purple elephants in their basement, or jump over the moon, or to supply undeniable evidence.
So why even bother to make up such hypotheticals?

Confused.

You’re looking for evidence that Jesus existed historically from something that you can’t deny the validity of, like for example how you would deny the Gospels… Correct? You do this while not even trying to support a myth/alternative theory or presenting one fully… Right? And you think this is reasonable?

I am interpreting what Paul says about Jesus in terms of the beliefs of the times, in which people believed in gods, demons, angels, spritis, and all sorts of creatures besides humans.
Uh, I count 5, not 3.
So are you going to not only question what I learned in history class about the Greek gods, but also what I learned in arithmetic?

And no, I am not going to write a disortation on what the ancients thought about demons and gods, or prove any of that to you. There are plenty of books that tell what the ancients thought of gods, without me needing to write another one

You‘re working off assumptions that you’ve picked up from the uneducated masses who are raised on television. You have a Clash of the Titans understanding of how they thought back then. We’ve all been there.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

Can I prove that ancients taught about ancient gods that interacted?
Here are a few links that may help you.

IF there was anything in there that you thought would actually have helped your case, I’m pretty sure you would have posted it.

Maybe Paul followed the Greek poets?

Maybe he did. What would you look for to see if he sided with the poets or with the philosophers back then? How common do you think it was for a Jew in that time to go with that thinking?

 

[GakuseiDon]

Huh? Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that "there were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods?" Are you serious?

For the record, here is some information about Greek gods.

List of Greek mythological figures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greek Mythology
Greek-Gods.Info- Greek Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece
Greek Mythology
​

See. That was easy!

Hi Merle. I'm the GakuseiDon who wrote the review of Doherty's book. I've basically 'retired' from discussion on Doherty mythicism (except for the odd comment here and there) so don't plan to argue with Doherty or anyone else on mythicism. But your comment on the FRDB thread drew me here.

I thought I might clarify my objection to Doherty's theory about ancient beliefs. Doherty claims that the ancient pagans thought the the myths of their saviour gods played out above the earth. Here is one comment by Doherty (reference on Page 4 of my review):

For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14)​

This is the belief of "the average pagan", according to Doherty: the myths took place above the earth. But if you look at the myths concerning Attis and Mithras you won't find this at all. In fact, the picture we find from the ancient texts tell a different story.

I urge you to check this out for yourself. Doherty's comment about Attis is quite clear, and I suggest that this is where you could start. I think it's great that you're looking at links about the Greek gods. Go through them and see if you can find any that suggest that "the average pagan" thought that the castration myth of Attis was played out in an upper spiritual realm. You will find that some placed the myth on the river Gallus in Phrygia, others that the story was allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all. But you won't find any references that they thought the myth took place in an upper spiritual realm.

Can anybody possibly suggest that the writers of the stories thought Zeus was a human being who lived next door and married the human named Hera down the street? Come on, this stuff is mythology and everybody knows it. Why must I prove to you that Zeus was not thought to be a human being living on earth?

That was actually the view of many pagans back then, including educated ones like the historian Tacitus, writing around 110 CE. Those pagans were "euhemerists". Tacitus wrote how Jupiter drove Saturn from his throne in Crete, and how Isis ruled in Egypt at around the time of the Exodus:

Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries
​

So there is evidence that the ancient Romans thought of some of their gods as men, but I haven't come across any evidence that they thought the myths were played out in an "upper spiritual realm". Look through Doherty's book for such references about the saviour gods Attis and Mithras and tell me what references he produces. And if he produces none, how does he know he is right on what the average pagan thought about the myths of Attis and Mithras? I predict that if you find what I say is true and you ask Doherty about this, he will hum and har, say his statement is 'too stark' or say you have 'a failure of imagination' or something along those lines.

The beliefs of ancient pagans is an interesting topic, and a large part of why I debated Doherty on this over six years. But since I personally believe he is wrong on ancient beliefs, I've lost interest in debating his theory. But I hope you will go on and continue to investigate. Good hunting!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hi Merle. I'm the GakuseiDon who wrote the review of Doherty's book. I've basically 'retired' from discussion on Doherty mythicism (except for the odd comment here and there) so don't plan to argue with Doherty or anyone else on mythicism. But your comment on the FRDB thread drew me here.

GakuseiDon, it is a pleasure to meet you. I understand that you have written the primary critique--and so far only major critique--of Doherty's new book, so it is indeed a priviledge to talk to you here.

I thought I might clarify my objection to Doherty's theory about ancient beliefs. Doherty claims that the ancient pagans thought the the myths of their saviour gods played out above the earth. Here is one comment by Doherty (reference on Page 4 of my review):

For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14)
​

This is the belief of "the average pagan", according to Doherty: the myths took place above the earth. But if you look at the myths concerning Attis and Mithras you won't find this at all. In fact, the picture we find from the ancient texts tell a different story.

I urge you to check this out for yourself. Doherty's comment about Attis is quite clear, and I suggest that this is where you could start. I think it's great that you're looking at links about the Greek gods. Go through them and see if you can find any that suggest that "the average pagan" thought that the castration myth of Attis was played out in an upper spiritual realm.

We seem to be discussing the mailing address of the gods. Why is that important? Pardon me for asking, but who cares if a letter from Attis would have had a return address from a place on earth, on Mars, in an alternate universe, or in a remote heaven?

Did any human ever claim to having actually known Attis personally as a human on earth? Did any human ever claim that Attis's story had recently happened locally in his own lifetime, and had been witnessed by humans?

That is the question about Paul's Jesus. Was he referring to a distant event that was not actually witnessed by a human on earth, or was he talking of an event that had been witnessed by many of his peers including Peter, James and John?

You will find that some placed the myth on the river Gallus in Phrygia, others that the story was allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all. But you won't find any references that they thought the myth took place in an upper spiritual realm.

OK, some thought the story of Attis was "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all"? Could Paul have also thought that the story of Jesus was "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all"?

Can anybody possibly suggest that the writers of the stories thought Zeus was a human being who lived next door and married the human named Hera down the street? Come on, this stuff is mythology and everybody knows it. Why must I prove to you that Zeus was not thought to be a human being living on earth?

That was actually the view of many pagans back then, including educated ones like the historian Tacitus, writing around 110 CE. Those pagans were "euhemerists".

Some pagans thought that Zeus had lived on earth and married another human being? Really? If they thought Zeus lived on earth, how could he have caused rain and lightning to occur? The concept that somebody's actual next door neighbor might be Zeus, sitting in his home office and zapping people with lightning is so bizzarre, it is difficult to think that anybody believed it.

But if instead it was thought that Zeus worked from the heavens, why could it not be thought that other gods did the same? And if other gods were thought to work from the heavens, why could it not be thought that Jesus did his work there?

After all, when the book of Hebrews describes the blood atonement, isn't it clearly referring to events in heaven?

Tacitus wrote how Jupiter drove Saturn from his throne in Crete, and how Isis ruled in Egypt at around the time of the Exodus:

Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries
​

So there is evidence that the ancient Romans thought of some of their gods as men,

I don't see that Tacitus was saying that Jupiter drove Saturn from his throne in Crete or that Isis ruled in Egypt, but simply that the speculated Jewish ancestors from Crete might have lived during the time period of those gods. This paragraph does seem to put the gods at a distinct time in this writers views, but not necessarily a distinct place. But even if Tacitus thought the gods lived in those places, could he not also have thought that other stories of gods took place in heaven? Could he not have thought that some stories of gods were "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all".

...The beliefs of ancient pagans is an interesting topic, and a large part of why I debated Doherty on this over six years. But since I personally believe he is wrong on ancient beliefs, I've lost interest in debating his theory. But I hope you will go on and continue to investigate. Good hunting!

If you personally believe Doherty is wrong on ancient beliefs, then that seems to be a good reason for debate. Doesn't a difference in belief lead to fertile ground for interesting debate?

 

[razeontherock]

We seem to be discussing the mailing address of the gods. Why is that important?

Interesting turn of phrase

 

[AlexBP]

Its agreed that Josephus probably referenced James here, but there is some dispute as to whether the introductory phrase about James, "the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ," was inserted later. After all, Josephus was copied down to the Middle Ages by Christian scribes, and that would have been an easy phrase for them to add. You yourself admit that Christian scholars added other phrases about Jesus to Josephus.

A strong case can be made that this whole paragraph was inserted. For instance, early church fathers who quoted Josephus never mentioned this paragraph. The most likely explanation is that they did not quote this, because it did not exist in the writings of Josephus until the fourth century.
( See Josephus Unbound )

Well yes, but those other characters didn't raise the dead or miraculously feed 5000 adoring followers. If Jesus lived on earth and did what he is reported to have done, one would have expected Josephus to have taken more notice of his life.

Let me work through these backwards. Concerning the issue of how long the passage that Josephus wrote about Jesus is, as I said, we compare it to what he wrote about other messianic claimants. For example, in Jewish War, Josephus says that the unnamed Egyptian prophet had a following of 30,000, yet still devotes only a few sentences to that movement. Hence even if Josephus knew the entire gospel concerning Jesus, there's no reason to suppose he'd write a great deal about it.

The simple fact is that Josephus did not write a great deal about Christianity. We know that by the time he wrote, sizable Christian communities flourished throughout the diaspora. We could know this from the epistles alone, even if we didn't have anything else. So Christianity was a large movement by that time, yet Josephus chose not to give it much attention. Hence the fact that the Testimonium is short is not an argument against authenticity. Antiquities covers many generations of history over a large area and was not intended to give details about everything.

On the issue of the early church fathers not mentioning the Testimonium, there's very little evidence that they were familiar with Antiquities at all. As this listing shows, the total number of references to Josephus from that time is very small, and Origen is the only Christian author before Eusebius to mention the works of Josephus in a discussion concerning Jesus. The quotes from Origen strongly suggest that Origen was familiar with an unglossed, genuine version of the Testimonium. Most of the other well-known Christian authors from the second and third centuries probably didn't read Antiquities and may not have known that it existed.

It's pointless to argue that the church fathers should have mentioned the Testimonium as evidence in the debate about whether Jesus existed. Back then there was no such debate; everyone, including militant Christian-haters, agreed that Jesus existed.

The most important piece of evidence, which I somehow forgot to mention earlier, is simply that there is a manuscript with the unglossed version of the Testimonium, in Arabic.

 

[Johnnz]

Some estimate the church at around 10K-12K at the end of the first century in an Empire of around 60 million, scarcely a group large enough to warrant great official interest. The Essenes were a well established community, but we knew very little of them until the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered.

John
NZ

 

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon, it is a pleasure to meet you. I understand that you have written the primary critique--and so far only major critique--of Doherty's new book, so it is indeed a priviledge to talk to you here.

Thank you, doubtingmerle!

We seem to be discussing the mailing address of the gods. Why is that important? Pardon me for asking, but who cares if a letter from Attis would have had a return address from a place on earth, on Mars, in an alternate universe, or in a remote heaven?

I think the mailing address is very important, and so does Doherty, since this is something that he explicitly claims (as my quote from him above) and something he and I spent many pages arguing over.

Part of the reason I pushed so hard on the pagan side in my debates with Doherty is because, while his theory has the Christians moving from ahistoricism to historicism between the First and Second Centuries, there is no expectation nor motivation for pagans' beliefs to have changed about their gods in that period. If the average pagan had a belief that the myths of their gods occurred in some spiritual realm, there is no reason for them to stop believing that in the early centuries. So what do we find when we examine the extant literature of the time? Nothing that supports Doherty; and in fact the evidence goes against him. I recommend you to investigate that, starting with Attis. You can then expand on your research from there.

Did any human ever claim to having actually known Attis personally as a human on earth? Did any human ever claim that Attis's story had recently happened locally in his own lifetime, and had been witnessed by humans?

Not that I know of. References to Attis in early texts has been collected by Roger Pearse here: User:Roger Pearse/Attis Sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the question about Paul's Jesus. Was he referring to a distant event that was not actually witnessed by a human on earth, or was he talking of an event that had been witnessed by many of his peers including Peter, James and John?

In Page 3 of my review, I argue that Paul is talking about a recent event.

OK, some thought the story of Attis was "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all"? Could Paul have also thought that the story of Jesus was "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all"?

Yes! That is certainly one of the options, if we are talking about the beliefs found in the literature of the day. While both Doherty and I have ruled out that Paul was an allegorist, that is certainly a path for investigation. The one thing I stress in my review is that Doherty seems to approach the evidence as "either Gospel Jesus or mythical Jesus". That is, if we don't find evidence for a Gospel Jesus in Paul, then this strengthens the mythicist case. But this falls to the fallacy of the excluded middle. It might be that Jesus was historical, but not as per the Gospels. Or it might be that Jesus was mythical, but not per Doherty's mythicism. Or it might be that Jesus was allegorical, or fictional, or that there is not enough information to make an informed decision either way.

But, my review isn't about what option is plausible, only that Doherty's theories are not plausible. But, as I point out, that doesn't add credibility to the case for the historical Jesus.

Some pagans thought that Zeus had lived on earth and married another human being? Really?

Yes, born and died in Crete. These were the "euhemerists". They thought that Zeus was just a man, the son of Cronus (Saturn) who was another man. After Zeus drove Cronus from his throne, Cronus went to live with the Italians and taught them many things.

If they thought Zeus lived on earth, how could he have caused rain and lightning to occur?

He couldn't, as he was just a man. However, some also believed that these men could become gods by having their spirits ascend above the firmament, into the realm of the true gods. (Julius Caesar, it was claimed, did precisely that. A comet around that time was said to be his spirit speeding into the heavens, thus confirming that he had become a god.)

The concept that somebody's actual next door neighbor might be Zeus, sitting in his home office and zapping people with lightning is so bizzarre, it is difficult to think that anybody believed it.

But if instead it was thought that Zeus worked from the heavens, why could it not be thought that other gods did the same? And if other gods were thought to work from the heavens, why could it not be thought that Jesus did his work there?

Now, THAT is the question, and the topic of many a long debate. In short: we shouldn't rule out anything a priori, but if we look at the extant literature from both the pagan and Christian side, then the picture that we get does not accommodate Doherty's theories. In Page 1 of my review I give four points that is “not even on the radar of modern scholarship”, one of them being "The pagans of the day believed in a "World of Myth", a place above the earth in which their gods acted out their myths". And if you read Doherty's response in the OP of the thread he started on FRDB, he agrees!

Now, you've given links about the Greek gods. Why would Doherty agree with me that his views of pagan beliefs (not Christian!) is “not even on the radar of modern scholarship”, if the links support Doherty? Here is an important question: From reading Doherty's book, do you get the impression that what he writes about the pagan side is consistent with modern scholarship? If the answer is "yes", then I hope that this might start ringing some alarm bells.

After all, when the book of Hebrews describes the blood atonement, isn't it clearly referring to events in heaven?

Heb 2:
[14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
[15] And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
[16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
[17] Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren...

Heb 4:
[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God

Heb 7:
[24] But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
[25] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Heb 9:
[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us...

Note the theme: several times Jesus is described "like us" and then as passing into the heavens. But passing into the heavens from where? Where -- outside heaven -- would Jesus be like us? That's the question, and has led to long debates with Doherty on "fleshly sublunar realms".

Remember my example of Julius Caesar. We have literature from the period describing early beliefs. If we want to understand Paul in terms of the literature of the day, then there is no room for Doherty's theories (which, as it is worth pointing out again is not even on the radar of modern scholarship.) If, on the other hand, Doherty believes his theory is correct despite the evidence from the literature of the day, then that's fine, but he needs to spell it out. A BIG criticism I have of his book is that people read it and are unaware often that his views are controversial (other than the "no Jesus" one, of course!) As I've said elsewhere, people probably come away thinking "Doherty has all the evidence, it doesn't appear controversial; why don't people believe him?"

I think that many people who read Erich Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" or Acharya S's "Christ Conspiracy" or watch the "Zeitgeist" movie are in the same boat. They don't have the background knowledge to critically examine the ideas being presented, so they find it harder to understand what to question and often simply accept the content.

I don't see that Tacitus was saying that Jupiter drove Saturn from his throne in Crete or that Isis ruled in Egypt, but simply that the speculated Jewish ancestors from Crete might have lived during the time period of those gods. This paragraph does seem to put the gods at a distinct time in this writers views, but not necessarily a distinct place. But even if Tacitus thought the gods lived in those places, could he not also have thought that other stories of gods took place in heaven? Could he not have thought that some stories of gods were "allegorical of timeless processes and didn't happen at all".

Yes, that could be the case. I'm not aware of Tacitus himself expressing such a view point, though.

If you personally believe Doherty is wrong on ancient beliefs, then that seems to be a good reason for debate. Doesn't a difference in belief lead to fertile ground for interesting debate?

I've done it for six years, so time to move on. I pass the torch over to you, doubtingmerle! To me, I'm not so concerned whether you believe Doherty or not. I just want to see people asking questions to Doherty, and I hope my review encourages people to do that. And I think both sides would regard this as desirable. The answers will either support him (and that would be a good thing) or show him to be wrong (that is my position and would be an even better thing!)

 

[AlexBP]

Books that likely preceeded Mark include Q, I Thess., Philippians, Galations, I Cor., 2 Cor., Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, Didache, Gospel of Thomas, and James (approximately in that order). If you read them without first reading the gospels or Acts, you will find the story of the earthly Jesus strangely absent.

Okay, let's tackle Q. Any discussion must begin with awareness that Q does not exist and possibly never existed. Some material appears in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, and we hypothesize that Matthew and Luke had a common source for that material, which we call Q. I surely agree that the existence of such a source is the best explanation, and thus it probably existed, but we can't be sure.

Now what's in Q? Some people assert that it was purely a sayings gospel. However, the shared material does contain a few physical details, such as Jesus wandering into the desert prior to the temptations, John the Baptist sending messengers from prison to question Jesus, and so forth. These are enough to verify that whoever wrote this material did believe that Jesus was a human being, on earth, and that time period.

As for the charge that Q does not contain things like Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, trial, and crucifixion, it's important to remember that we define the Q material as what is not in Mark. Since these events are in Mark, they are not part of the Q material. But they might have been in the Q document! It just wouldn't be necessary for Matthew and Luke to use the Q version since they had Mark's other version.

Lastly, the two-source hypothesis is widely accepted in scholarly circles these days but that doesn't make it right. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that Matthew and Luke had other sources besides Mark and Q from which they gathered material about Jesus' life. These come from analyzing the texts and seeing where it seems material was first written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, and also from comparing material to other sources such as the early Church fathers. So while we don't have all these sources today, there's strong reason to believe that there were multiple, written sources of information about Jesus' life in existence in the time period before the gospels, but while the epistles were being written.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Did any human ever claim to having actually known Attis personally as a human on earth? Did any human ever claim that Attis's story had recently happened locally in his own lifetime, and had been witnessed by humans?

Not that I know of.

OK, so we know of nobody who claimed that Attis's story had recently been witnessed by humans. Could we say the same about Mithras and the other savior gods? Had anybody seen them? Did people understand that they worked in a realm outside of the observable world of recent humans?

If it was generally understood that the the myths of the greek savior gods were never actually witnessed by humans, then could one also make the claim that Paul's Jesus was thought to have worked in a realm similar to Attis and Mithras, in which the events were never actually witnessed by humans?

I think the mailing address is very important, and so does Doherty, since this is something that he explicitly claims (as my quote from him above) and something he and I spent many pages arguing over.

I think Doherty's main assertion is that Jesus as portrayed by Paul seems to be in the same realm as Attis and Mithras, in which the events were not actually witnessed by recent humans on earth.

Whether the event was thought to occur in heaven, above the atmosphere, or in a remote desert seems to be secondary.

Part of the reason I pushed so hard on the pagan side in my debates with Doherty is because, while his theory has the Christians moving from ahistoricism to historicism between the First and Second Centuries, there is no expectation nor motivation for pagans' beliefs to have changed about their gods in that period. If the average pagan had a belief that the myths of their gods occurred in some spiritual realm, there is no reason for them to stop believing that in the early centuries.

The claim is not that the pagan views changed. The claim is that Paul had one view of a Son of God who did his work in a realm outside of human observation.

Mark wrote a very different story. He wrote of a man who said he was going to set things straight, and after crucifixion had apparently risen and was coming back. That is a completely different story.

The claim is that only later were the two stories combined to form the proto-orthodox position.

In Page 3 of my review, I argue that Paul is talking about a recent event.

I see nothing there that proves that Paul thought Jesus had recently been involved with humans on earth, and that there were living witnesses to the events. If Paul thought that, why does he rely on revelation as his source? Why does he make no effort to contact those who had lived the story until 3 years after conversion? Why does he show so little concern for those events that recently happened in human history?

But, my review isn't about what option is plausible, only that Doherty's theories are not plausible. But, as I point out, that doesn't add credibility to the case for the historical Jesus.

Well, what is your view? Did the events happen as recorded in the four gospels? If so, why do the early writings so completely avoid that story?

But if instead it was thought that Zeus worked from the heavens, why could it not be thought that other gods did the same? And if other gods were thought to work from the heavens, why could it not be thought that Jesus did his work there?

Now, THAT is the question, and the topic of many a long debate. In short: we shouldn't rule out anything a priori, but if we look at the extant literature from both the pagan and Christian side, then the picture that we get does not accommodate Doherty's theories.

Ah, so Zeus was thought to work from the heavens, and other gods could have been thought to work from the heavens?

If gods were thought to work from the heavens, why could it not be that Paul and his followers thought that Jesus did his work from the heavens?

In Page 1 of my review I give four points that is “not even on the radar of modern scholarship”, one of them being "The pagans of the day believed in a "World of Myth", a place above the earth in which their gods acted out their myths". And if you read Doherty's response in the OP of the thread he started on FRDB, he agrees!

Now, you've given links about the Greek gods. Why would Doherty agree with me that his views of pagan beliefs (not Christian!) is “not even on the radar of modern scholarship”, if the links support Doherty?

I see no such admission. He admits that his view of the mythical Jesus is not well accepted within scholarship. But I see no admission that the idea of a world of myth is off the radar in modern scholarship.