What is the secular historical basis for the consensus that Jesus existed as a human?

[Attonitus]

So, we need a Latin author referring to a procurator acting as governor of a province before the time of Claudius. Got one?
spin

Coponius, according a Jewish author: Josephus (see War of the Jews, 2.117)

[spamandham]

Your chronology is wrong.


gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

(I would have thought it obvious that a correction would be in order rather than a simple "you're wrong").

[spamandham]

Christians telling Tacitus around 110 CE that they believed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a fairly strong piece of evidence for historicity. The most likely reason that Tacitus heard this is because that is what the Christians believed, and the most likely reason that Christians believed that was because that is what happened. Not 100% proof, I agree, but a piece of evidence that can't be dismissed so easily, either (assuming it isn't an interpolation).

But if the mythicist/fictional/(or even mystical!) character position is correct, then of course Christians would talk as if Jesus was real in 110 CE, even if he never had been, and even if they knew he was not historical. To an outsider, a mystical or even known fictional Jesus could easily be misunderstood to be a real person. Of course if he was mythical, even those telling it would believe that to be true.

They would pass that on to Tacitus who would accept that "Christus" (presumed to be Jesus) was a historical figure. Why wouldn't he accept that much? If you have never been a Christian, and were only superficially knowledgable about it (like Tacitus probably would have been) there would be little reason to doubt that part of the story.

It seems to me that the use of the word "Chistus" is undeniable proof that if the text in question is legitimate, that Tacitus got his info from Christians rather than Roman records in this case.

Ultimately, what Tacitus wrote is nothing more than proof that Christianity existed (asuming the writing was authentic).

What you're saying is just right back to the argument that the existence of Christianity in the 2nd century proves a historical Jesus in the first. But that's the whole point of discussion!

The proposition is, that the mere existence of Christianity does not prove a historical Jesus, as there are other reasonable scenarios that could account for the existence of Christianity, that do not suffer from many of the same problems that the HJ position does, i.e., the claim that HJ is more parsimonius is flawed.

[spin]

So, we need a Latin author referring to a procurator acting as governor of a province before the time of Claudius. Got one?
Coponius, according a Jewish author: Josephus (see War of the Jews, 2.117)
Umm, I was clear enough. Josephus did not write in Latin. I did use the word "Latin" for a reason. We need someone who knew well the terminology and a Greek writer doesn't necessarily have the background. Try again, this time with a Latin writer.

ETA: And it could be any province governed by a procurator before the time of Claudius. So, surely one can find a Latin writer who admits to such a beast.


spin

[spin]

The mythicist position on Tacitus seems to be: "We'll fight tooth and nail to prove it was an interpolation; but if we lose the argument, we will claim it isn't relevant." It's like the accused man: "I didn't do it; and if I did, I'm sorry."
You really do have a fixation with mythicists, don't you?

You need to understand scholarship.

It doesn't say: it must be this way and there is no other choice; it must be this way and there is no other choice; it must be this way and there is no other choice.

It says: the evidence points this way, so I'll argue it; the evidence points this way, so I'll argue it; oops, there is more evidence that points elsewhere, let's forget that argument.

Scholarship involves the necessary abandonment of positions which don't cover the evidence. Belief says to adhere to a position despite the evidence.

I think the evidence clearly says that we are dealing with an interpolation in Tac. A.15.44 and I have supplied numerous reasons in the past. Bleeding about it won't deal with the arguments.


spin

[spin]

I've never understood that argument. Sure, legends can spring up oevernight, but to dismiss Tacitus on that basis doesn't make sense. Christians telling Tacitus around 110 CE that they believed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a fairly strong piece of evidence for historicity. The most likely reason that Tacitus heard this is because that is what the Christians believed, and the most likely reason that Christians believed that was because that is what happened. Not 100% proof, I agree, but a piece of evidence that can't be dismissed so easily, either (assuming it isn't an interpolation).
Christians, according to Tac. A.15.44, were hated by the populace, ie the populace knew according to the text who the christians were. This means it is not Tacitus simply saying what the thoughts in his time were. The text says that at the time of the fire the populace knew the christians and hated them. It also says that Nero picked specifically on these christians, ie he knew them as well. Then of course his agents knew how to find christians, so these agesnts also knew the christians. The text works on the necessary knowledge of christians at the time of the fire, not some backgrounder pasted in there by Tacitus.


spin

[GakuseiDon]

But if the mythicist/fictional/(or even mystical!) character position is correct
If it is correct, then we would have to re-evaluate Tacitus -- I agree. But as you then say below:

They would pass that on to Tacitus who would accept that "Christus" (presumed to be Jesus) was a historical figure. Why wouldn't he accept that much?
Exactly! He would accept it because as the most probable explanation. Not proof, of course, but evidence for historicity. We would then need to go on and evaluate the other evidence. If the other evidence is strong enough, then fair enough. But to ignore the passage in Tacitus because "it is what Christians told him" presupposes that what the Christians told him wasn't correct.

[spamandham]

Exactly! He would accept it because as the most probable explanation. Not proof, of course, but evidence for historicity.

I would agree, if I knew little about Christianity. There would be no reason to suspect otherwise. Considering how little Tacitus (or Jospehus) wrote about it, it seems fair to place them in the "novice" category regarding the actual beliefs of Christianity. I would place myself in that category regarding Islam and Buddhism and many other religions, and would tend to assume the lead characters actually existed since my knowledge of the problems such an assumption creates is extremely limited. In this very thread, I assumed Paul existed based on similar assumptions, and to my surpise, discovered there are those who provide reason to think he too was a fictional character! They may be wrong, or I may be wrong in my assumption, but the point is I simply made the assumption because it did not seem unreasonable to someone such as myself working with limited information about Paul.

The picture changes once you really study Christinaity. When you see that pretty much everything that is attributed to Jesus parallels pre-existing myths, legends, and wisdom teachings, and when you start to see the problems associated with the HJ position (such as the mystical writings of Paul, the multiple divergent churches that already existed in the earliest records, the utter lack of any contemporary writings about the man, etc.), the mythical position seems to be at least on par with the HJ position, if not simpler.

We have no reason to suspect Tacitus or Josephus would have been aware of these problems, considering how little they seemed to have known about Christianity.

[ynquirer]

A text written at the beginning of the 7th c. CE, (floruit of Isidorus Hispalensis) is not necessarily going to provide much other than the thought of the 7th c. We are trying to look at the origin of a word, not how it was understood 700 years after the fact.

The strength of Isidore as a source does not stem from his telling us how the origin of the word was understood 700 years after the fact. He cites Marcus Terentius Varro extensively thorough his work and on this account he is supposed to copy Varro’s lost etymologies whenever he writes on words not in use in the seventh century - which is the case of proconsul and procurator, extinct offices much before in the West. And Varro (116 - 27 BC) is an authority on Latin etymologies that happened to live right on the spot of the present discussion.

To put it simply, modern scholarship on etymologies permanently struggles with Varro and Isidore, either to find support for a theory on the origin of a particular word, either to refute them. I’m afraid you need something more than dismissing the source because it is very old but not old enough and you ignore its bearing.

I have already pointed out that the term "procurator" was already in use at the time of Plautus, when he has a character say of himself "Ego sum promus condus, procurator peni'" (Plaut. Pseud. ii.2.14). A procurator, here, is someone who manages a pantry. To render the word more clearly, look at Ovid, Ars.A. 1.587, "procurator nimium quoque multa procurat": what does a procurator do?

I understand your perplexity. Using such sources as Plautus and Ovid to ascertain what a procurator did will be a little disappointing.

The term "proconsul" is derived from "(imperium) pro consule", just as "propraetor" is derived from "(imperium) pro praetore". These are transparent relations, a proconsul acts for a consul (or really with the power of a consul).

Your invention, sir. Precisely, the term proconsul is not derived from “imperium pro consule.” There are several Roman writers that tell the story, Cicero among them. When Pompey was given extraordinary powers to fight Sertorius - just because the consuls might not do so because the rebel was in Hispania - the Senate issued a decree according to which Pompey was sent non pro consule sed pro consulibus, that is, not with the imperium of a consul, as you say, but with the imperium of both consuls. That is what proconsular authority meant: the powers of a dictator beyond the point where the powers of the consuls stopped.

The word proconsul rather stem from a prefix “pro-” (which is common to many Indoeuropean languages: you find it together in ancient Greek and Sanskrit, and it not exhaustively means “forth,” “before,” “in front of”) plus consul. In legal terms it was very clear: a proconsul actuated wherever any consul might not do. Likewise for a procurator, who actuated whenever a curator might not do.

Would you try to say the word "proscriptor" ("one who proscribes") is derived from "scriptor"?? -- or from "proscribo"?

Yes, I would.

Literally, pro-scribo means to write before, to write over or upon, to inscribe. Among other usages, the verb means publishing a person as having forfeited his property, hence, to punish with confiscation. Also to proscribe, outlaw one, by hanging a tablet with his name and sentence of outlawry, confiscation of goods, etc.

The problem is that you think of English etymologies, not of Latin ones.

And "procreator" from "creator" or "procreo"?

I lack words to argue against your boldness in denying evidence.

What about a procursator? from a cursator?? Ooops, sorry, there isn't such a thing as a cursator! I guess there's no doubt that "procursator" is derived from the verb "procurro" ("to run forward").

Your mistake here is failing to realize that the same word may be written either as curro - as you imply - or as curso. Both ways it means “run/trot/gallop, hurry/hasten/speed, move/travel/proceed/flow swiftly/quickly.” Now, from the stem curso, Latin language got several connected meanings by just prefixing. For instance:

pro-curso = to run forward

re-curso = to run or hasten back

trans-curso = to run across, run or hasten through

pre-curso = to run before, hasten on before, hence, precede, antecede

dis-curso = to run off in different directions, hence, wander, roam

con-curso = to come running in large numbers, hence, rally, assemble.

Enough?

As I said, the noun "procurator" isn't derived from "curator": it's not a matter of a person acting for a curator, but of a person who manages.

Did you see how I wrote “… hence …”? Well, you happen to take the post-hence phrase, that is, common but not literal usage instead of the pre-hence phrase, that is, the origin of the word, hence, its etymology.

Go with the Oxford Latin Dictionary. It's anything but simple.

Your case is irremediably lost.

The OLD is good source for English meaning of Latin words; Latin etymologies in addition to that is general-purpose information - not necessarily warranted against all odds - for educated people courtesy of the editors. Yet this is not what we are talking about. Citing OLD as a source for Latin etymologies is much like citing Wikipedia or even Encyclopedia Britannica, that is, unspecific as such a source.

As you seem to have been lecturing on scholarship in this same thread, let me put it in a way you will understand it. Isidore and Varro are specific, first-class as a source for Latin etymologies; you may disagree, of course, but you may not dismiss them without good reason. You may cite them in an article submitted for a peer-reviewed journal, yet your article will be rejected if you have nothing better than a Latin-English dictionary to support disagreement with them.

[spin]

The strength of Isidore as a source does not stem from his telling us how the origin of the word was understood 700 years after the fact. He cites Marcus Terentius Varro extensively thorough his work and on this account he is supposed to copy Varro’s lost etymologies whenever he writes on words not in use in the seventh century - which is the case of proconsul and procurator, extinct offices much before in the West. And Varro (116 - 27 BC) is an authority on Latin etymologies that happened to live right on the spot of the present discussion.
You may guess that his source is Varro, but sourcing this kind of material is notoriously difficult. How do you discern who actually supplied what you quoted? Unfortunately, you can't. While Vergilius and Sallustius are cited in the book, Terentius Varro isn't cited (though he is for example in Bk 10).

I understand your perplexity. Using such sources as Plautus and Ovid to ascertain what a procurator did will be a little disappointing.
Plautus shows you the word in context 150 years before your hypothesized source, M.Terentius Varro.

Your invention, sir. Precisely, the term proconsul is not derived from “imperium pro consule.”
I think you misunderstand when you omit the parentheses.

a procurator, who actuated whenever a curator might not do.
This is the crux of your argument. You have nothing else. Substantiate it and you might have your case.

Yes, I would.
You don't answer "yes" to a choice. You select the one you think correct if any.

Literally, pro-scribo means to write before, to write over or upon, to inscribe. Among other usages, the verb means publishing a person as having forfeited his property, hence, to punish with confiscation. Also to proscribe, outlaw one, by hanging a tablet with his name and sentence of outlawry, confiscation of goods, etc.
So I guess that you actually choose the second, ie that proscriptor comes from proscribo.

The problem is that you think of English etymologies, not of Latin ones.
The problem is that you are simply clutching at straws.

I lack words to argue against your boldness in denying evidence.
I can't really deny nothing. Try again.

Your mistake here is failing to realize that the same word may be written either as curro - as you imply - or as curso.
Too bad you didn't read what you are dealing with carefully. Try it again.

Both ways it means “run/trot/gallop, hurry/hasten/speed, move/travel/proceed/flow swiftly/quickly.” Now, from the stem curso, Latin language got several connected meanings by just prefixing. For instance: (omitted list)
What did you achieve other than showing that you know a few word derivations. Well done!

Did you see how I wrote “… hence …”? Well, you happen to take the post-hence phrase, that is, common but not literal usage instead of the pre-hence phrase, that is, the origin of the word, hence, its etymology.
You fail to deal with what Plautus wrote, which I did supply for you to look at.

Your case is irremediably lost.
If you think grandstanding will help you feel better...

The OLD is good source for English meaning of Latin words; Latin etymologies in addition to that is general-purpose information - not necessarily warranted against all odds - for educated people courtesy of the editors. Yet this is not what we are talking about. Citing OLD as a source for Latin etymologies is much like citing Wikipedia or even Encyclopedia Britannica, that is, unspecific as such a source.
I see you don't have access to the text at the moment.

As you seem to have been lecturing on scholarship in this same thread, let me put it in a way you will understand it. Isidore and Varro are specific, first-class as a source for Latin etymologies;...
Why don't you try to show that Isidore is actually using Varro in the passage you refer to? Once you do, you can say how exactly it explains Plautus's use of the term procurator.

you may disagree, of course, but you may not dismiss them without good reason. You may cite them in an article submitted for a peer-reviewed journal, yet your article will be rejected if you have nothing better than a Latin-English dictionary to support disagreement with them.
I'll wait for your peer-review directed paper on avoiding the original discussion we were having regarding the fact that Tacitus is aware of the significance of the term procurator and when it was used to indicate someone with magisterial power to govern a minor province, which was during the time of Claudius.
http://www.planetamd64.com/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif


spin

[ynquirer]

spin,

No serious discussion is feasable on your grounds.

[Doug Shaver]

Christians telling Tacitus around 110 CE that they believed that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a fairly strong piece of evidence for historicity.
And that is because . . . it is very unlikely that Christians in 110 CE could have been mistaken about how their religion got started?

[GakuseiDon]

And that is because . . . it is very unlikely that Christians in 110 CE could have been mistaken about how their religion got started?
Yes -- though perhaps "it is unlikely" rather than "it is very unlikely". Not impossible, of course.

[GakuseiDon]

I would agree, if I knew little about Christianity... The picture changes once you really study Christinaity. When you see that pretty much everything that is attributed to Jesus parallels pre-existing myths, legends, and wisdom teachings, and when you start to see the problems associated with the HJ position (such as the mystical writings of Paul, the multiple divergent churches that already existed in the earliest records, the utter lack of any contemporary writings about the man, etc.), the mythical position seems to be at least on par with the HJ position, if not simpler.
Yes, I would agree that other evidence may cause us to reevaluate Tacitus. I'm just questioning the idea of throwing it out because "the legend had time to grow" alone. Given that legends can spring up overnight, you get to be on a slippery slope.

[gurugeorge]

But if the mythicist/fictional/(or even mystical!) character position is correct, then of course Christians would talk as if Jesus was real in 110 CE, even if he never had been, and even if they knew he was not historical. To an outsider, a mystical or even known fictional Jesus could easily be misunderstood to be a real person. Of course if he was mythical, even those telling it would believe that to be true.

They would pass that on to Tacitus who would accept that "Christus" (presumed to be Jesus) was a historical figure. Why wouldn't he accept that much? If you have never been a Christian, and were only superficially knowledgable about it (like Tacitus probably would have been) there would be little reason to doubt that part of the story.

It seems to me that the use of the word "Chistus" is undeniable proof that if the text in question is legitimate, that Tacitus got his info from Christians rather than Roman records in this case.

Ultimately, what Tacitus wrote is nothing more than proof that Christianity existed (asuming the writing was authentic).

What you're saying is just right back to the argument that the existence of Christianity in the 2nd century proves a historical Jesus in the first. But that's the whole point of discussion!

The proposition is, that the mere existence of Christianity does not prove a historical Jesus, as there are other reasonable scenarios that could account for the existence of Christianity, that do not suffer from many of the same problems that the HJ position does, i.e., the claim that HJ is more parsimonius is flawed.

I'd also add that it may be that the strongest concentration of Christians who did believe in a historical Jesus was in Rome anyway - i.e. while most of the Christians in the Empire may have believed in one or another of the possible non-HJ scenarios, the Romans (and possibly Alexandrinians) were always weighted more strongly towards a strong historicisation of the character. So it's plausible that Tacitus did indeed get his information from Roman or Rome-influenced Christians, yet the bulk of Christians in the Empire did not actually hold to the same degree of historicisation. (Ehrman in his Lost Christianities makes a good case for Roman Christianity's activity in trying to persuade other Christian churches of the truth of their version of the thing; see also Walter Bauer, and the picture he paints of Catholic missionaries giving the game away by telling of struggles with already established less-HJ-ish Christianities.)

[Doug Shaver]

perhaps "it is unlikely" rather than "it is very unlikely".
I dunno, considering how often people in general are in fact wrong about so many things.

However . . . if Christians' belief in the early second century were the only relevant datum, I'd probably give them the benefit of doubt and side with historicity. There are other data, though, and when they're all taken into consideration, historicity looks improbable to me.

[jjramsey]

IThere are other data, though, and when they're all taken into consideration, historicity looks improbable to me.

The problem is that some of your supposed data are wrong or misleading:

Given what is known of Hellenistic thinking, Paul's references to the Christ's atoning death and resurrection are consistent with his having believed that they occurred in a Platonic spirit world, not the world inhabited by mortal humans.

http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor4.htm

The multiple discussions over kata sarka in this forum show the problems with this.

That a group of first-century Jews would have deified any man, and then convinced other Jews of the man's divinity, is an improbability approaching impossibility.

This is misleading because it neglects that the Synoptic Gospels did not go so far as to portray Jesus as God. Even Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:28 that Jesus is second-in-command. It also ignores that Jews had glorified Moses and Enoch in ways that came just shy of being godlike. This would explain what we see Paul, at least in the letters not generally considered pseudo-Pauline. It also means that the idea of a man as divine is not as unthinkable to the Jews as you portrayed it to be.

I find it curious that you write:

There was also a proliferation of messiah cults within Judaism. One of them, in Jerusalem, was a group of Hellenized Jews who thought the savior-god was their messiah

http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor5.htm

So you argue that the Jews would never go as far as deifying any man, but would violate their prejudice against polytheism--which not even orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity did--by worshiping another god altogether?

Your trajectory for ahistoricity is not hanging together here.

[Vorkosigan]

So you argue that the Jews would never go as far as deifying any man, but would violate their prejudice against polytheism--which not even orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity did--by worshiping another god altogether?


In this period the belief in "two powers in heaven" was a jewish variant belief that even crops up in the Bible and was not uncommon at all. Alan Segal at Columbia has done a great deal of work on this. Intermediary powers are common in Judaism. Note that while Paul has to put a great deal of effort into defending Jesus against false Jesus-s and against misunderstandings, he never has to apologize for believing in a second power in heaven.

There are a number of interesting papers online at this website:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/


sm--which not even orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity did--by worshiping another god altogether?

Of course Christianity is polytheistic -- Jesus, Satan, God, the demi-urge, etc. What label you use to describe this plethora of beings who occur in Christianity is entirely up to you, but monotheism IMHO is a poor one.

Vorkosigan

[No Robots]

In this period the belief in "two powers in heaven" was a jewish variant belief that even crops up in the Bible and was not uncommon at all. Alan Segal at Columbia has done a great deal of work on this. Intermediary powers are common in Judaism. Note that while Paul has to put a great deal of effort into defending Jesus against false Jesus-s and against misunderstandings, he never has to apologize for believing in a second power in heaven.

Here is the blurb for Segal's book, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism:

In this study of the rabbinic heretics who believed in Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal explores some relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity. Two Powers in Heaven was a very early category of heresy. It was one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity and one of the central issues over which Judaism and Christianity separated. Segal reconstructs the development of the heresy through prudent dating of the stages of the rabbinic traditions. The basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. The earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven, while later heretics believed in two opposing powers in heaven. Segal stresses the importance of perceiving the relevance of rabbinic material for solving traditional problems of New Testament and gnostic scholarship, and at the same time maintains the necessity of reading those literatures for dating rabbinic material.

[GakuseiDon]

I dunno, considering how often people in general are in fact wrong about so many things.

However . . . if Christians' belief in the early second century were the only relevant datum, I'd probably give them the benefit of doubt and side with historicity. There are other data, though, and when they're all taken into consideration, historicity looks improbable to me.
If you mean Doherty's MJ, then I'd suggest that the evidence is against it.

Given what is known of Hellenistic thinking, Paul's references to the Christ's atoning death and resurrection are consistent with his having believed that they occurred in a Platonic spirit world
What is a "Platonic spirit world" and what is the evidence for the idea existing in pagan writings? Doherty claims that it was something believed in by "the average pagan" but I'm not aware that he has produced ANYTHING along that lines to show that the concept existed in pagan literature.

That a group of first-century Jews would have deified any man, and then convinced other Jews of the man's divinity, is an improbability approaching impossibility
I second Vork's recommendation -- read through some of the articles in the link he gave, and you can see where Paul is coming from. IMHO Paul viewed Jesus (partly) as a second Moses, a divine intermediary on earth who brought in a New Covenant. This article from the link Vork gave is useful:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year25/8802.shtml

Enoch and Moses, however, are the most important non-Christian figures of divinization or angelic transformation. For instance, Philo describes Moses as divine, based upon the word God used of him in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Thus Sirach 45:1-5 compares Moses to God in the Hebrew or "equal in glory to the holy ones", in the Greek version of the text. Philo and the Samaritans also expressed Moses' pre-eminence in Jewish tradition by granting him a kind of deification. In the Testament of Moses, Moses is described as the mediator or arbiter of his covenant" (1:14)...

Philo can speak of Moses as made into a divinity in several places. In exegeting Moses' receiving the Ten Commandments, Philo envisions an ascent, not merely up the mountain but to the heavens, describing possibly a mystical identification between this manifestation of God and Moses by suggesting in his Life of Moses and Questions and Answers on Exodus that Moses attained to a divine nature through contact with the divinity...

The surviving text of Ezekiel the Tragedian also hints at a transformation of an earthly hero into a divine figure which he relates that the venerable man (phos gennaios) handed Moses his scepter and summoned him to sit upon the throne, placing a diadem on his head. Thereafter the stars bow down to him and parade for his inspection. Since stars and angels are identified throughout the biblical period, there can be no doubt that Moses here is depicted as the leader of the angels and hence above the angels. This enthronement scene with a human figure being exalted as a monarch or divinity in heaven resembles the enthronement of the "Son of man"; the enthronement helps us understand some of the traditions which later appear in Jewish mysticism and may have informed Paul's theology and mystical ascent in 2 Corinthians.

(ETA) I'm just waiting for the next logical step in the Jesus Myth camp: From "NO Jewish person back then could have regarded a human as a divine mediator figure", to "Bah! Human divine mediator figures were a dime a dozen back then! What makes Jesus so unique???"

[Toto]

Here is the blurb for Segal's book, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism:

<snip>

Not an official blurb, but a private review.

There is a lengthy essay here: ‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/McGrath_SBL2001_TwoPowers.htm)Although various forms of ‘two powers’ conceptuality may have been present in first-century Christian and Jewish thought, we will argue that there is no evidence that they were identified as heretical during that century.

[spamandham]

Yes, I would agree that other evidence may cause us to reevaluate Tacitus. I'm just questioning the idea of throwing it out because "the legend had time to grow" alone. Given that legends can spring up overnight, you get to be on a slippery slope.

It's more than just "the legend had time to grow". If that's all it, was, the MJ p[osition would simply be apologetics.

There are a lot of purplexing unanswered questions the HJers must sweep aside that the MJers don't need to address at all:

1. The earliest records of Christianity (presumed to be Paul's writings, and this argument changes if that isn't true) have almost no details at all about Jesus. Paul's Christ appears to be either purely mystical, or a figure from the indetermnate distant past, not someone who had recently lived.

2. Within the earliest writings, there are already several churches with divergent teachings. This makes little sense if those teachings were based on what a recent cult figure had been spreading.

3. Many of the stories attributed to Jesus are rooted in Pythagorean and Egyptian mysticism. Certainly these could have been attached as the legend grew, but it would be easier for them to be attached to a mythical figure no-one really knew anything about than to a recent historical figure who's ministry would be rememebred and passed down by those who knew him.

4. There are clear signs of attempts to syncretize other beliefs in the earliest records of Christain writings. The Jesus of the Bible was clearly neither Jewish nor a follower of John the Baptist. Yet early writings would have us believe both. It smells like a work of fiction invented to unite disparate religious beliefs for political purposes.

5. Follow the money: It DID in fact unite an empire that was in turmoil within.

6. There are no contemporary records of followers of Jesus. In light of the overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist, the oral tradition argument simply holds no water. Granted, this is an argument from ignorance, but a powerful one IMHO. It simply isn't reasonable that the same culture that would have made shrines in honor of John the Baptist would not have done the same for an even greater cult figure, unless you take the position that John the Baptist IS the historical Jesus, or unless you take the position Jesus was not a big cult figure in his day, but was turned into one later on by someone else. But in this latter case, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim he was an itinerate preacher. The proper position in the latter case would be that we know nothing at all about the historical Jesus, including when or where he lived (assuming he did).

None of this proves there was no historical Jesus, but to me at least, it alters the parsimony argument to the mythicist's court. If you start with the assumption Jesus is a myth, all these problems go away, and as far as I can tell, no serious problems are caused by such a position. Once such a myth got started, there would be no reason for anyone unfamiliar with these problems to question the historicity of Jesus.

Clearly, neither Tacitus nor Josephus would have reason to be familiar with these problems, as clearly, neither had much knowledge of Christianity.

[No Robots]

Not an official blurb, but a private review.

If you look, you will see that, while it was posted by an individual reviewer, it is identified as "publisher info". It is clearly identified as such here (http://www.bitsbytescomputer.com/store/catalog/two-powers-in-heaven-039104172X-BooksBibles.html).

There is a lengthy essay here: ‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM (http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/McGrath_SBL2001_TwoPowers.htm)

Very interesting. From my perspective, the important point is that neither Segal nor the critical paper in any way lead one to the conclusion that there is a correlation between the "Two Powers" and the kind of mythical neo-Platonic realm that Doherty postulates.

[No Robots]

The Jesus of the Bible was clearly neither Jewish nor a follower of John the Baptist. Yet early writings would have us believe both.

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN1845530071) / William Arnal. (p. 5)

[gurugeorge]

6. There are no contemporary records of followers of Jesus. In light of the overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist, the oral tradition argument simply holds no water. Granted, this is an argument from ignorance, but a powerful one IMHO. It simply isn't reasonable that the same culture that would have made shrines in honor of John the Baptist would not have done the same for an even greater cult figure, unless you take the position that John the Baptist IS the historical Jesus, or unless you take the position Jesus was not a big cult figure in his day, but was turned into one later on by someone else. But in this latter case, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim he was an itinerate preacher. The proper position in the latter case would be that we know nothing at all about the historical Jesus, including when or where he lived (assuming he did).



Great post, and the above about JTB is a good point that hadn't even occurred to me, thanks!

[GakuseiDon]

It's more than just "the legend had time to grow". If that's all it, was, the MJ position would simply be apologetics...

None of this proves there was no historical Jesus, but to me at least, it alters the parsimony argument to the mythicist's court. If you start with the assumption Jesus is a myth, all these problems go away, and as far as I can tell, no serious problems are caused by such a position. Once such a myth got started, there would be no reason for anyone unfamiliar with these problems to question the historicity of Jesus.
"Once such a myth got started" becomes the key, then. In your opinion, when did it start, and what was the mechanism by which a mythical Jesus became historicized by the time of Tacitus?

[GakuseiDon]

6. There are no contemporary records of followers of Jesus. In light of the overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist, the oral tradition argument simply holds no water. Granted, this is an argument from ignorance, but a powerful one IMHO. It simply isn't reasonable that the same culture that would have made shrines in honor of John the Baptist would not have done the same for an even greater cult figure, unless you take the position that John the Baptist IS the historical Jesus, or unless you take the position Jesus was not a big cult figure in his day, but was turned into one later on by someone else. But in this latter case, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim he was an itinerate preacher. The proper position in the latter case would be that we know nothing at all about the historical Jesus, including when or where he lived (assuming he did).Great post, and the above about JTB is a good point that hadn't even occurred to me, thanks!
Wow. I never heard that there was "overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist". It would be great if there is, but I thought it all dated from about the Second or Third Century CE. Can you or spamandham give details on the contemporary evidence?

[Toto]

The only contemporary or even close to contemporary evidence for JtB is Josephus. It is only "overwhelming" in comparison with the evidence for Jesus.

[spamandham]

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN1845530071) / William Arnal. (p. 5)

Thanks for the info! This counters what I've read elsewhere.

[Solo]

There are no contemporary records of followers of Jesus.


Why wouldn't the letters of Paul qualify, I wonder ?


In light of the overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist, the oral tradition argument simply holds no water.


what "overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence" is there for JtB ?

Puhleeze.....:rolleyes:


Granted, this is an argument from ignorance, but a powerful one IMHO. It simply isn't reasonable that the same culture that would have made shrines in honor of John the Baptist would not have done the same for an even greater cult figure,


What "culture" and what "shrines" are you talking about ? The first big one I am aware of was the Yahia shrine in Damascus built under the Umayaad (where John's head is said to have been interred). Of course the followers of JtB, called "the Mandaeans" became quite a cult in the Persian Gulf, but that is not much earlier than first Christian churches either.

Incidentally, the Mandaean tradition say that John the Baptist did baptize Jesus but that it was a mistake, because Jesus became a deceiver.


....unless you take the position Jesus was not a big cult figure in his day, but was turned into one later on by someone else.


Many modern theologians following Bultmann have taken that very position....

Jiri

[Toto]

Why wouldn't the letters of Paul qualify [as contemporary evidence], I wonder ?

...

The letters of Paul cannot be reliably dated from internal evidence.

If one accepts Acts and the basic gospel story as history, Paul would have been a contemporary of Jesus - but he never met Jesus and gives no indication that he lived in the same era. He does refer to James as the Brother of the Lord (but not the brother of Jesus), but there are alternate interpretations of this phrase that make as much sense as a claim that James was a biological brother of Jesus.

[Solo]

The letters of Paul cannot be reliably dated from internal evidence.

If one accepts Acts and the basic gospel story as history, Paul would have been a contemporary of Jesus - but he never met Jesus and gives no indication that he lived in the same era. He does refer to James as the Brother of the Lord (but not the brother of Jesus), but there are alternate interpretations of this phrase that make as much sense as a claim that James was a biological brother of Jesus.

I think there are plenty of indications he lived in the era in which Luke places him but you may bellieve as it suits you.

Paul's reference to James the Just (who I incidentally doubt was a biologically related to Jesus) may have had some bells put on it later but it appears to be genuine because it reveals much more than any mythmaker of the early history of the church would want to reveal. Incidentally, you forgot about Cephas and John.

Jiri

[spamandham]

Why wouldn't the letters of Paul qualify, I wonder ?

IMHO, Paul himself admits that his knowledge came from a combination of a vision to the "third heaven" combined with revelation through Logos. Clearly, he himself admits he never knew Jesus. Even if we accept the traditional dating of Paul's writings to the mid 1st century, that still puts him a minimum of 20 years+ after the fact, assuming Jesus existed NLT 30 CE, which, admittedly, there is little reason to assume, but a later date for Jesus causes even more problems.

I'm not interested in arguing about JtB in this thread, so I'm blowing off the rest of your questions. I'd like to keep the focus as best I can on trying to answer the OP.

[Solo]

Originally Posted by Solo
Why wouldn't the letters of Paul qualify, I wonder ?

IMHO, Paul himself admits that his knowledge came from a combination of a vision to the "third heaven" combined with revelation through Logos.


Knowledge of what ? The way I look at it is that Paul deals with a movement which idolizes a recently departed leader/idol. Paul argues with the Jesus-professing crowd as to the true nature of Jesus, the man (then) in heaven. The question I asked you was: why would his letters not qualify as historical witness to Jesus followers ?


Clearly, he himself admits he never knew Jesus.


I accept that (without the qualifier).


Even if we accept the traditional dating of Paul's writings to the mid 1st century, that still puts him a minimum of 20 years+ after the fact, assuming Jesus existed NLT 30 CE, which, admittedly, there is little reason to assume, but a later date for Jesus causes even more problems.


You have to do some more math on that. Paul backdates some events to which he is referring, i.e. his return to Damascus after his revelation, his first visit in Jerusalem, etc.


I'm not interested in arguing about JtB in this thread, so I'm blowing off the rest of your questions. I'd like to keep the focus as best I can on trying to answer the OP.

That's fine with me. But it was you who brought JtB up with some assertions which I requested you clarify. So I take this as admission that you were talking through your hat.

Jiri

[spamandham]

The question I asked you was: why would his letters not qualify as historical witness to Jesus followers ?

I would say Paul's letters do prove there was a Christian movement at the time Paul wrote. But Paul clearly never knew Jesus, and never appeals to the authority of anyone who knew Jesus either. The obvious conclusion is that Paul is not a contemporary of Jesus, which was the point I originally made. If you have a point, make it. I'm not interested in arguing.


That's fine with me. But it was you who brought JtB up with some assertions which I requested you clarify. So I take this as admission that you were talking through your hat.

Jiri

Assume whatever you want.

[Doug Shaver]

Given what is known of Hellenistic thinking, Paul's references to the Christ's atoning death and resurrection are consistent with his having believed that they occurred in a Platonic spirit world, not the world inhabited by mortal humans.
The multiple discussions over kata sarka in this forum show the problems with this.
I have read those discussions, or at least a substantial part of them. In a nutshell: I think those who dispute Doherty's interpretation have utterly failed to prove their case.

That a group of first-century Jews would have deified any man, and then convinced other Jews of the man's divinity, is an improbability approaching impossibility.
This is misleading because it neglects that the Synoptic Gospels did not go so far as to portray Jesus as God.
I don't consider any of the gospels to be a source of information about Jewish thinking during the years immediately following Jesus' death.

Even Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:28 that Jesus is second-in-command.
That is one proof text. When I read Paul's epistles in their entirety, I see a divine Christ.

It also ignores that Jews had glorified Moses and Enoch in ways that came just shy of being godlike.
I don't think Paul's Christ is at all shy of being godlike. I think his Christ is godlike, period.

It also means that the idea of a man as divine is not as unthinkable to the Jews as you portrayed it to be.
To assert that Paul's Christ is a divine man is to assume your conclusion.

So you argue that the Jews would never go as far as deifying any man, but would violate their prejudice against polytheism--which not even orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity did--by worshiping another god altogether?
I think hellenized Jews could have done something like that, yes, provided the "other god" had never been a man of this world.

As for orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity -- we're talking about what Christians were believing in Paul's time. Orthodoxy didn't exist then. And if you're referring to the Trinity, Christians can stamp their feet, wave their arms, and call it monotheism until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it monotheism.

[Doug Shaver]

If you mean Doherty's MJ, then I'd suggest that the evidence is against it.
I have seen such a suggestion many times, but never the evidence itself.

What is a "Platonic spirit world" and what is the evidence for the idea existing in pagan writings? Doherty claims that it was something believed in by "the average pagan" but I'm not aware that he has produced ANYTHING along that lines to show that the concept existed in pagan literature.
I've been led to believe that Dillon's The Middle Platonists is the best current authority on that subject, and Doherty includes it among his sources.

I obtained a copy by (nonrenewable) interlibrary loan and skimmed it, which is all I had time to do before I had to return the book. Before returning it, I ordered a copy of my own from Amazon, but shipment has been delayed, so my research is hanging fire at the moment. All I can say at the moment is that I saw nothing in Dillon that was inconsistent with Doherty's claims, and some things that were at least suggestively in support of it. Whenever the book finally gets here, I will be taking a slow and careful look at it.

Also, a couple of years ago I read The Heirs of Plato by the same author and I still have that one. I'll be looking through it again before I'm done with this. As best I recall at this point, it too was at least consistent with Doherty. However, since the period it covers is before the one we're talking about, I'm not expecting it to find any smoking guns in it.

I second Vork's recommendation -- read through some of the articles in the link he gave
I'll do that.

[Neil List]

You draw an excellent analogy. Certainly, far more know of Luke Skywalker than the 30 to 50 people who reportedly still have faith in Koresh's Messianic status. Moreover, if it happened, it would represent an excellent verified example of how future religion might develop from an obvious fictional source. Who do you consider the closest actual modern-day analogy?

I had another thought. For all I know Luke Skywalker may have actual faithful followers. In which case, you have made your case.

God bless,


Laura

As my first foray into this forum I thought I'd throw in a tongue in cheek remark:

The BBC website records that "Jedi Knight" made it onto the list of "official relgions" in the 2001 UK Census - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1589133.stm - I wonder what future IIDB forums in 4007 CE will make of Luke Skywalker when they view that there were in excess of 10,000 Jedi Knights living in the UK in 2001? Wonder if the descendants of Spin and yenquirer will be slogging it out as to whether Darth Vader was financially or politically in charge of the Death Star?
NL

[jjramsey]

So you argue that the Jews would never go as far as deifying any man, but would violate their prejudice against polytheism--which not even orthodox or proto-orthodox Christianity did--by worshiping another god altogether?

I think hellenized Jews could have done something like that, yes, provided the "other god" had never been a man of this world.

Considering that the reluctance to divinize a man came from the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me," your conclusion makes no sense. Worshiping another god would have been an outright violation of this commandment, whether he had never been a man of this world or not. By contrast, the kind of language used to indicate Jesus as divine avoids the idea of Jesus being totally separate from God. This tendency culminated in the now orthodox idea of the Trinity.

And if you're referring to the Trinity, Christians can stamp their feet, wave their arms, and call it monotheism until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it monotheism.

This is nonsense. You can argue that the Trinity is not coherent, but it is pretty silly to deny that the point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to preserve monotheism.

[GakuseiDon]

If you mean Doherty's MJ, then I'd suggest that the evidence is against it.
I have seen such a suggestion many times, but never the evidence itself.
Really? I'll put up three points here:

1. "Born of a woman". I've seen half-a-dozen usages where it is clearly referring to a human being born on earth. Doherty (AFAIK) hasn't offered one where it doesn't refer to someone born in the sublunar realm.
2. Jesus created "lower than the angels". This mirrors a passage in Psalms, which without question is referring to mankind. Doherty's reponse? That "both Floor 5 and Floor 1 are “lower than the roof”, but they are not thereby on the same level, and both may not be inhabited by people of the same nationality". He doesn't offer any examples supporting this, though.

In both cases above, there are no passages that he has presented to support him. Yet there are passages against him. It doesn't prove that he is wrong (he could claim that the authors had a "unique" usage which would be impossible to disprove), but clearly the evidence itself is against him.

The final one is the most damaging, IMO, and hopefully you'll be able to confirm it via Dillon:

3. Doherty says that for the average pagan, 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, and Attis could be castrated. But again, he can give no examples from the literature where he shows this, while I can give examples from the literature showing how the myths were either thought to have been enacted on earth, or were allegorical, and so didn't occur at all. Some recent discussions are here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=174800&page=5
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=175903

I've been led to believe that Dillon's The Middle Platonists is the best current authority on that subject, and Doherty includes it among his sources.

I obtained a copy by (nonrenewable) interlibrary loan and skimmed it, which is all I had time to do before I had to return the book. Before returning it, I ordered a copy of my own from Amazon, but shipment has been delayed, so my research is hanging fire at the moment. All I can say at the moment is that I saw nothing in Dillon that was inconsistent with Doherty's claims, and some things that were at least suggestively in support of it. Whenever the book finally gets here, I will be taking a slow and careful look at it.
It's a dense book, but very useful. It convinced me that Doherty is wrong.
Before reading it, reread Doherty again. Do you understand what he says about the "fleshy sublunar" realm? e.g. Is it another dimension? Is it contiguous with ours? Did pagans believe that Attis was castrated there? (I've found that many Doherty supporters can't coherently discuss what he means by that in the first place -- they just point to the review by Carrier) If not, concentrate on that, and then see if you can find anything in Dillon that would support the idea that the pagans believed that their myths took place in a "sublunar" realm. It isn't there. Given how the myths are described, you will find that the evidence is simply against Doherty.

I've been urging Doherty supporters to look further into his ideas, beyond what they find in his book. I'd be interested in what you find out, either pro or con.

(ETA) I just realised that I forgot to ask you to define what a "Platonic spirit world" is, from the pagan perspective. Can you say what you mean? Did it include "fleshy" activities? Did pagans place the activities of their gods there? Was it located under the Moon, or was it placed in another dimension? Which pagan writers referred to the concept?

[spamandham]

1. "Born of a woman". I've seen half-a-dozen usages where it is clearly referring to a human being born on earth. Doherty (AFAIK) hasn't offered one where it doesn't refer to someone born in the sublunar realm.
2. Jesus created "lower than the angels". This mirrors a passage in Psalms, which without question is referring to mankind. Doherty's reponse? That "both Floor 5 and Floor 1 are “lower than the roof”, but they are not thereby on the same level, and both may not be inhabited by people of the same nationality". He doesn't offer any examples supporting this, though.

I don't see how Paul using references back to the OT negates the MJ position really. If Paul's Jesus was mystical in the mind of Paul, then such references would have to be understood according to a mystical interpretation. The real question is not whether or not Paul made a couple of comments that seem to indicate a HJ, but rather, whether his perspective is HJ or mystical.

Here is the passage from Galations in context:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman {"born" is not a good translation according to my lexicon}, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. At a time when you did not know God, you became slaves to things that by nature are not gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again?

You are observing days, months, seasons, and years. I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain. I implore you, brothers, be as I am, because I have also become as you are. You did me no wrong;
you know that it was because of a physical illness that I originally preached the gospel to you, and you did not show disdain or contempt because of the trial caused you by my physical condition, but rather you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

Within a very brief area, we have Paul possibly alluding to a human Jesus (assuming Jesus is the Son referred to in 4:4), and also clearly alluding to Jesus Christ by name as a spiritual being (an angel of God). Both passages make sense if Paul's Jesus was mystical, but it seems to require some contortions to make the bolded passage fit if Paul's Jesus was historical in his mind.

[Vorkosigan]

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
1. "Born of a woman". I've seen half-a-dozen usages where it is clearly referring to a human being born on earth. Doherty (AFAIK) hasn't offered one where it doesn't refer to someone born in the sublunar realm.

Depicting Israel as a woman was an OT metaphor -- in Isa 62, for example, the Lord marries the Virgin Israel. "Born of woman" -- with the more general verb used than the specific one for birth -- probably signifies something like that. This metaphorical usage is reinforced throughout this passage -- where believers are adopted, are Paul's children for whom he has "labored" (is the pun the same in Greek?), where woman is used metaphorically and allegorically:

But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman (source) (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians4.htm).

and Jerusalem their "mother" is in slavery but the Jerusalem above is in freedom.

It doesn't make sense that a passage where "mother" is used metaphorically and allegorically throughout really intends to use it narrowly and prosaically at the beginning. The apologetic "born of woman" argument generally neglects that larger context of Galatians 4 where birth and mothers mean so many things.

Vorkosigan

[GakuseiDon]

I don't see how Paul using references back to the OT negates the MJ position really. If Paul's Jesus was mystical in the mind of Paul, then such references would have to be understood according to a mystical interpretation.
It goes to evidence. For example, we have quite a few passages where the context of "born of a woman" clearly means a human being. I'm not aware of any passages that support Doherty. You could say that they should be understood using a "mystical interpretation", but without textual support, such a response comes across as adhoc. I can't disprove it, but I can say that the evidence we do have is against it.

[Vorkosigan]

It goes to evidence. For example, we have quite a few passages where the context of "born of a woman" clearly means a human being. I'm not aware of any passages that support Doherty. You could say that they should be understood using a "mystical interpretation", but without textual support, such a response comes across as adhoc. I can't disprove it, but I can say that the evidence we do have is against it.

See my post above this one. The evidence we have -- the rest of Gal 4 -- may well support Doherty's view.

[GakuseiDon]

It doesn't make sense that a passage where "mother" is used metaphorically and allegorically throughout really intends to use it narrowly and prosaically at the beginning. The apologetic "born of woman" argument generally neglects that larger context of Galatians 4 where birth and mothers mean so many things.
I don't understand what you are saying Gal 4 means then, I'm afraid. Earlier Gal 3 talks of Jesus as descendent of Abraham:

3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. 10 It does not say, "And to descendants," as referring to many, but as referring to one, "And to your descendant," who is Christ
...
3:19 Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made
...
4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman born under the law

Also keep in mind "seed of David". Given the use of "born of woman" elsewhere, it seems pretty strongly to indicate a human being.

The evidence we have -- the rest of Gal 4 -- may well support Doherty's view.
Actually, Doherty recently stated that "born of woman" could be an interpolation, inserted for the specific purpose to show that Jesus was a human being. From here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169780

“Born of woman” would be a natural insertion in Galatians (let’s say around the middle of the 2nd century to counter docetics like Marcion and others) to make the point that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.

[Ben C Smith]

See my post above this one.

Good to see you back on the boards, Michael. :)

Ben.

[spamandham]

It goes to evidence. For example, we have quite a few passages where the context of "born of a woman" clearly means a human being.

This seems a weak but valid point to me. However, "born of a woman" is not a good translation of Gal 4:4. I'm curious what other passages you are referring to though. My own search for this phrase, within the Bible, turned up only Gal 4:4.

Mysticism uses language symbolically rather than literally. I suppose it's up to Doherty (or whoever is arguing the mystic Paul position) to build a solid case that Paul was a mystic. Once achieved though, everything Paul wrote must then be viewed from that perspective.

Time and again Paul makes comments that he (Paul) is revealing some long hidden mystery. He explicitly tells us he got his knowledge through a combination of a vision and the Logos process. He talks about Christ as being an angel whos sacrifice was made before the beginning of time. He clearly sees himself as someone to whom a unique revelation has been given and that the revelation itself is what makes him the authority.

The case that Pauls Jesus was mystical is not irrefutable, but it seems to me Paul's perspective of Jesus must have been one of the following:

1. Christ is a mystical concept and Jesus is symbolic/spiritual, or
2. Jesus was a real person who lived in the distant past (from Paul's perspective) and was mostly forgotten until Paul came along.

Neither of these are flattering to the HJ position. The HJ position would be strengthened if it were shown Paul's writings were from the 2nd century rather than the mid 1st (as was previously suggested in this thread), since Paul's writings are the strongest evidence of a purely mythical Jesus, in my mind.

[spamandham]

Actually, Doherty recently stated that "born of woman" could be an interpolation, inserted for the specific purpose to show that Jesus was a human being. From here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169780

This sounds like an apologetic argument to me. Sure, it might have been added later by someone trying to change Paul's slant, and it seems almost certain that Paul's writings were interpolated to some degree.

But it seems to me the burdon of proof is on the person claiming it's an interpolation to demonstrate why it doesn't fit. It isn't enough to simply say "well, that might be an interpolation".

However, rather than arguing it's an interpolation, it seems a solid case can be made that the following train of thought MUST contain symbolic language:

when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles[b] of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son,

Clearly, Paul is not referring to actual childhood in the "when we were children" phrase. This is obvious usage of symbolic language to refer to "spiritual" childhood. The "but" of Gal 4:4 continues that train of thought. It makes more sense to me to view the entire train of thought as symbolic of spiritual awakening, rather than to pick sporadic parts here and there to claim they are meant literally while interspersed within a symbolic dialog.

If Doherty has tried to apologize this passage away rather than analyzing what it really means, he has done himself a great disservice. A proper analysis may well strengthen rather than weaken the "Paul was a mystic" position.

[Doug Shaver]

Considering that the reluctance to divinize a man came from the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me," your conclusion makes no sense.
True . . . if you assume that religious people never engage in creative reinterpretation of their sacred writings in order to accommodate their personal predilections.

You can argue that the Trinity is not coherent, but it is pretty silly to deny that the point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to preserve monotheism.
I don't deny that that was its point. I deny that it succeeded in actually preserving monotheism.

[Doug Shaver]

Really? I'll put up three points here:

1. "Born of a woman". . . .
2. Jesus created "lower than the angels".
3. Doherty says . . . while I can give examples from the literature showing how the myths were either thought to have been enacted on earth, or were allegorical, and so didn't occur at all.
Oh, those. OK, my bad. I should have written "never seen any convincing evidence."

(ETA) I just realised that I forgot to ask you to define what a "Platonic spirit world" is, from the pagan perspective.
It's the universe that that Platonists thought existed alongside, or above (or maybe both in some sense), the one we perceive with our senses. It's the place where Plato himself thought his Forms existed.

[Ben C Smith]

Josephus, Antiquities 16.11.5 §382:

Δυο νεανισκους εκ βασιλιδος γυναικος γενομενους εις πασαν αρετην ακρους αναιρησεις σεαυτον εν γηρα καταλιπων εφ ενι παιδι κακως οικονομησαντι την εις αυτον ελπιδα και συγγενεσιν, ων αυτος τοσαυτακις ηδη κατεγνωκας θανατον;

Will you slay these two young men, born of a queenly woman, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave yourself destitute in your old age, but exposed to one son who has very ill managed the hopes you have given him, and to relations whose death you have so often resolved on yourself?

Here Josephus uses both the same participle and the same prepositional phrase as in Galatians 4.4, and he clearly means real human beings.

Josephus also writes in Antiquities 12.4.6 §186 that Joseph, son of Tobias, had become a father of seven children from one woman (πατηρ μεν γενομενος εκ μιας γυναικος παιδων επτα).

In Antiquities 1.12.2 §214 we find the same expression as in Galatians 4.4, but with concubine instead of woman:

Ισμαηλος γαρ ο κτιστης αυτων του εθνους Αβραμω γενομενος εκ της παλλακης εν τουτω περιτεμνεται τω χρονω.

For Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age.

Ben.

[Amaleq13]

Ben,

While I question the interpretation preferred by mythicists, none of those examples seem to me to be sufficiently similar to the assertion Paul offers since none appear to be similarly concerned about establishing that the mother was human and none can be similarly argued to be metaphors.

It seems to me that Paul's assertion is likely unique but I don't think it offers mythicists a "smoking gun" since I've come to see such a statement as entirely reasonable given a belief in the incarnation of a divine entity. I would expect such a belief to produce very odd references to both the birth and physical nature of the entity that would probably be indistinguishable from a "mythical Jesus" belief.

[jakejonesiv]

This sounds like an apologetic argument to me. Sure, it might have been added later by someone trying to change Paul's slant, and it seems almost certain that Paul's writings were interpolated to some degree.

But it seems to me the burdon of proof is on the person claiming it's an interpolation to demonstrate why it doesn't fit. It isn't enough to simply say "well, that might be an interpolation".




Gal. 4:4 is not in the Marcionite version. So there is textual evidence, if you will have it.

But the argument as whole seems strange to me.

If we didn't have the Pauline epistles, what would we know about the supposed life of Jesus that we do not know now? That he was born??? :rolling: The answer is nothing. Paul does not give one scrap or detail that is not discernable from the gospels.

And yet it is proposed that Jesus' personality was so powerful, that he was such a charasmatic figure, that after death his followers elevated him to the status of a GOD in just a few scant years, creating a brand new religion in his name!

That is preposterous. What personality? What charisma? "Paul" doesn't know a bit of it, or else he disdained it to the extent that it receives no mention.

Jake Jones IV

[Ben C Smith]

Ben,

Hi, Doug. Been a while.

While I question the interpretation preferred by mythicists, none of those examples seem to me to be sufficiently similar to the assertion Paul offers since none appear to be similarly concerned about establishing that the mother was human....

I agree that none of the Josephan examples seems concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed. I would add, however, that neither does Paul seem concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed.

What is at stake is the meaning of the phrase born [or made] of a woman. How likely is it that an author (like Paul) decided to use such a phrase for a person he knew to be mythical, metaphysical, metaphorical, or nonhuman?

...and none can be similarly argued to be metaphors.

That is the point of the comparison. If I offer instances in which it is unclear what is being said, my sparring partner(s) can always assert that those instances themselves are examples of a metaphysical usage.

I have examples of born [or made] of a woman clearly being used to refer to real human beings (as the very wording of the saying would lead us to believe a priori). If my sparring partner(s) can produce examples of that phrase clearly being used metaphysically, then the debate is on; which is Galatians 4.4, physical or metaphysical? But, if not, then perhaps reading a metaphysical birth into Galatians 4.4 is just wishful thinking.

Ben.

[jakejonesiv]

Josephus, Antiquities 16.11.5 §382:

Δυο νεανισκους εκ βασιλιδος γυναικος γενομενους εις πασαν αρετην ακρους αναιρησεις σεαυτον εν γηρα καταλιπων εφ ενι παιδι κακως οικονομησαντι την εις αυτον ελπιδα και συγγενεσιν, ων αυτος τοσαυτακις ηδη κατεγνωκας θανατον;

Will you slay these two young men, born of a queenly woman, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave yourself destitute in your old age, but exposed to one son who has very ill managed the hopes you have given him, and to relations whose death you have so often resolved on yourself?

Here Josephus uses both the same participle and the same prepositional phrase as in Galatians 4.4, and he clearly means real human beings.

Josephus also writes in Antiquities 12.4.6 §186 that Joseph, son of Tobias, had become a father of seven children from one woman (πατηρ μεν γενομενος εκ μιας γυναικος παιδων επτα).

In Antiquities 1.12.2 §214 we find the same expression as in Galatians 4.4, but with concubine instead of woman:

Ισμαηλος γαρ ο κτιστης αυτων του εθνους Αβραμω γενομενος εκ της παλλακης εν τουτω περιτεμνεται τω χρονω.

For Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age.

Ben.

Hi Ben!

Have you noticed the allusion to Job 15:14 LXX, which puts a different spin on what you think the passage is saying?

... or who being a mortal will still be blameless? Who is born of a woman will be just?

Who indeed? The answer of course in no one. These are attributes of God alone.

...How likely is it that an author (like Paul) decided to use such a phrase for a person he knew to be mythical, metaphysical, metaphorical, or nonhuman?


The point is, even with the redaction, Gal. 4:4 can be seen to making a theological point rather than a historical point.

The preceding phrase of Gal 4:4 declared that God sent forth his Son. In other words, Jesus was a pre-existent divine agent. Now, Jeffrey will deny that Jesus was conceived to be pre-existent, but not you Ben. Surely, not you.

Jake Jones IV

[spamandham]

Gal. 4:4 is not in the Marcionite version. So there is textual evidence, if you will have it.

Thanks for the info!


But the argument as whole seems strange to me.

If we didn't have the Pauline epistles, what would we know about the supposed life of Jesus that we do not know now? That he was born??? :rolling: The answer is nothing. Paul does not give one scrap or detail that is not discernable from the gospels.

I completely agree. The idea that Paul viewed Jesus as a recent historical figure makes no sense to me at all. Based on what I know presently (not much), I surmise that at best, Jesus was a distant historical figure in Paul's mind.

I have heard people try to argue that Paul intentionally avoided saying anything concrete about Jesus because:
a) he was embarrased to admit it in front of Jews
b) he was embarrased to admit it in front of Romans
c) he wanted to concentrate on the message and not the messenger (huh!?)
d) Paul was attempting a coup of sort and wanted the attention pointed at himself rather than Jesus

None of these seem even remotely reasonable to me. Those who wish to use Paul as evidence of a historical Jesus can not simply hand wave away Paul's abject failure to mention anything concrete about the life of Jesus. Paul tells us more about Philemon's slave than he tells us about Jesus.

[Ben C Smith]

Hi Ben!

Have you noticed the allusion to Job 15:14 LXX, which puts a different spin on what you think the passage is saying?

... or who being a mortal will still be blameless? Who is born of a woman will be just?

Who indeed? The answer of course in no one. These are attributes of God alone.

In Job 15.14 the phrase in question certainly means human. The question is: What human (that is, what person born of woman) is just? The answer, as you say, is no human. This does not imply that the phrase in question means something other than human or mortal; to the contrary, it demands such a meaning as a contrast to the immortal God.

The point is, even with the redaction, Gal. 4:4 can be seen to making a theological point rather than a historical point.

Can be seen, certainly. Mythicists apparently see it that way all the time.

But I am not very interested in what can be the case. I am interested in what is probably the case.

The preceding phrase of Gal 4:4 declared that God sent forth his Son. In other words, Jesus was a pre-existent divine agent. Now, Jeffrey will deny that Jesus was conceived to be pre-existent, but not you Ben. Surely, not you.

:)

Ben.

[spamandham]

I have examples of born [or made] of a woman clearly being used to refer to real human beings (as the very wording of the saying would lead us to believe a priori). If my sparring partner(s) can produce examples of that phrase clearly being used metaphysically, then the debate is on; which is Galatians 4.4, physical or metaphysical? But, if not, then perhaps reading a metaphysical birth into Galatians 4.4 is just wishful thinking.

Ben.

It doesn't seem valid to me to take examples of that phrase from Josephus, who was clearly attempting to write historical accounts, and declare that therefor anyone who used it around the first century was also writing a historical account. This seems to be begging the question, IMHO.

[jgibson000]

This seems a weak but valid point to me. However, "born of a woman" is not a good translation of Gal 4:4.

I'm curious to know why you say so. Why isn't it "born of a woman" a good translation of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? What do you think is a better one, and why?

Jeffrey Gibson

[spamandham]

I'm curious to know why you say so. Why isn't it "born of a woman" a good translation of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? What do you think is a better one, and why?

Jeffrey Gibson

I have no special insight into 1st century Greek, and am armed only with a tools readily available to anyone. Based on the Blue Letter Bible, the better translation would be "brought about by a woman" or "made of a woman".

It seems significant to me regarding this point that Paul did not choose a variant of gennao rather than ginomai, if he was trying to emphasize the historical nature of the Son (presumed to be a reference to Jesus). But perhaps one of our local experts can correct my presumption.

[jgibson000]

It doesn't seem valid to me to take examples of that phrase from Josephus, who was clearly attempting to write historical accounts, and declare that therefor anyone who used it around the first century was also writing a historical account.

But is this what is being claimed?

The issue is not whether, in claiming or assuming historicity for something he mentions in Galatians, Paul intended the whole of Galatians to be seen as something akin in genre to the Jewish War or the Antiquities, let alone that anyone seeing Paul make a claim about something that happened in history as the basis of an argument as to why the Galatians can be assured that they have been redeemed from the curse of the law, is assuming or arguing or concluding that the whole of Galatians is, or should be seen as, an attempt on Paul's part to write an historical account.

It's whether Paul is making historical statements within a writing that he himself knows is not anything like Josephus' Jewish War. More importanly, it's what the Galatians or anyone in the first century would have assumjed was being stated when they heard anyone using the phrase GENOMENON EK GUNAKAI in any genre of writing..

This seems to be begging the question, IMHO.

The only thing that is question begging here is the assertion on your part that unless one is writing an historical account, nothing one says can or should be taken as a statement about something that happened in history or an assertion of an fact in history. Or to put this another way: what is the truth value of the claim that statements (not accounts) are/can be viewed as being historical statements if and only if they appear within the works of someone who is intent to write "history"/be a chronicler of events.

The answer is: of no value at all.

Jeffrey Gibson

[jakejonesiv]

I have no special insight into 1st century Greek, and am armed only with a tools readily available to anyone. Based on the Blue Letter Bible, the better translation would be "brought about by a woman" or "made of a woman".

It seems significant to me regarding this point that Paul did not choose a variant of gennao rather than ginomai, if he was trying to emphasize the historical nature of the Son (presumed to be a reference to Jesus). But perhaps one of our local experts can correct my presumption.


See Bart Ehrman's discussion on pages 238-239 of
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament .

[jakejonesiv]

In Job 15.14 the phrase in question certainly means human. The question is: What human (that is, what person born of woman) is just? The answer, as you say, is no human. This does not imply that the phrase in question means something other than human or mortal; to the contrary, it demands such a meaning as a contrast to the immortal God.
....

Ben.

Ben,

You are so right. In Job the contrast is between immortal God and mere man.

Job 15.14 asks the question, who born of a woman is blameless and just? You are correct, the context there is mortal or man. And in that context, the answer is no one.

But when we turn to Gal. 4:4, the context is different. The entity in view here is no mortal, it is the pre-existant Son of God.

So when the implied question "who born of a woman is blameless and just?" , the answer is not as in Job no one, but instead Jesus!

But the "Son of God" being "born of a woman" is not a historically verifiable statement. There is no history to be found in this context, only theology. The phrase "born of a woman" is taken from Job 15:14, not any eye-witness knowledge of Jesus' mother or birth.

Jake Jones IV

[Ben C Smith]

Ben,

You are so right. In Job the contrast is between immortal God and mere man.

Job 15.14 asks the question, who born of a woman is blameless and just? You are correct, the context there is mortal or man. And in that context, the answer is no one.

But when we turn to Gal. 4:4, the context is different. The entity in view here is no mortal, it is the pre-existant Son of God.

Whatever else Paul may have thought about Jesus, he certainly thought that Jesus was mortal. He goes on frequently about how Jesus died. Susceptible to death is the very definition of mortal.

So when the implied question "who born of a woman is blameless and just?" , the answer is not as in Job no one, but instead Jesus!

Where does that question appear in Galatians 4?

Rather, the whole point (and Doherty himself agrees with this) is that the savior must become like the saved.

Therefore, since those to be saved were under the law, the son of God was made under the law. Likewise, since those to be saved were mortal humans, the son of God became a mortal human. (Here Doherty pulls a switcheroo, as it were, and claims that to become quasi-human in some demonic fleshly realm that is not really earth qualifies as becoming human in this context; it is at this point that the debate takes a sharp left turn, and we are no longer debating the meaning of the phrase born of a woman.)

But the "Son of God" being "born of a woman" is not a historically verifiable statement.

That the man called Jesus was the son of God is not historically verifiable. That the man called Jesus was born of a woman is, at least in theory, verifiable.

There is no history to be found in this context, only theology.

I would suggest that both history and theology are to be found in this context, and that to oppose the two in such a binary manner is a category mistake.

The phrase "born of a woman" is taken from Job 15:14, not any eye-witness knowledge of Jesus' mother or birth.

Ah, so the phrase does mean human, as it does in Job 15.14, even if Paul was inventing the fact.

Ben.

[Ben C Smith]

It doesn't seem valid to me to take examples of that phrase from Josephus, who was clearly attempting to write historical accounts, and declare that therefore anyone who used it around the first century was also writing a historical account. This seems to be begging the question, IMHO.

In our effort to get at the meaning of a certain phrase in Paul, it is invalid to look for instances of that same phrase in Josephus? If you simply mean that finding instances in Josephus is not necessarily the end-all of the argument, fine. But invalid?

And I am not claiming that Paul was writing history, any more than I would claim that Ezra Pound was writing history in the Cantos. Yet plenty of history is to be found in the Cantos, and I think that history can also be found in Paul.

Here are two questions for you:

1. Did Paul think that the son of God was born of a woman?
2. Did Paul think that the son of God became a human being?

It is my contention that these two questions are synonymous (as indeed they appear to be at first glance). To be born of a woman is to be human; to be human is to be born of a woman.

I have reams of examples of the phrase made [or born] from a woman, or tight variations on that phrase, indicating a literal birth (and thus literal humanity). If you think that these questions are dissimilar, then you will have to produce some examples of the phrase made [or born] of a woman meaning something other than a physical birth; that is, you will have to produce evidence for your view.

Ben.

[Solo]

:cool:

Originally Posted by Solo
The question I asked you was: why would his letters not qualify as historical witness to Jesus followers ?

I would say Paul's letters do prove there was a Christian movement at the time Paul wrote. But Paul clearly never knew Jesus, and never appeals to the authority of anyone who knew Jesus either. The obvious conclusion is that Paul is not a contemporary of Jesus, which was the point I originally made. If you have a point, make it. I'm not interested in arguing.


I am not arguing. I asked you a question which you are answering with a non-sequitur. There is no "obvious conclusion" you can make on the information you are citing. Logically, you cannot conclude from Paul not knowing Jesus that we was not his contemporary. If Jesus did exist, Saul/Paul may not have been aware of him or his ideas until after he was gone. That is clearly a possibility.

But that is beside the point: what is germane to my query is that - in your own words - Paul's letters prove there was "a Christian movement at the time Paul [wrote]". So his letters are (to the great majority of the scholarly community) a historical witness to Jesus following in his time.

So the OBVIOUS next question (not conclusion) here would be, if we know of no-one who wrote about Jesus Christ before Paul, what accounts for the breakout of mass hallucinations of Jesus at that particular point in time ?

You may consider this a rhetorical question. :cool:

Jiri

[Toto]

See Bart Ehrman's discussion on pages 238-239 of
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament .

"But it should not be overlooked that both passages proved instrumental in the orthodox insistence on Jesus' real birth, making the changes look suspiciously useful for the conflict. In Galatians 4:4, Paul says that God "sent forth his Son, come from a woman, come under the law" (genomenon ek gynaikos, genomenon 'ypo no mon). The verse was used by the orthodox to oppose the Gnostic claim that Christ came through Mary "as water through a pipe," taking nothing of its conduit into itself; for here the apostle states that Christ was "made from a woman" (so Irenaius, Adv. Haer. III, 22, I, and Tertulian, de carne Christi, 20). Irenaeus also uses the text against docetists to show that Christ was actually a man, in that he came from a woman (Adv. Haer, V, 21, 1). It should strike us as odd that Tertullian never quotes the verse against Marcion, despite his lengthy demonstration that Christ was actually "born." This can scarcely be attributed to oversight, and so is more likely due to the circumstance that the generally received Latin text of the verse does not speak of Christ's birth per se, but of his "having been made" (factum ex muliere).

..."

Suspciously useful indeed.

[Solo]

What is at stake is the meaning of the phrase born [or made] of a woman. How likely is it that an author (like Paul) decided to use such a phrase for a person he knew to be mythical, metaphysical, metaphorical, or nonhuman?


....nota BENe ;) how likely in a pasage where he exhorts the fallen "sons" in his church to imitatio Christi which he, live, human Paul acts out for them, although he too fell down from heaven or near that (Gal 4:12) ?

Jiri

[GakuseiDon]

I'll put up three points here:

1. "Born of a woman". . . .
2. Jesus created "lower than the angels".
3. Doherty says . . . while I can give examples from the literature showing how the myths were either thought to have been enacted on earth, or were allegorical, and so didn't occur at all.
Oh, those. OK, my bad. I should have written "never seen any convincing evidence."
:) Fair enough.

It's the universe that that Platonists thought existed alongside, or above (or maybe both in some sense), the one we perceive with our senses. It's the place where Plato himself thought his Forms existed.
I think you mean "Middle-Platonic spirit world", then. From what I understand of Plato's idea of forms, he didn't locate them anywhere.

"Middle Platonists" however believed in a supralunar realm that contained incorruptible permanent entities. But the problem here is that there is no evidence that they would have placed suffering and death at the hands of demons in such a realm.

You wrote:

Given what is known of Hellenistic thinking, Paul's references to the Christ's atoning death and resurrection are consistent with his having believed that they occurred in a Platonic spirit world, not the world inhabited by mortal humans.

Can you tell me which pagan writers support such a view, and the passages please?

[No Robots]

....nota BENe ;) , in a pasage in which he exhorts the fallen "sons" in his church to imitatio Christi which he - live, human - Paul acts out for them, although he too fell down from heaven or near that (Gal 4:12) ?

Are you not referring to Gal 4:14:

You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

[No Robots]

"But it should not be overlooked that both passages proved instrumental in the orthodox insistence on Jesus' real birth, making the changes look suspiciously useful for the conflict.

The conflict in question being the one between the orthodox and the docetists.

[Clivedurdle]

It seems probable that there is more evidence that Merlin existed than Jesus! There is a line that he was in a battle and went mad. There are variations of this, expansions, in various poems, but the conclusion is that a bloke called Merlin was involved in a battle and did go mad.

Why is there nothing trackable in the same way with jesus?

The discussion above seems to be forgetting comparisons with other heroes born of women - like Hercules.

[Solo]

"But it should not be overlooked that both passages proved instrumental in the orthodox insistence on Jesus' real birth, making the changes look suspiciously useful for the conflict. In Galatians 4:4, Paul says that God "sent forth his Son, come from a woman, come under the law" (genomenon ek gynaikos, genomenon 'ypo no mon). The verse was used by the orthodox to oppose the Gnostic claim that Christ came through Mary "as water through a pipe," taking nothing of its conduit into itself; for here the apostle states that Christ was "made from a woman" (so Irenaius, Adv. Haer. III, 22, I, and Tertulian, de carne Christi, 20). Irenaeus also uses the text against docetists to show that Christ was actually a man, in that he came from a woman (Adv. Haer, V, 21, 1). It should strike us as odd that Tertullian never quotes the verse against Marcion, despite his lengthy demonstration that Christ was actually "born." This can scarcely be attributed to oversight, and so is more likely due to the circumstance that the generally received Latin text of the verse does not speak of Christ's birth per se, but of his "having been made" (factum ex muliere).

..."

Suspciously useful indeed.

My answer to that is that I don't care a hoot who will profit from the truth. The 10,000 bodies of Polish officers murdered by Stalin's NKVD in 1939 did not help the Allied war effort. So ???? What relevance does that have in determining whether NKVD actually killed them ?

Ehrman argues well against Rom 1:3-4 coming from Paul. The idea of Jesus as royal Davidic flesh & blood is preposterously un-Pauline.

But he has nothing to show for Gal 4:4. In that passage, Paul is being Paul - Jesus was nobody on Earth, born like everyone else, inter urinas et faeces, God hid his true nature, even from him. With God all things are possible ! His Son appeared on earth a fool and a criminal ! He sent Paul to show the world the glory of the celestial Christ. Paul had the taste of eternity, the sight of the glory of the life beyond. Will you be like Paul ? He is like you (4:12)!

If Gal 4:4 is a later insert, it's a perfect forgery !

Jiri

[spamandham]

1. Did Paul think that the son of God was born of a woman?
2. Did Paul think that the son of God became a human being?

It is my contention that these two questions are synonymous (as indeed they appear to be at first glance). To be born of a woman is to be human; to be human is to be born of a woman.

I am admittedly not a Greek scholar, so I'm willing to simply accept that the phrase really does mean "born of a woman" rather than perhaps "an idea originally created by a woman" or some other interpretation no-one has considered in this thread. You seem to know much more than I do regarding the meaning of this expression, so I'll simply yield to your translation and leave it at that.

The primary contention is that simply because Josephus uses the phrase "born of a woman" where he is clearly referring to an actual birth by an actual woman, and Paul uses the exact same expression, does not in any way counter the idea that Paul's Jesus is mystical.

Mystical language necessarily parallels ordinary language. I would expect to find common idioms show up in mystical usages. The whole idea behind mysticism is the hidden symbolism. If I were on a jury and Paul were being tried for being a mystic, I'd have to find him overwhelmingly guilty based on the evidence I'm aware of. I'm curious if you would judge differently.

[spamandham]

If Jesus did exist, Saul/Paul may not have been aware of him or his ideas until after he was gone. That is clearly a possibility.

Perhaps your idea of "contemporary" and mine are different. I do not consider someone a contemporary unless there is geographical and temporal overlap between the two. Paul talks about Jesus in the past tense, and seems to know almost nothing about Jesus. Paul also never appeals to the authority of anyone who supposedly knew Jesus. How could Paul be a contemporary of Jesus, and apparently not even know people who personally knew Jesus? I have never seen anyone answer this with anything but unrealistic apologetic style answers. Sure, it's possible Paul was a contemporary, it just seems extremely unlikely given his silence.

My purpose here is to understand what's most probable. In that spirit, I think I'm more than justified to say Paul was clearly not a contemporary of Jesus.


But that is beside the point: what is germane to my query is that - in your own words - Paul's letters prove there was "a Christian movement at the time Paul [wrote]". So his letters are (to the great majority of the scholarly community) a historical witness to Jesus following in his time.

So the OBVIOUS next question (not conclusion) here would be, if we know of no-one who wrote about Jesus Christ before Paul, what accounts for the breakout of mass hallucinations of Jesus at that particular point in time ?

What hallucinations? There are no eyewitness accounts at all. I have no answer as to why there would already be multiple Christian congregations recorded in the earliest records. But in no way does my lack of knowledge imply a historical Jesus.

The earliest records we have DO prove there was a Christian movement, but more importantly, they prove that there was significant discord within this movement. Paul's letters were letters of persuasion more than anything else, and they record significant differences between these churches.

If you wish to claim that the existence of this movement provides evidence for a historical Jesus, then it seems to me it's also up to you to explain how such a movement could diverge so quickly after the passage of it's founder. Did they all have mass amnesia and forget what he taught? You also get the task of explaining why Paul seems to be totally ignorant of every detail of the founder and yet he (and several others he records) considers himself authoritative nonetheless.

[Ben C Smith]

If I were on a jury and Paul were being tried for being a mystic, I'd have to find him overwhelmingly guilty based on the evidence I'm aware of.

I absolutely think that Paul was a mystic. He regularly uses mystical language to refer to spiritual realities. I just do not happen to think that born of a woman is mystical language, at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. If you think that born of a woman is yet another example of his mystical language, one that I have missed, then you will need to provide evidence for such a view, since it is in fact a rather common way to express humanity.

My main purpose in adducing outside examples of this phrase (such as from, say, Josephus) is to counter a misconception that seems to pop up frequently on this very board, namely that born of a woman is an unusual way to call Jesus human. It is not unusual at all. Ancient texts from the OT to the Dead Sea scrolls to Euripides to the NT to the church fathers to Shakespeare (not ancient, I know) use such a phrase to mean human. Another misconception that I have encountered here is that Paul uses the wrong participle, that without the right one Paul must mean something else. While it is true that the Pauline word choice in Galatians 4.4 is not the most common choice out there, it is simply false that the force of the expression depends on the exact word used. Different verbs or participles may be substituted for the most common one, and Josephus uses the same word as Paul on several occasions.

I have a list of instances of the expression born [or made] of a woman on one of my web pages (http://www.textexcavation.com/bornofawoman.html). That page resulted from a nice little debate I had with Earl Doherty on this board some time ago. Enjoy.

Ben.

[jjramsey]

Considering that the reluctance to divinize a man came from the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me," your conclusion makes no sense.

True . . . if you assume that religious people never engage in creative reinterpretation of their sacred writings in order to accommodate their personal predilections.

I don't have to assume that at all. Certainly, the exaltations of Moses and Enoch in Judaism and the Trinity in Christianity are creative ways to stay within the letter of the commandment while veering from its original intent.

My point is that whether you realize it or not, you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" is supposedly revered so much that Jews would not countenance deifying any man, even in a way that nominally avoided making him a separate god. On the other hand, this same commandment was regarded so loosely that you propose a group of Hellenized Jews thought the savior-god was their messiah. You say the difference between the two cases is that in the latter, the savior-god "had never been a man of this world." Yet you never justify why this would have made a difference, especially since the commandment is at least as creatively interpreted under the latter case as the former.

[Soul Invictus]

Remember, though, Josephus was not a "contemporary."



Agreed, but the closest we have I suppose.

It's my understanding that a contemporary historian during the common era that the character commonly referred to as Jesus the Christ would have lived would have been Philo of Alexandria (~c25 BC-47 AD). Doesn't Philo predate Josephus?

From my reading Josephus's voluminous work at best makes a very insignificant mentioning of a character that could be construed to be the Jesus character, and that even that isn't definitive association. This even takes into consideration that his writing is considered to be interpolated or forged.

Isn't it the position of history that Philo makes no mentions at all regarding Jesus and/or his works/accomplishments/miracles? If so, I'd think that this would be very telling especially since he would have lived right in the environment of such sensational and noteworthy events in such a climate.

[spamandham]

I absolutely think that Paul was a mystic. He regularly uses mystical language to refer to spiritual realities. I just do not happen to think that born of a woman is mystical language, at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. If you think that born of a woman is yet another example of his mystical language, one that I have missed, then you will need to provide evidence for such a view, since it is in fact a rather common way to express humanity.

There is no such thing as "mystical language" per se. Mystics use ordinary language, including ordinary phrases common within the society they find themselves in. Do we have concensus on that much?

Once Paul is accepted to be a mystic, and to be using a mystical perspective in a given context (would you agree Galations seems to be a mystical message rather than a historical record?), then the default assumption takes on that mystical background unless it is made clear by the context that a particular thought is not mystical.

4:4 is a continuation of a train of thought that starts out as clearly mystical, and ends as mystical. Why would we even suspect Paul has switched tracks to a historical mindset halfway through that train of thought?

Sure, it's possible that Paul thought of Jesus as god incarnate, and was using this snippet to demonstrate that, but to extract a single small phrase out of its mystical context to counteract the balance of evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to be a very unbiased approach. From a mystical perspective, I don't know what Paul meant by that phrase or why he said it, and will probably remain ignorant on that unless someone here is an expert in early Christian mysticism and cares to fill in the gap.

I'll throw my own perspective in on this as an aside here to be ignored as you see fit, merely for the purpose of demonstrating why I believe mystical writings need to be understood to be mystical in entirety (unless the author makes it clear otherwise): I believe the 'son of god' concept in this passage is symbolic for the potential godliness we all have within us. I would say the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" indicates that his intended audience for this letter is a group of Jewish mystical Christians, and that this phrase is a reference to them rather than some ethereal being of some kind. I think it's intentional that the Son is not specifically referred to as Jesus in this passage, because I think Paul's "son of god" is the manifestation of his "jesus christ" within us (the precursor to the holy spirit concept). Can I prove this is the right interpretation? No. I pulled it out of my ass.

But as I've stated several times in this thread, I'm just an ordinary guy with no special expertise in this area, so I certainly welcome any explanations as to why this thinking is wrongheaded. :huh:

[Doug Shaver]

From what I understand of Plato's idea of forms, he didn't locate them anywhere.
He didn't specify any location, but if he supposed they were real, as he clearly seems to have supposed, he had to think they were somewhere. That is even if, had you asked him "Where are they?" he would have said, "I don't have a clue."

I think you mean "Middle-Platonic spirit world",
Yes, strictly speaking. Sometimes for the sake of brevity I say "Platonic" when I mean only "derived from Plato."

Given what is known of Hellenistic thinking, Paul's references . . . are consistent with . . . .
Can you tell me which pagan writers support such a view
Not just yet. I wrote that essay shortly after my first reading of Doherty but before undertaking my own research specifically directed to his assertions. I noticed that what he wrote was entirely consistent with what little I had already learned of hellenistic thinking, and partly for that reason (the other main reason being Carrier's endorsement) I was assuming that he knew what he was talking about. I may yet discover that my assumption was unwarranted. I haven't yet, but I'm still checking as time and resources allow me.

[Doug Shaver]

whether you realize it or not, you are trying to have it both ways.
Not saying I couldn't be guilty of that, but at least I try really hard not to be. But if it's a mistake even critical thinkers can make, how much more susceptible to it would be people trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts?

Yet you never justify why this would have made a difference
I have seen apologists make some pretty big deals out of differences that I think are a lot more trivial than that between a human being and a spirit being.

[jakejonesiv]

Here are two questions for you:

1. Did Paul think that the son of God was born of a woman?
2. Did Paul think that the son of God became a human being?


...
Ben.

1. No. The Son of God is a spirit. This is mythical/mystical language.
2. If he did, he never said so.

On related imagery, what do you make of the child born to the woman in Revelation chapter 12?

Jake Jones

[Ben C Smith]

There is no such thing as "mystical language" per se.

The Son of God is a spirit. This is mythical/mystical language.

That might be a promising debate. :)

Sure, son of God is mystical or theological. But born of a woman is normally quite literal, even in deeply theological texts like the Dead Sea scrolls or Job.

Not really sure about Revelation 12.

Spam and Ham, a mystical text can contain historical nuggets or literal elements. This is not either-or.

You seem to be saying that because Galatians is mainly a theological text it cannot contain literal expressions. What mincemeat such a rule would make of texts from around the world. The Dead Sea scrolls are highly symbolic, metaphorical, and mystical; what does the expression born of a woman mean in them? Likewise Job; what does that expression mean in Job?

I believe the 'son of god' concept in this passage is symbolic for the potential godliness we all have within us. I would say the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" indicates that his intended audience for this letter is a group of Jewish mystical Christians, and that this phrase is a reference to them rather than some ethereal being of some kind. I think it's intentional that the Son is not specifically referred to as Jesus in this passage, because I think Paul's "son of god" is the manifestation of his "jesus christ" within us (the precursor to the holy spirit concept). Can I prove this is the right interpretation? No. I pulled it out of my ass.

But as I've stated several times in this thread, I'm just an ordinary guy with no special expertise in this area, so I certainly welcome any explanations as to why this thinking is wrongheaded.

In other Pauline passages the son of God is in fact Jesus Christ (Romans 1.4), who died for us (Galatians 2.20-21) and about whom Paul preached (2 Corinthians 1.19). Now suddenly the son of God is potential godliness in all of us? I daresay it is not difficult to disagree with such a reading. I find myself doing so without even trying. :)

Ben.

[Solo]

Perhaps your idea of "contemporary" and mine are different. I do not consider someone a contemporary unless there is geographical and temporal overlap between the two.


By this definition then I would not be George W. Bush's contemporary because I live in Canada, right ?


Paul talks about Jesus in the past tense, and seems to know almost nothing about Jesus. Paul also never appeals to the authority of anyone who supposedly knew Jesus. How could Paul be a contemporary of Jesus, and apparently not even know people who personally knew Jesus? I have never seen anyone answer this with anything but unrealistic apologetic style answers.


I take it you have never been around people who are strongly religious. Paul was an obssesively religious man, and he appears to have suffered from bipolar disorder (aka manic-depression) which is marked by wild fluctuations of mood, from the highest flights of euphoric ecstasy to the deepest lows of despair. Some people with this profile in their middle-age develop acutely psychotic symptoms.

Paul (as the legendary "Saul") likely came into contact with the "Jesus movement" (which was not Christanity yet) through direct or indirect contact with a group of Greek speaking Jewish exiles from Jerusalem. We don't know where, but the circumstantial evidence points to the outside of Palestine. He, a pious Pharisee, was deeply offended by their philosophy and practices. What evidently offended him most was their ridiculous view of their departed idol "Jesus", who they admitted was executed but whom they held to have been a great power on earth, a righteous man, whom God resurrected to inaugurate Israel's restoration, and who having been rejected by his generation and killed by lawless men, sits in heaven on the right hand of God and will come back in Judgement, at the end of time, which Jesus and James proclaim draws near.

Paul thought this was all ridiculous rubbish and blasphemy. As an urbane, cosmopolitan Greek, he scoffed at the idea that God would have chosen a lowly, uneducated peasant from Galilee to restore Israel. As a pious Jew, Paul was deeply offended by some of the things people said Jesus taught, and did, and by his reputed disdain for observance.

He militated against the Jesus assemblies, and badmouthed Jesus as an impostor. Then, as Doherty reads the Acts, Jesus knocked Paul off his donkey when the latter traveled to Damascus. Well, what most likely happened is that Paul suffered an episode of acute manic excitement, in which the "truth" about Jesus was revealed to Paul by God himself. Paul was converted, or seen in a different, modern way, Paul's bipolarity became acute and attained permanent paranoid fixtures. Paul started to proclaim Jesus as the Christ, not the living individual, traditioned by the groups that he opposed, and continued to oppose after his conversion (!!!), but the heavenly Christ that lives in all of us and awaits us, if we only be pure and spiritual as Paul is.

That is the way I reckon it was. If it sounds strange, it's not my fault.


The earliest records we have DO prove there was a Christian movement, but more importantly, they prove that there was significant discord within this movement. Paul's letters were letters of persuasion more than anything else, and they record significant differences between these churches.


It's like they say, whenever two Jews argue, you'll get three different opinions on everything. ;)

Jiri

[Solo]

Originally Posted by Solo
....nota BENe , in a pasage in which he exhorts the fallen "sons" in his church to imitatio Christi which he - live, human - Paul acts out for them, although he too fell down from heaven or near that (Gal 4:12) ?


Are you not referring to Gal 4:14:

You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.


No, even though 4:13-14 are quite significant as they follow the train of Paul's thought, the real cognitive issue becomes revealed by 4:12:

Brethern, I beseech you, become as I am, for also I have become as you are(οτι καγω ως υμεις)

This IMHO articulates Paul's belief in his own higher nature and supernatural origin.

Jiri

[No Robots]

No, even though 4:13-14 are quite significant as they follow the train of Paul's thought, the real cognitive issue becomes revealed by 4:12:

Brethern, I beseech you, become as I am, for also I have become as you are(οτι καγω ως υμεις)

This IMHO articulates Paul's belief in his own higher nature and supernatural origin.

Gotcha. I still think 4:14 is great, though. There you have Paul saying that he was received "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." So Paul is saying that he himself is a myth, eh? That he comes from the supralunar realm? That both he himself and Christ are mythical beings? Hilarious!

BTW, I thought your post explaining Paul's conversion was quite good. I would say, though, that there is no need to suggest that he suffered from mental illness. I think it more probable that his sheer intensity accounts for everything.

[dzim77]

Gotcha. I still think 4:14 is great, though. There you have Paul saying that he was received "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." So Paul is saying that he himself is a myth, eh? That he comes from the supralunar realm? That both he himself and Christ are mythical beings? Hilarious!


What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.
-Galatians 4:15

And apparently Paul was starting a movement where people demostrated their love and commitment by tearing out their eyeballs and giving them to one another as well!

He's using figurative language or exageration to emphasize a point. In v.14 Paul is merely saying that he was received with kindness and respect as a 'messenger' from God.

[Amaleq13]

I would add, however, that neither does Paul seem concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed.

No, it is generally assumed for every other individual on the planet but Paul felt compelled to assert that Jesus was born of a woman. Metaphorical interpretations notwithstanding, the most obvious goal of such an assertion is to establish the humanity of the offspring by asserting the humanity of the mother.

How likely is it that an author (like Paul) decided to use such a phrase for a person he knew to be mythical, metaphysical, metaphorical, or nonhuman?

I don't know how one establishes such a probability given such an ambiguous starting point but I think it is highly likely that such a phrase would be used by a person who believed that a divine entity had been incarnated. That's why I don't see this as any sort of argument against an HJ. IMO, a reinterpretation away from the most obvious meaning has to follow from establishing a mythical Jesus belief some other way.

[No Robots]

And apparently Paul was starting a movement where people demostrated their love and commitment by tearing out their eyeballs and giving them to one another as well!

He's using figurative language or exageration to emphasize a point. In v.14 Paul is merely saying that he was received with kindness and respect as a 'messenger' from God.

Right. So why do you not accept that his references to an otherworldly Christ are, likewise, a figurative way of talking about a real person?

[Amaleq13]

If you think that born of a woman is yet another example of his mystical language, one that I have missed, then you will need to provide evidence for such a view, since it is in fact a rather common way to express humanity.

My main purpose in adducing outside examples of this phrase (such as from, say, Josephus) is to counter a misconception that seems to pop up frequently on this very board, namely that born of a woman is an unusual way to call Jesus human. It is not unusual at all. Ancient texts from the OT to the Dead Sea scrolls to Euripides to the NT to the church fathers to Shakespeare (not ancient, I know) use such a phrase to mean human.

You know of examples where the phrase is used to establish or assert the humanity of a particular individual or you know of examples where the phrase is used as a reference to humanity (eg Mt 11:11)?

It has been my understanding that other examples fall into the latter category but not the former.

[Clivedurdle]

Alcmene was the mother of Hercules and the wife of Amphitryon, but the night she conceived Hercules and his twin brother Iphicles, Alcmene mated with both Zeus, who had disguised himself as her husband, and Amphitryon. As a result, Zeus was Hercules' father, but Amphitryon was the father of Iphicles

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alcmene/

Let's take this step by step.

Was Hercules mother human, was Hercules born of a woman? Are we agreed yes.

Who was Hercules dad? Zeus. Who is Zeus?

What then is Hercules? A god human hybrid.

What is the problem with seeing Jesus as a Jewish Hercules? OK with very different characteristics - not so obviously into war and sex - but that looks cultural differences! In fact Hercules arguably is kinder than Jesus and did greater miracles - he did take the burden of the whole world from Atlas!

The whole salvation story is about god becoming human and dying for us!

Why on earth anyone thinks there is a real human behind this is beyond me!

[Ben C Smith]

You know of examples where the phrase is used to establish or assert the humanity of a particular individual or you know of examples where the phrase is used as a reference to humanity (eg Mt 11:11)?

Amongst the ancient examples, the latter. (We find the former in Shakespeare, Macbeth V.7.)

I trust, however, that you agree that the meaning of the phrase is the same whether it is being assumed or asserted.

While I question the interpretation preferred by mythicists, none of those examples seem to me to be sufficiently similar to the assertion Paul offers since none appear to be similarly concerned about establishing that the mother was human and none can be similarly argued to be metaphors.

I would add, however, that neither does Paul seem concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed.

No, it is generally assumed for every other individual on the planet but Paul felt compelled to assert that Jesus was born of a woman.

Paul felt compelled to assert that Jesus was born of a woman (that is, that Jesus was a human being), yes. But you seemed to be saying that Paul was concerned about establishing that his mother was human, and I do not see that. I think he simply assumed that the woman was human, same as the other expressions of that phrase.

Just to summarize my view, since it appears that some miscommunication has transpired above:

1. Paul thought that Jesus was the son of God.
2. Paul thought that Jesus saved mankind.
3. Paul thought that the savior should be made like the saved in order to save them.
4. Paul therefore asserted that Jesus became human (in order to save humans).

I think it is highly likely that such a phrase would be used by a person who believed that a divine entity had been incarnated.

With this I agree.

Ben.

[Solo]

Gotcha. I still think 4:14 is great, though. There you have Paul saying that he was received "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." So Paul is saying that he himself is a myth, eh? That he comes from the supralunar realm? That both he himself and Christ are mythical beings? Hilarious!


Right ! ;)


BTW, I thought your post explaining Paul's conversion was quite good. I would say, though, that there is no need to suggest that he suffered from mental illness. I think it more probable that his sheer intensity accounts for everything.

Perhaps, it would be helpful if people decoupled "mental illness" from "shame", or "incapacity". I suspect the sense that I am trying to injure their creed would disappear. Many brilliant men and women were quite seriously mentally challenged.

Besides, Paul not only admits he is sometimes out of his mind, he openly flaunts it as his connection to God ! (2 Cor 5:5) He offers his decrepit, depressive states (which have physical symptoms) to his Churches as a proof that his Christ is for real !

There must have been something in that method of persuasion, right ? There he was, physically frail, often dyskinetic, babbling, sometimes clearly psychotic man, who could explain the Universe, not to peasants, but to Greco-Roman middle class. They bought it. Go figure !

Why should I deny he was a paranoiac. Every man who believes himself in some kind of exclusive relationship with a deity, will be seen as one.

That's what Paul says, in Jesus Christ there is God's wisdom, which appears as foolishness to those wisened by this world.

Jiri

[No Robots]

Why should I deny he was a paranoiac. Every man who believes himself in some kind of exclusive relationship with a deity, will be seen as one.

Gotcha. Paul as Holy Madman. It's goooood.

[Amaleq13]

I trust, however, that you agree that the meaning of the phrase is the same whether it is being assumed or asserted.

Human, yes.

But you seemed to be saying that Paul was concerned about establishing that his mother was human, and I do not see that.

I think I should have worded it "...none appear to be similarly concerned about only establishing that the mother was human..." All the others provided additional information about the mother beyond what one would think to be obvious but Paul had no need to relate any additional information. The simple fact of "human female" that is conveyed by "woman" was all he was apparently concerned with establishing.


With this I agree.

That's why you haven't heard from me in a while. :D

[spamandham]

Paul (as the legendary "Saul") likely ...

He militated against the Jesus assemblies, and badmouthed Jesus as an impostor. Then, as Doherty reads the Acts, Jesus knocked Paul off his donkey when the latter traveled to Damascus. Well, what most likely happened is that Paul suffered an episode of acute manic excitement, in which the "truth" about Jesus was revealed to Paul by God himself.

...an interesting story I suppose, but it appears to be mostly your own interpolation.

Paul's vision sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy to me. Studies have shown people who suffer from this condition tend to be extremely religious as well. Paul's extreme religious convictions further support that assessment that his experience was a siezure.


Paul was converted, or seen in a different, modern way, Paul's bipolarity became acute and attained permanent paranoid fixtures. Paul started to proclaim Jesus as the Christ, not the living individual, traditioned by the groups that he opposed, and continued to oppose after his conversion (!!!), but the heavenly Christ that lives in all of us and awaits us, if we only be pure and spiritual as Paul is.

I agree that Paul's Christ is a spiritual concept. The questions are whether or not Paul believed a human Jesus had actually existed, and whether Paul was in a position to have insider knowledge about that. If you are correct in your assessment that Paul was hostile toward groups that advocated a living human Jesus (assuming that's even true), that really doesn't support the idea that Paul had knowledge of a human Jesus, particularly when Paul advocates a mystical Christ instead, but still calls him "Jesus".

It seems you are basically arguing that Paul was insane. If that's true, I'm not sure we can really conclude anything at all from his writings.

[spamandham]

Sure, son of God is mystical or theological. But born of a woman is normally quite literal, even in deeply theological texts like the Dead Sea scrolls or Job.

Not really sure about Revelation 12.

Spam and Ham, a mystical text can contain historical nuggets or literal elements. This is not either-or.

Indeed a mystical text can have nuggets of history, and the context reveals that.

You have shown that the phrase "born of woman" was used in ordinary nonmystical references in a nonmystical manner. I don't find that the least bit surprising.

What you have not shown as far as I know, is that within mystical references, this same phrase usually means a nonmystical ordinary birth. I'm not saying it necessarily doesn't, I just don't see why you seem to think that it necessarily does in this case.


You seem to be saying that because Galatians is mainly a theological text it cannot contain literal expressions.

I'm not saying that at all. More specifically, I referred to mystical writings and not theological writings in general. A mystic uses ordinary language, but the intent is that it be understood to mean something other than what is actually said.

If Galatians 4 is mystical, and it certainly looks like it is to me, then anything in it is more likely to be a symbolic reference to something else than to be intended as literal, unless the context makes it clear. An outsider has little chance of understanding what a mystic actually means by what he says. Mystics often include phrases designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.

[spamandham]

This IMHO articulates Paul's belief in his own higher nature and supernatural origin.

Jiri

Are you suggesting Paul saw himself as the incarnated version of Jesus, whom he considered to be an angelic being?

That is an interesting interpretation. If you are correct, we would expect to see Paul use the expression "Son of God" in references to Jesus when he's referring to the spiritual realm, and in references to himself when referring to an earthly being.

[Clivedurdle]

http://www.culture-routes.lu/php/fo_index.php?lng=en&dest=bd_pa_det&rub=6

historic, heroïc, religious, mystic, mythic, legendary, real...

Cultural routes are crossed by characters or figures, historical and heroic, religious or mystical, mythical and legendary, real or imaginary, who help the better understanding of certain key moments of the history of Europe, if one devoids them of the nationalist character with which they are often charged.

A fascinating discussion of the interplay of various characters on the history of Europe.

[dzim77]

Right. So why do you not accept that his references to an otherworldly Christ are, likewise, a figurative way of talking about a real person?

first of all you would have to specify which references.

But, in general...

Because they are completely differnet things. Saying "you received me as if I were an angel or even Jesus himself" is using figurative language. He's talking about something that happened in reality (he was received with kindness) and using exageration to emphasize his point.

This is different than attributing what Paul clearly states as occuring in the physical realm to having occured in some sort of spiritual realm.

[No Robots]

This is different than attributing what Paul clearly states as occuring in the physical realm to having occured in some sort of spiritual realm.

Lost me here. Please rephrase.

[Solo]

...an interesting story I suppose, but it appears to be mostly your own interpolation.


Mostly ? interpolation ?


Paul's vision sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy to me. Studies have shown people who suffer from this condition tend to be extremely religious as well. Paul's extreme religious convictions further support that assessment that his experience was a siezure.


It does look like Paul was having complex temporal lobe seizures. It has been now known for a while that these occur in non-epileptics as well and are somewhat prominent in bipolars. For a while, patients with seizure-lke symptoms but without epileptoid trace have been referred to as pseudo-epileptics (popularly "pseudos"). Take a peek at the diagnostic issues with non epileptic attacks ( http://www.irishpsychiatrist.ie/irish_psychiatrist/pdfs/irishpsych_octnov_05.pdf#search=%22pseudoepilepsy%20manic%22) if you are interested.


I agree that Paul's Christ is a spiritual concept. The questions are whether or not Paul believed a human Jesus had actually existed, and whether Paul was in a position to have insider knowledge about that. If you are correct in your assessment that Paul was hostile toward groups that advocated a living human Jesus (assuming that's even true), that really doesn't support the idea that Paul had knowledge of a human Jesus, particularly when Paul advocates a mystical Christ instead, but still calls him "Jesus".


No-Robots and I had shown here samples of Paul's writing in which he adorns himself with the mystical properties of Christ (his angelic nature, Gal 4:14, and suggested pre-existence in Gal 4:12). So apparently, Paul himself considered himself a spiritual concept too.


It seems you are basically arguing that Paul was insane. If that's true, I'm not sure we can really conclude anything at all from his writings.

Socrates is quoted in Phaedrus as saying that life's greatest blessings come to us through madness (μανια). The Greeks knew then what the feminist jurists of today don't seem to grasp. Any time a male has a hard-on he is temporarily insane. At any rate, Paul's was a different certificate: the Apollonic prophetic variety. The ancients did not, by and large, have a problem with that either. That is if they were not outright intrigued by the method in it.

Today, one of the world's most prominent experts on the medical issues of people who are Touched with Fire is herself a medicated manic-depressive (she actually prefers to be called that to "bipolar").

What can I tell you: for all I know tomorrow it may be you who wakes up and thinks he is Jesus Christ, and then finds out, to his dismay and shame, that it was just something funny going on with the neurotransmitters. I wish you safe return to earth. Hope YOU bring us back something interesting !

Jiri

[jjramsey]

Not saying I couldn't be guilty of that, but at least I try really hard not to be. But if it's a mistake even critical thinkers can make, how much more susceptible to it would be people trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts?

But why would Jews who are trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts balk at deifying a human, which has some partial precedents in Judaism, while accepting the deification of a spirit being, which might suggest an even stronger compromise with paganism?

[GakuseiDon]

Not just yet. I wrote that essay shortly after my first reading of Doherty but before undertaking my own research specifically directed to his assertions. I noticed that what he wrote was entirely consistent with what little I had already learned of hellenistic thinking, and partly for that reason (the other main reason being Carrier's endorsement) I was assuming that he knew what he was talking about. I may yet discover that my assumption was unwarranted. I haven't yet, but I'm still checking as time and resources allow me.
Here's the rub: there doesn't appear to be any literature AT ALL to support the idea that the pagans believed that their gods acted in a sublunar realm. So, when you say that it was consistent with what you knew at the time, I think that maybe you mean that it wasn't inconsistent with what you knew. I strongly doubt that you came across the idea that pagans talked about gods acting in a sublunar realm before you read Doherty (or comments sourced from him) -- I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong in that assumption.

This is often the pattern I've found when debating Doherty supporters. It's similar to those who believe that "virgin-born crucified gods were a dime-a-dozen in those days" -- it's not inconsistent with what they'd heard. Even after seeing that the evidence doesn't really support them, they're still not convinced -- after all, I can't prove that someone, somewhere didn't believe in such a thing. So they come away saying that it may not necessarily be inconsistent with what they'd heard.

People come away reading Doherty's book convinced that this is how pagans thought in those days. Well, maybe some pagans did. I really can't prove that they didn't. But I can show that there is definite evidence that some didn't think that way, i.e. they thought that the gods acted on earth, or the tales were legendary or allegorical, and thus didn't occur at all. Could some have thought that Attis was castrated or a bull was killed by Mithras in some sublunar realm? Sure. But there is a complete absence of such literature. That's why (on this topic at least) I've said that (1) there is no evidence to support Doherty, and (2) what evidence we do have goes against him. Are you aware of ANY evidence that supports the notion that pagans believed that Attis was castrated in a sublunar realm, or Mithras killed a bull there? If not, how can it be consistent with what you'd heard before reading Doherty?

One suggestion is to start with an examination of Carrier's comments supporting Doherty on this in his review. You don't even need to read Dillon to check them. Have a look at the passages in Plutarch that Carrier believes indicates that some believed that Osiris was dismembered in a sublunar realm, and you can see that Carrier's comments simply aren't supported. I started a thread here that highlights this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=175903

[dzim77]

Lost me here. Please rephrase.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't rush a post on my way out the door like that. :)

In Gal 4:14 Paul is referring to a real event, namely, the Galatians receiving him with kindness and respect. He uses exageration to say that they received him as if he were an angel or Christ himself.

Paul's references to a divine Christ are generally not in the same context. Paul puts forth a developed, extensive Christology. Christ is an atoning sacrifce. Christ is holy. Christ is righteous. Christ is our savior. There's no comparitive language.... As opposed to this one verse you have cited in Galatians 4:14 which is a clear use of figurative exageration by Paul.

To say anything more than this we will have to discuss specific passages.

[spamandham]

What can I tell you: for all I know tomorrow it may be you who wakes up and thinks he is Jesus Christ, ...

Probably not Jesus, but maybe the Fonze. :D

[Amaleq13]

What you have not shown as far as I know, is that within mystical references, this same phrase usually means a nonmystical ordinary birth.

Can you provide examples of mystical references using this same phrase?

[spamandham]

Can you provide examples of mystical references using this same phrase?

Gal 4:4, possibly. ;)

If you wish to accept the rule "anytime you see 'born of a woman' anywhere in 1st century Greek writings, it is necessarily not being used in a mystical sense even when found within a mystical context of a mystical writing", you are welcome to do so.

I don't think it's that simple, regardless of my inability to provide examples of 1st century Greek mystical writings in which this phrase is unequivacably used in a mystical sense. :huh:

[Doug Shaver]

deifying a human . . . has some partial precedents in Judaism
Could I trouble for a source where I could verify that?

[Doug Shaver]

Don, your assurance that when I've completed my research, I will see how right you are, is noted.

[Solo]

Are you suggesting Paul saw himself as the incarnated version of Jesus, whom he considered to be an angelic being?


No, I don't think so. I think the theologians who say that Paul believed "Jesus Christ" to be a unique phenom are right. Paul is not at all interested in Jesus earthly history; he assumes everyone knows that JC was hanged on a tree for shame. But Paul believed he received a revelation from God about the ultimate meaning of that death; Jesus was indeed "sent" by God (in that he made a connection to the Jerusalem church), but it was to suffer death to atone for Adam's sin. He was made to appear a sinner and was executed (legally so, according to Paul), for Paul to show that God's love transcends the law.

As for Paul's beliefs of how he himself tied to that drama: It pleased God to separate Paul before he was born, to make the above revelation to the world. Paul evidently believed God crucified his former self (Saul) mystically alongside Jesus. (references in the link above) In a manner of speaking Paul believed himself dead ("dead to sin"), and reading out the uncanny recurring waves of euphoria, exaltation and clairvoyance in himself (which were sponsored by the bipolar brain chemistry) as the glorious life of Jesus Christ in heaven. As some of the people in his churches, experienced a similar process (the bipolar profile is about 2% of population) they would readily have their own "experential" reference to Paul's preaching. And again as the bipolar profile usually marks individuals with high emotional intensity, the Pauline the idea of "witnessing" Jesus in one's own body quickly spread out through his missions.

Jiri

[Solo]

Probably not Jesus, but maybe the Fonze. :D

Don't bet on either...if God wants to screw with your brain he will make a choice for you. ;)

Jiri

[No Robots]

In Gal 4:14 Paul is referring to a real event, namely, the Galatians receiving him with kindness and respect. He uses exageration to say that they received him as if he were an angel or Christ himself.

Paul's references to a divine Christ are generally not in the same context. Paul puts forth a developed, extensive Christology. Christ is an atoning sacrifce. Christ is holy. Christ is righteous. Christ is our savior. There's no comparitive language.... As opposed to this one verse you have cited in Galatians 4:14 which is a clear use of figurative exageration by Paul.


I think you mean "except for" instead of "as opposed to".

To say anything more than this we will have to discuss specific passages.

Maybe one of our experts on Paul can come up with other passages where Paul talks about himself or others in the same exalted language that he talks about Christ.

[jgibson000]

Gal 4:4, possibly. ;)

If you wish to accept the rule "anytime you see 'born of a woman' anywhere in 1st century Greek writings, it is necessarily not being used in a mystical sense even when found within a mystical context of a mystical writing", you are welcome to do so.

The problem here is threefold:

1. You have assumed what needs to be proven -- that Galatians is a "mystical writing" and that Gal. 4:4 appears within a "mystical context".

2. You haven't defined what a "mystic", a "mystical writing", and/or a "mystical context" is, let alone (a) given us the crirteria by which you determine that a person, a writing, and a passage respectively are these things (rather than someone or something else) or (b) provided us with any evidence showing both that your understandings of these things has any validity and that Paul, Galatians, and the context of Gal. 4:4 are what you say they are. So right now your claim is specious.

3. You beg the question is assuming that even if Paul is a "mystic" (however defined) he is only a "mystic" and nothing else and, more importantly, that all of his writings are "mystical writings" (whatever MWs are).

Jeffrey Gibson

[spamandham]

The problem here is threefold:

1. You have assumed what needs to be proven -- that Galatians is a "mystical writing" and that Gal. 4:4 appears within a "mystical context".

Do we agree then, that if Gal 4 is mystical, and if Paul is a mystic, and if 4:4 is part of a mystical train of thought, then there is no reason to even suspect that "born of a woman" is meant to be historical rather than mystical?

I can't seem to even get agreement on that much, which astounds me. The entire discussion is at a stalemate as a result.

It seems pointless to try to determine whether or not this writing is mystical if there is no concensus as to the implications.

[No Robots]

It seems pointless to try to determine whether or not this writing is mystical if there is no concensus as to the implications.

Why would that be? Isn't it valuable to understand the passage for its own sake? Do you need to be certain of your destination before you set out on your journey? Is that how you think scholarship advances? Where is the disinterest?

[Ben C Smith]

Do we agree then, that if Gal 4 is mystical, and if Paul is a mystic, and if 4:4 is part of a mystical train of thought, then there is no reason to even suspect that "born of a woman" is meant to be historical rather than mystical?

I can't seem to even get agreement on that much, which astounds me.

This should not astound you. I for one am not at all clear yet what you mean by mystical writings. Number 2 on the list that Dr. Gibson gave you had to do with the definition of mystical texts or mystical contexts, and defining those terms will be vital to determining whether such a text or such a context can be expected to contain history.

So... what is your working definition of a mystical text or a mystical context?

Ben.

[jgibson000]

Do we agree then, that if Gal 4 is mystical, and if Paul is a mystic, and if 4:4 is part of a mystical train of thought, then there is no reason to even suspect that "born of a woman" is meant to be historical rather than mystical?

No, we don't agree, nor should we do so, even leaving aside the fact that we still lack of any definition from you of what "mystical" and "mystic" means. And this has nothing to do with intractability on the part of those you are correspnding with. Rather, it's because you haven't done what you should have done from the beginning -- i.e., shown us that in other "mystical writing" that comes from Paul's milieu (1st century Judaism) and that are written by other Jewish "mystics", expressions that would otherwise be taken as historical statements are intended, when part of a "mystical train of thought", to be taken as "mystical" and not historical.

I can't seem to even get agreement on that much, which astounds me.

Why it should astound you is beyond me. Don't you see that that until people understand what you mean by "mystic" and "mystical writing" and "mystical context" and have seen that your critetia for identifying what a "mystical writing" and a "mystical context" is, they can't even disagree with you?

The entire discussion is at a stalemate as a result.


Hardly. The reason that you can't get a consensus on the above is that you have both refused to define your terms and failed to provide any actual evidence (conjecture based upon undemonstrated suppositions is not evidence) in support of them vis a vis Paul and Galatians. How can anyone go on to say anything about the validity or invalidity of your claims until it is clear what you are talking about and whether your premises are true?

It seems pointless to try to determine whether or not this writing is mystical if there is no concensus as to the implications.

Why does there need to be a consensus on this point?. The truth of your claim about what the implications are do not stand or fall with their gaining universal acceptance. And if you are ever going to get people to agree with you about the implications of your premises, you first have to show that your premises are well founded.

Forgive me for saying so, but prescinding as you have both from defining your terms and from providing evidence for your claims about what Galatians is and who Paul was and about how he had to write if he was what you say he was, looks like you are trying to hide the fact that you have no evidence for your claims, you haven't really investigated the nature and character of, or the intent behind, 1s century Jewish "mystical writings" or the aims of 1st century Jewish "mystics, and, what's worse, that when it comes to what "mystical writings" are and what "mystics" do when they write, you have no idea what you are talking about.


May I ask how well versed you are in the works and aims of 1st century Jewish "mystics" and their writings? Which of them, and how much secondary literature on them, have you read?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Amaleq13]

If you wish to accept the rule "anytime you see 'born of a woman' anywhere in 1st century Greek writings, it is necessarily not being used in a mystical sense even when found within a mystical context of a mystical writing", you are welcome to do so.

I would be more than happy to interpret the phrase otherwise if you were to provide examples that suggest I do so. I assumed you were able to support your earlier statement with actual examples:
What you have not shown as far as I know, is that within mystical references, this same phrase usually means a nonmystical ordinary birth.

This seems to me to imply that you are aware of examples of this phrase being used in the way you are interpreting Paul's use.

I don't think it's that simple, regardless of my inability to provide examples of 1st century Greek mystical writings in which this phrase is unequivacably used in a mystical sense. :huh:

You appeared to be claiming knowledge of such examples and that would certainly give you some basis for both your interpretation of Paul and your statement above. It would appear you have no such basis for either.

[spamandham]

Why would that be? Isn't it valuable to understand the passage for its own sake? Do you need to be certain of your destination before you set out on your journey? Is that how you think scholarship advances? Where is the disinterest?

From the perspective of "let's learn everything we can about Paul", sure, there's value, but from the perspective of the OP, no. My purpose for this thread is to determine why there is a scholarly concensus that Jesus actually existed. I can never get to that point if we just meander aimlessly exploring every minutia.

I'm admittedly attempting mental triage to try to distill the salient points related directly to the OP.

The whole aside regarding "born of a woman" that has now taken up several pages is only a small part of answering a small piece of the OP. The piece related to Paul I think involves these questions:

- Are the writings atributed to Paul a good representation of the originals, and if not, can we identify parts that are? (under contention)
- Are Paul's writings actually the earliest Christians records? (under contention)
- Did Paul actually write in the mid 1st century? (under contention)
- Does Paul claim to have known Jesus? (No, he doesn't)
- Does Paul claim to know anyone who knew Jesus? (No, he doesn't)
- Does Paul believe Jesus was a historical person (presently under discussion)
- Is Paul in a position to have meaningful insight into whether or not Jesus existed as a person? (unknown)

If Paul's Jesus was mystical and Paul is the earliest Christian writer we have, and if Paul really was a Christian convert ca. 40 CE, then weight is added to the MJ position unless Paul is nuts, which he appears to be.

On the other hand, if we can determine from Paul's writings that there were people who believed in a historical Jesus in the mid 1st century, then it adds weight to the HJ position.

[spamandham]

I would be more than happy to interpret the phrase otherwise if you were to provide examples that suggest I do so. I assumed you were able to support your earlier statement with actual examples:

Why would you assume that? I've already admitted I have none. Like I said, if it is your contention that we can determine a phrase is not being used mystically simply by noting that we never see it used mystically in nonmystical writings, you are welcome to that position, regardless of my incredulity.

[spamandham]

So... what is your working definition of a mystical text or a mystical context?

Ben.

I'm using"mystical" in the sense of "mysticism". Mystics use symbolism to convey a hidden meaning that is different from what is literally said. Really good mystics are able to say things that convey one idea when interpreted literally, but have a totally different intended meaning.

A mystical writing is one in which mysticism is being communicated. A mystical thought within such a writing is one in which the intended real meaning is different from the obvious literal meaning.

Mystical writings are easily detected by looking for intentional absurdities and intentional usage of symbolism.

I would think anyone wishing to claim that Paul did not mean "born of a woman" in some mystical sense would have already been familiar with what mysticism is.

[No Robots]

Does Paul claim to know anyone who knew Jesus? (No, he doesn't)

What about when he says that he met the brethren of the Lord?

Mystics use symbolism to convey a hidden meaning that is different from what is literally said.

There is much learned discussion about the nature and meaning of mysticism. I think that we would have to come to some kind of consensus on this before we can discuss the nature and meaning of mysticism in Paul. I greatly admire the work of Rufus_Jones in this regard.

[Ben C Smith]

I'm using"mystical" in the sense of "mysticism". Mystics use symbolism to convey a hidden meaning that is different from what is literally said.

A mystical writing is one in which mysticism is being communicated. A mystical thought within such a writing is one in which the intended real meaning is different from the obvious literal meaning.

I think you are confusing mysticism with something else. What you are describing (literal language that actually expresses something else symbolically) sounds like allegory. Mystics sometimes use allegory, true. But that is not what mysticism means.

My familiarity with mystics is limited almost exclusively to Christian mystics. I have read Thomas a Kempis, Brother Lawrence, Madame Guyon, John of the Cross, the Russian Pilgrim, the Fioretti, and Julian of Norwich, among others. I can testify from experience that these mystics do not always or even necessarily usually write in allegory. When Julian meditates on the passion of Christ, for example, she discusses the various wounds and inflictions (thorns, scourging, and so forth). While these wounds are of course intensely symbolic on some level, they are also of course literal. I have no reason to deny that Julian really believed that Jesus really suffered real scourgings and real thorns.

My own working definition of mysticism is communication with the divine far more directly than is usual in ordinary human experience (visions, ecstasies, revelations), or the acquisition of divine knowledge through channels beyond the ordinary human gathering of information and intelligence.

Mystics often use allegory (as Paul explicitly does in Galatians 4.21-31), but that is not what makes them mystics. Paul, for example, is a mystic because he claims to have received direct revelations from God or from Christ. That does not mean that every time he puts pen to parchment he is writing nonliterally.

This is why it was vital for the rest of us to understand your meaning of the term mysticism before moving on. Under your definition of mysticism, no, Paul is not a mystic. Under mine, he is.

Ben.

[jgibson000]

I'm using"mystical" in the sense of "mysticism". Mystics use symbolism to convey a hidden meaning that is different from what is literally said.

Interesting. You have not only left "mysticism" undefined (a definition of what mysticism is that really is a description of what "mystics" allegedly do is not a definition of "mysticism"), and left up in the air what you mean by "mystical. But you have given us a description of what "mystics allegedly do that not only (a) is inaccurate and question begging because it implies that "using symbolism" is all they ever do in their writings and is something that, to my knowledge, few scholars of "mystics" and "mysticism" would agree, but (b) confuses "mystics" with allegorists.

Really good mystics are able to say things that convey one idea when interpreted literally, but have a totally different intended meaning.


Three responses:

1. Maybe Paul was a "bad" mystic. But more importantly:

2. Can you tell us what the ground of this claim is? That is to say, who do you think is a really good "mystic"? And what works of theirs have you read? Are they, like Paul, Jewish and from the first century? Or are they from another time and cultural milieu?

3. Do they never make historical statements even when they are engaged in allegory?

A mystical writing is one in which mysticism is being communicated.

OK. So what precisely is it that's being communicated when "mysticism" is being communicated? You still haven't told us.

And is it really true that to communicate "mysticism", historical statements void of symbolic (allegorical) cannot be, or are never, used by "mystics" good or bad?

A mystical thought within such a writing is one in which the intended real meaning is different from the obvious literal meaning.

I see. But would you agree then -- as you seem to be bound to do given your criterion -- that when Augustine treats the story of the Good Samaritan as he does (the Samaritan is Jesus, the Inn is the Church, the robbers are minions of the devil, etc.) he is engaged in "mystical thought"? Would Augustine?

And is it true, as you seem to think it is, that in the writing (and in the context) in which his treatment of the Good Samaritan appears, none of the statements he makes there are historical?

Mystical writings are easily detected by looking for intentional absurdities and intentional usage of symbolism.

They are? I thought you just said that good mystics write in such a way that we don't realize, and are unable immediately and without some effort to detect, that they are writing symbolically and that their symbolism is intentional?

And what is absurd, let alone "intentionally absurd", about claiming that we who are born of woman and born under the law, are redeemed from the law because the one who redeems was just like us and knew what it is to be "under the law" -- which, after all, is what Gal. 4:5 shows that Gal. 4:4 means? (on this, see almost any critical commentary on Galatians)

I would think anyone wishing to claim that Paul did not mean "born of a woman" in some mystical sense would have already been familiar with what mysticism is.

I am familiar with what mysticism is and/or has been said to be, not only from reading the works of those who traditionally have been known to be, or who have been called, mystics, but also through the studies on mystics and mysticism by William James and others.

The question is: are you? So far you have not give us the slightest bit of evidence to think that you are. On the contrary, virtually everything you have written on the topic of "mystics" and "mysticism" indicates that you are not even remotely so.

But if, as you seem to claim, you really are familiar with what "mysticism" is and with how mystics themselves and students of mysticism have defined it, perhaps you'd then tell us how your understanding of "mysticism" does and does not square up with that given by James, which, as I'm sure you know, is considered by most and experts in mysticism, "mystical" writings, and the history of the phenomenon, to be the touchstone for any definition of the subject.

Jeffrey Gibson

[jjramsey]

Could I trouble for a source where I could verify that?

One has been pointed out earlier on this very thread, and it was even addressed to you:

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3898770#post3898770

[Amaleq13]

Like I said, if it is your contention that we can determine a phrase is not being used mystically simply by noting that we never see it used mystically in nonmystical writings, you are welcome to that position, regardless of my incredulity.

I am noting that there is apparently no evidence that it has ever been used, in "mystical" writings or "non-mystical" writings, to mean what you would like Paul to have meant and concluding that you actually have no evidence to support your preferred reading.

[spamandham]

I think you are confusing mysticism with something else. What you are describing (literal language that actually expresses something else symbolically) sounds like allegory. Mystics sometimes use allegory, true. But that is not what mysticism means.

I think I'm not. An example of an almost purely mystical writing would be Revelation (and according to some, the Gospels as well, though I'm not convinced of that). Paul uses some of the same mystical ideas as are found in Revelation, but not to as great a degree.

[spamandham]

I am noting that there is apparently no evidence that it has ever been used, in "mystical" writings or "non-mystical" writings, to mean what you would like Paul to have meant and concluding that you actually have no evidence to support your preferred reading.


I have not said I have a preferred reading, nor do I. It is not my claim that Paul meant tis expression in anything other than a direct literal interpretation.

I simply find it absurd that even the mere possibility that Paul does not mean something symbolic with the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" is rejected on such specious grounds as what has been presented, and the conclusion is formed that Paul believed Jesus was historical based on this one phrase to the exclusion of everything else Paul says about Jesus existing at the beginning of time, etc.

Rather than answer the simple question "is it possible Paul means something other than what he says", we are getting wrapped around the axle regarding definitoins of the word 'mystical', and off chasing rabbits down Josephus holes.

No concensus is possible. Let's move on.

[spamandham]

What about when he says that he met the brethren of the Lord?

It is my understanding, that the term was often used to indicate a fellow believer, much like it is still used that way today. I can't provide any evidence of that, but neither do I have reason to doubt it. In the context used, it appears to mean that rather than a blood relative, although it might refer to a blood relative.

[Ben C Smith]

I think I'm not [confusing mysticism with something else]. An example of an almost purely mystical writing would be Revelation (and according to some, the Gospels as well, though I'm not convinced of that).

Revelation is a mystical book, to be sure, but its quality of describing things through elaborate symbols is not what makes it mystical. (And even Revelation, I should point out, can be mined for history; the existence of an island called Patmos, for instance, or the presence of Christian communities in Laodicea, Philadelphia, and the other churches, or the existence of a cult called the Nicolatians, and so forth.)

Here is the definition of mysticism from the Random House dictionary:

1. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
2. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
3. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
4. Vague, groundless speculation.


Note that mysticism is not primarily about how one presents information but rather about how one receives information (through spiritual consciousness instead of human logic or scientific inquiry). The communion of the soul with God (in a state of ecstasy or contemplation) is a very common motif among Christian mystics.

Writing in nonliteral images is of course quite compatible with mysticism, but if that is your working definition of it then I think you are striking out on your own.

Ben.

[youngalexander]

Here is the definition of mysticism from the Random House dictionary:

1. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
2. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
3. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
4. Vague, groundless speculation.

From the Concise Oxford mystical:
having a spiritual symbolic or allegorical significance that transcends human understanding.
but mysticism:
1 the beliefs or state of mind characteristic of mystics.
2 vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult.
However, Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, says of mysticism:
in general, a spiritual quest for hidden truth or wisdom,...
The goal of mysticism is union with the divine or sacred.
a form of living in depth, indicates that in humans there is a meeting ground of various levels of reality;...
Though mysticism may be associated with religion, it need not be.
Mysticism may be defined as the belief in a third kind of knlowledge,...
Another type of mysticism is that defined by love and devotion.

The mystical aspects of CHRISTIANITY have been manifest most clearly in a recurring pattern of movements. In the religion of PAUL and JOHN "Christ-mysticism", frequently spontaneous and unsought, is fundamental.
And much more besides.

Trusting that this will be of assistance.

[ynquirer]

22: For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23: But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24: Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants…

If Gal 4:22 speaks of the sons of two women and Gal:24 clarifies it is an allegory, why assuming that the phrase “born of a woman” in Gal 4:4, which is not qualified in the same way, is an allegory as well? Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

[Amaleq13]

I simply find it absurd that even the mere possibility that Paul does not mean something symbolic with the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" is rejected on such specious grounds...

I don't consider the absence of supporting evidence for a "mystical" intended meaning to be "specious".

...the conclusion is formed that Paul believed Jesus was historical based on this one phrase to the exclusion of everything else Paul says about Jesus existing at the beginning of time, etc.

I see no resemblance between this statement and anyone's position in the discussion. It is a straw man.

Rather than answer the simple question "is it possible Paul means something other than what he says", we are getting wrapped around the axle regarding definitoins of the word 'mystical', and off chasing rabbits down Josephus holes.

It is always "possible" that an author meant something other than the most obvious meaning of the words chosen but recognizing that fact is ultimately useless unless one can produce evidence and/or argument indicating it is more than a mere possibility. And that requires precisely the work you appear to want to avoid.

[Solo]

Paul's references to a divine Christ are generally not in the same context. Paul puts forth a developed, extensive Christology. Christ is an atoning sacrifce. Christ is holy. Christ is righteous. Christ is our savior. There's no comparitive language.... As opposed to this one verse you have cited in Galatians 4:14 which is a clear use of figurative exageration by Paul.


Paul's election by God as a revealer of Christ is a delusional exaggeration; Paul's view of the cosmic meaning in Jesus death is a delusional exaggeration; Paul's view of himself as "crucified" is a delusional exaggeration :

Paul's Christ is a figure of speech for Paul's attempting to dissociate an exaggerated sense of self. The man was a genius who discovered universal hope in his personal madness. :rolleyes: (sanity check: yes, that is right !)

Jiri

[Doug Shaver]

it was even addressed to you:
Please excuse my forgetfulness. I'll have another look at it.

[No Robots]

It is my understanding, that the term was often used to indicate a fellow believer, much like it is still used that way today. I can't provide any evidence of that, but neither do I have reason to doubt it. In the context used, it appears to mean that rather than a blood relative, although it might refer to a blood relative.

What about the Gospel passages where the brethren of Christ are clearly identified as blood relatives? Do they not help determine the direction our interpretation should take?

As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.—Mt 12:46-49

And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles?
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
[56] And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
[57] And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
[58] And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.—Mt. 13:54-58

[jgibson000]

I simply find it absurd that even the mere possibility that Paul does not mean something symbolic with the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" is rejected on such specious grounds as what has been presented,

I'd be grateful if you'd specify which particular "grounds" so far presented do you find find specious?

and the conclusion is formed that Paul believed Jesus was historical based on this one phrase to the exclusion of everything else Paul says about Jesus existing at the beginning of time, etc.

Ah, but does Paul say in Galatians (or for that matter, anywhere else) that Jesus existed at/from the beginning of time?

Again, you not only seem to be assuming what needs to be proven, but you also show yourself unaware of how, especially in the light of the examination (some of which has been produced on this board) by Jimmy Dunn and others of the texts traditionally adduced as indicating a belief on the part of Paul in the "pre-existence" of the Son , Pauline scholarship has tended to reject the notion, once widely held, that the "pre-existence" of the Son is something that Paul accepted.

In any case, it is important to note that there is, to my knowledge, not a single Pauline scholar who thinks that holding to the notion that Paul believed in the Son's "pre-existence" entails a denial that in Gal 4:4 Paul is making an assertion about Jesus' historicity or that the expression GENOMOMENON EK GUNAIKOS found there is anything other than an historical statement.

In other words, they don't see that there's any contradiction between Paul asserting the Son's "pre-existence" and a belief on Paul's part in the Son's earthly existence. After all, the author who most certainly believed in the pre-existence of the Logos, the author of the Gospel of John, did not refrain from believing and asserting dogmatically that this Logos appeared concretely in history at a specific time and place. Why then should a "pre-existence of the Son" believing Paul not do so as well?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Soul Invictus]

No, I don't think so. I think the theologians who say that Paul believed "Jesus Christ" to be a unique phenom are right. Paul is not at all interested in Jesus earthly history; he assumes everyone knows that JC was hanged on a tree for shame.

I don't think it's a matter of Paul stating something that he is or isn't interested in. That's an apologetic assumption without merit. I think that it's more plausible that it's indicative of lack of knowledge of events because there's no attestation of such events.

I think this is an excuse to justify why Paul is glaringly silent on the purported aspects of Jesus life.
I find it interesting and convenient that Paul makes no mention of:

1) The crucifixion
2) Pilate or the Romans
3) Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents
4) Judas
5) Holy women at the cross
6) No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion

He makes no allusions to any of the above in any vein, and he also
never quotes Jesus' purported sermons and speeches. He makes no mention of Jesus's virgin birth, or his alleged wonders and miracles.

While Paul could have chosen to omit such details, it's a stretch to imply that none of the essential and fantastic aspects of Jesus's life would not get an iota of discussion.

Paul's omissions notwithstanding, it's also of note that Philo failed to make mention of any of the noteworthy events surrounding Jesus's life as well. As the contemporary historian from the time that Jesus would have existed is definitely of note. Apologetics for the silence on such noteworthy information is ineffective, unconvincing and not compelling...especially the oft used notions that there was a lack of interest in Jesus and/or his influence, or rather the insignificance that he posed in order to consider recording particular fantastic parts of history.

Does anyone have any contention with the statement that there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a figure known as Jesus, the Christ, and that the only literary evidence of a Jesus Christ is contained within the gospels?

[No Robots]

I find it interesting and convenient that Paul makes no mention of:

1) The crucifixion

What about this passage (1 Co. 2:2):

For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

[Solo]

Again, you not only seem to be assuming what needs to be proven, but you also show yourself unaware of how, especially in the light of the examination (some of which has been produced on this board) by Jimmy Dunn and others of the texts traditionally adduced as indicating a belief on the part of Paul in the "pre-existence" of the Son , Pauline scholarship has tended to reject the notion, once widely held, that the "pre-existence" of the Son is something that Paul accepted.


No, Jeffrey, what needs to proven first by James A. Dunn, and whoever else sits on the "no-preexistent-Christ-in-Paul" bandwagon, is that Paul did not say God sent his Son. Because for them to claim that Paul meant to imply that at the point of the Son's sending only God existed, is utterly baseless and preposterous.

Jiri

[Soul Invictus]

What about this passage (1 Co. 2:2):

For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

I was speaking of the details. Notice my 'holy women at the cross' entry.

Forgive my imprecision though.

[jgibson000]

No, Jeffrey, what needs to proven first by James A. Dunn,

It's James D.G. Dunn

and whoever else sits on the "no-preexistent-Christ-in-Paul" bandwagon, is that Paul did not say God sent his Son.
Really? I should have thought that what needs to be proven is your hidden assumption and implicit claim that "sending" language necessarily implies "pre-existence", let alone that assertions about a being's or an object's "pre-existence" necessarily and always meant actual existence from or before the beginning of time. Does it? In Paul?

Because for them to claim that Paul meant to imply that at the point of the Son's sending only God existed, is utterly baseless and preposterous.

Why? Because you say so?

Would you care to mount an argument for this claim rather than deliver it as a fiat?

Have you read the section on Gal. 4:4a in Dunn's Christology in the Making or in his commentary on Galatians or in that of, say, Longenecker or of Martyn that deals with the question of what OTE DE HLQEN TO PLHROMA TOU XRONOU, EXAPESTEILEON hO QEOS TON hUION AUTOU means?

If so, what is it specifically within their arguments about the meaning of this expression that in your eyes they got wrong?

Jeffrey Gibson

[jgibson000]

I was speaking of the details. Notice my 'holy women at the cross' entry.

Forgive my imprecision though.

Actually you spoke of the absence of mention of both "the crucifixion" (your # 1) and "the women at the cross" (your # 5). So it's not a matter of your being imprecise. It is (or it certainly seems to be) s a matter of your moving the goal post once a claim of yours has been shown to be shoddy.

In any case, you might want to note, with respect to "holy" women at the cross, it's not only Paul who doesn't mention this. Neither Mark nor Luke do, either.

Nor do Luke, Mark or John mention your # 3 (Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents).

As to Paul and your #s 1 and 2 (the Crucifixion and Pilate or the Romans, respectively), what about 1 Cor. 2:8?

And as to Paul and your # 6 (No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion), which "personal events" do you have in mind?

Jeffrey Gibson

[aa5874]

After reading thousands of posts, it is clear that neither Jesus Christ nor Saul/Paul can be placed in history. Those who support their historicity blatantly refuse to give any credible information to bolster their view, and instead, only refute those who are of a different view.

The cold hard fact is that refutation, even if successful, does not determine the historicity of Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul. Those who support the mythical Jesus Christ and the mythical Saul/Paul have no credible evidence or knowledge of the mythical duo, we can only speculate.

It is very laborious and time consuming to constantly see the same refutations, thousands upon thousands, with not one shred of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul.

It appears to me that some people use this site only to display their literary skills.

I am waiting for the day when someone can demostrate to me that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived.

[jgibson000]

I am waiting for the day when someone can demostrate to me that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived.

And we're waiting the day when you abandon your double standards and obtain a decent and informed sense of what constitutes "evidence".;)

JG

[Soul Invictus]

Actually you spoke of the absence of mention of both "the crucifixion" (your # 1) and "the women at the cross" (your # 5). So it's not a matter of your being imprecise. It is (or it certainly seems to be) s a matter of your moving the goal post once a claim of yours has been shown to be shoddy.

Yeah. Okay. Whatever floats your boat. There's no need for me to move anything. You could say the same thing about the Romans if that's the position you wish to take.

In any case, you might want to note, with respect to "holy" women at the cross, it's not only Paul who doesn't mention this. Neither Mark nor Luke do, either.

That's fine. I didn't say that the gospels did. Besides, it has nothing to do with Paul's omission...who is someone purportedly to have known him.

Nor do Luke, Mark or John mention your # 3 (Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents).

Right. There is plenty of discussion regarding the gospels' lack of mentioning as well. Again, Paul was to have known Jesus Jesus, so it is compelling why his material on him is near non-existent. That the gospels are also lacking is material for the entire 'existence of Jesus' discussion. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but my posts, and the recent posts thereof was addressing Paul's specific omissions.

As to Paul and your #s 1 and 2 (the Crucifixion and Pilate or the Romans, respectively), what about 1 Cor. 2:8?

This is what I mentioned above about the details.

And as to Paul and your # 6 (No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion), which "personal events" do you have in mind?

I would say any of them would be okay (trial,betrayal, characters involved..etc)



I am waiting for the day when someone can demostrate to me that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived.

So am I...and many others for that matter.

[aa5874]

And we're waiting the day when you abandon your double standards and obtain a decent and informed sense of what constitutes "evidence".;)

JG


You know what is evidence, and have a decent and informed sense of its constitution, and have displayed no characteristics of double standards.

Now, I am still waiting for such a person to demonstrate that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived, instead of thousands and thousands of refutations that go into massive circlles of oblivion.

If every other view is wrong, why is yours right? Evidence please.

[jgibson000]

You know what is evidence, and have a decent and informed sense of its constitution, and have displayed no characteristics of double standards.

Now, I am still waiting for such a person to demonstrate that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived, instead of thousands and thousands of refutations that go into massive circlles of oblivion.

So that we do not go round in "circlles" of any sort, let alone "circlles of oblivion" (whatever that means), I suggest that first you

(1) finally state explicitly both what you consider to be the kinds of things that would or do demonstrate anyone's existence, as well as what the minimum amount of these things are that to you is necessary to do so, and then

(2) give us a comparison of all of this with what professional historians state is such "evidence" and the amount of it required to establish the historicity of an ancient figure.,

This way we might see not only (a) if your views on these things are consistent with and/or are more or less stringent than what rational people accept as reasonable in this regard, but (b) whether the cause of the going round in "circlles" you say is happening lies with you, not with anyone who offers you "refutations".

JG

[aa5874]

So that we do not go round in "circlles" of any sort, let alone "circlles of oblivion" (whatever that means), I suggest that first you

(1) finally state explicitly both what you consider to be the kinds of things that would or do demonstrate anyone's existence, as well as what the minimum amount of these things are that to you is necessary to do so, and then

(2) give us a comparison of all of this with what professional historians state is such "evidence" and the amount of it required to establish the historicity of an ancient figure.,

This way we might see not only (a) if your views on these things are consistent with and/or are more or less stringent than what rational people accept as reasonable in this regard, but (b) whether the cause of the going round in "circlles" you say is happening lies with you, not with anyone who offers you "refutations".

JG

You have already stated that I have double standards that I need to abandon. Even my sense of the constitution of evidence has been questioned. I have already stated I have no evidence that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul ever lived.

I hope you understand what no evidence means. I have nothing, zero, a big fat O, nada on Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul.

Anymore questions?

[jgibson000]

You have already stated that I have double standards that I need to abandon. Even my sense of the constitution of evidence has been questioned.
No. What has been questioned is what that "sense" actually is.

I have already stated I have no evidence that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul ever lived.

I hope you understand what no evidence means. I have nothing, zero, a big fat O, nada on Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul.

Anymore questions?

Yes. Two.

First, why have you misread what I asked of you?

I did not ask you to produce your evidence for anyone, let alone for Jesus. I asked you

(1) to state explicitly both what you consider to be the kinds of things that would, could, or do demonstrate anyone's existence, as well as what you consider to be the minimum amount of these things that we'd have to have to to do so, and

(2) to give us a comparison of all of this with what professional historians state is such "evidence" and the amount of it required to establish the historicity of an ancient figure.

Second, will you now please do what I asked you to do?

If you don't, you confirm my claim that the responsibility for the lack of any progress being made here lies with you.

JG

[spamandham]

I don't consider the absence of supporting evidence for a "mystical" intended meaning to be "specious".

If I understand you, you reject even the mere possibility, since no-one has provided you evidence to support the idea?


I see no resemblance between this statement and anyone's position in the discussion. It is a straw man.

It's not a straw man at all. The entire argument regarding the passage "born of a woman" is that Paul meant it literally. How could Paul not believe in a HJ if he meant this phrase literally? To argue that Paul meant this phrase literally is to necessarily argue that Paul believed in a historical Jesus. Is there reason to believe that beyond this isolated phrase, such that a case is made that is stronger than the case that Paul's Christ was nonhuman?

[spamandham]

What about the Gospel passages where the brethren of Christ are clearly identified as blood relatives? Do they not help determine the direction our interpretation should take?

Paul wrote much eariler than the Gospels (according to the usually accepted dates), and so there is no reason to suspect his position was based on them. It might be fair to look at other evidence right around the time of Paul (or a bit earlier) to try to fill in the gaps about him, but it isn't fair to look at evidence that came later and attempt to do that.

[jakejonesiv]

That might be a promising debate. :)

Sure, son of God is mystical or theological. But born of a woman is normally quite literal, even in deeply theological texts like the Dead Sea scrolls or Job.

Not really sure about Revelation 12.

...
Ben.

Hi Ben,

Revelation Chapter 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2012&version=31)
The Woman and the Dragon
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

Well, this is as pertinent as anything you have searched outside the scriptures. The scene is set in heaven.
Here we have a woman, allegorical to be sure, but never-the-less described as a heavenly woman. She is pregnant, about to give birth to a male child. And in v. 5 she is indeed said to give birth to a son.

This is devastating to your case that the redactor's comment of the Son of God born of a woman in Gal 4:4 necessarily means a historical woman and a historical child.

Jake Jones IV

[spamandham]

I'd be grateful if you'd specify which particular "grounds" so far presented do you find find specious?

Here is the argument that seems to be being made:

- the phrase "born of a woman" is found in several other Greek writings around the same time period, and in those writings, it always refers to an actual birth. These writings are ordinary nonmystical writings. Therefor, since we find this phrase being used nonmystically in nonmystical writings, thus it is always meant to have a nonmystical meaning no matter where we might find it.

I seriously hope this is not an accurate assesment and that I've just missed something, but repeated attempts to clarify the argument being made have not resulted in anything more flattering.


Ah, but does Paul say in Galatians (or for that matter, anywhere else) that Jesus existed at/from the beginning of time?

I concede out of shear weariness. I think I already have my answer to the OP.

[aa5874]

The evidence is not overwhelming, certainly, but we can arrive at the existence of Jesus in a progressive fashion.

There is overwhelming evidence for Jesus, there were lots of them, Josephus did mention a few of them. However, it is the Jesus Christ, the one in the Christian Bible for which evidence is sought, the one whom Josephus claims did ten thousand wonderful things.

Now, if Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, did not do any miracles, was not ressurected nor ascended, where and when did He do those ten thousand wonderful things and who saw Him?

First we establish the existence of Paul. His catalog of Epistles is sufficient to do that, but what's more it gives him a voice which can testify to some facts of the 50s AD. In them, he mentions James, Peter and John by name, and eludes to other "Apostles." He claims to have personally met both Peter and James. Thus we have strong evidence for the existence of two companions of Jesus, and therefore for Jesus as well.

Epistles are not strong evidence of historicity. Even today, some of the epistles are being questioned as to their authorship. It is incredible that refering to a person in a book signifies authenticity. It is claimed that forgeries and interpolations were rampant, the Christian Bible itself is extremely contradictory and not credible. It cannot be ascertained whether Matthew copied from Mark or Luke from Mark or who John called Jesus Christ.

I think the sum of the evidence strongly suggests the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in the first century and taught at least a few Apostles. Given that, it is probably fair to say he was crucified for some reason, as tradition has testified. Beyond that, it's difficult to speculate what else he might have done, or might have been done to him.

Ten thousand wonderful things, according to Josephus.

[No Robots]

Paul wrote much eariler than the Gospels (according to the usually accepted dates), and so there is no reason to suspect his position was based on them. It might be fair to look at other evidence right around the time of Paul (or a bit earlier) to try to fill in the gaps about him, but it isn't fair to look at evidence that came later and attempt to do that.

What about the scholarly consensus that the Gospels are written versions of information originally transmitted orally?

[No Robots]

If every other view is wrong, why is yours right? Evidence please.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?-- Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four.

[spamandham]

What about the scholarly consensus that the Gospels are written versions of information originally transmitted orally?

The problem is, we have no idea what oral traditions might have consisted of at the time of Paul, nor do we have any reason to think the branch that led to the Gospels is the same branch Paul was involved in. Paul's letters prove there were competeing Christian churches from the earliest records, each with different teachings.

We don't know that the Gospels came from Paul's branch, and it certainly seems unlikely. But even if we knew that, it would still be invalid to extrapolate backward from the Gospels to Paul, since there is no reason to expect oral tradition to remain constant over time, particularly considering that the various creeds designed to promote uniformity had not yet been invented.

[Amaleq13]

If I understand you, you reject even the mere possibility, since no-one has provided you evidence to support the idea?

You do misunderstand me and I have to assume that is because you didn't finish reading my post since I clearly accept the existence of the possibility. I also pointed out that establishing a mere possibility is ultimately useless in helping one reach a conclusion and that one needs to provide support that it is something more than just a possibility.

It's not a straw man at all.

Since, as far as I can see, it bears no resemblance to anyone's position in this discussion, it is a straw man by definition. To establish that I am incorrect, you need to identify who here holds that Paul believed in an historical Jesus "based on this one phrase to the exclusion of everything else Paul says about Jesus existing at the beginning of time, etc". It certainly doesn't describe my position since I view Paul as believing Jesus to have been the incarnation of the pre-existing Son.

The entire argument regarding the passage "born of a woman" is that Paul meant it literally.

No, that is the conclusion based on the prima facie meaning of the phrase and the absence of any good reason to think otherwise.

Is there reason to believe that beyond this isolated phrase, such that a case is made that is stronger than the case that Paul's Christ was nonhuman?

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

[Amaleq13]

What about the scholarly consensus that the Gospels are written versions of information originally transmitted orally?

I question that it is truly a "scholarly consensus" but it is unsubstantiated speculation.

[Clivedurdle]

Originally Posted by jgibson000
Ah, but does Paul say in Galatians (or for that matter, anywhere else) that Jesus existed at/from the beginning of time?

Ephesians 1:4 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

And about born of a woman I see three versions of born of a woman commonly used - Revelations - completely heavenly, Hercules - god lying with a woman, and ordinary human relationships.

So next question , which versions are being used where?

I see two clear examples in the new testament and one doubtful - the clear onesz are the pure heavenly one in Revelation, and the Hercules clone in the gospels.

Paul I see as using the heavenly model possibly confused with the Hercules model, but not the version by which we all got here!

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben,

Revelation Chapter 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2012&version=31)
The Woman and the Dragon
.......................................................
Well, this is as pertinent as anything you have searched outside the scriptures. The scene is set in heaven.
Here we have a woman, allegorical to be sure, but never-the-less described as a heavenly woman. She is pregnant, about to give birth to a male child. And in v. 5 she is indeed said to give birth to a son.

This is devastating to your case that the redactor's comment of the Son of God born of a woman in Gal 4:4 necessarily means a historical woman and a historical child.

Jake Jones IV

Revelation chapter 12 is not an easy chapter to interpret but it seems to be a vision in heaven concerning events some of which (verses 7-12) take place in heaven while others (verses 13 onwards) take place on earth.

The birth of the man child in verse 5 probably is meant to occur on earth. At least the child is caught up to heaven from the region of his birth leaving his mother on earth (compare verse 6 to verses 13 onwards). Although the woman is clearly supposed to be on earth during at least part of the chapter there is (unlike the account of the dragon) no reference to her having been sent down to earth.


Andrew Criddle

[Doug Shaver]

But why would Jews who are trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts balk at deifying a human, which has some partial precedents in Judaism
Having taken another look at the earlier reference (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year25/8802.shtml), I see I will have to modify my position. Apparently it is not true that there was no way some hellenized Jews would deify a man.

Even so . . . .

The PSCO article cites three particular precedents: Moses, Enoch, and the "the venerable man" in Ezekiel the Tragedian. That last one is too vague, I think, to be evidence for anything. That leaves Moses and Enoch. Enoch, according to the story, was spared from death, presumably on account of some unique degree of righteousness. Moses, although he did die, was also thought to be uniquely righteous in some sense. The Deuteronomist wrote: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face."

And so the question is: What might Jesus of Nazareth have done -- in fact, not in legend -- to have inspired a comparable veneration, and whatever it was, why is there no record of it?

[Clivedurdle]

The birth of the man child in verse 5 probably is meant to occur on earth. At least the child is caught up to heaven from the region of his birth leaving his mother on earth (compare verse 6 to verses 13 onwards). Although the woman is clearly supposed to be on earth during at least part of the chapter there is (unlike the account of the dragon) no reference to her having been sent down to earth.

And Hercules was born on earth!

all this stuff asbout earth, heaven or in between is irrelevant when we are discussing myth - where was Zeus when he impregnated Hercules mum?

And God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening...

[Solo]

I don't think it's a matter of Paul stating something that he is or isn't interested in. That's an apologetic assumption without merit. I think that it's more plausible that it's indicative of lack of knowledge of events because there's no attestation of such events.


My view evidently lacks a conclusive proof. I am aware of that and therefore make no claims to its historical verity. Incidentally, I am not an orthodox apologist who claims Paul worshipped the earthly Jesus and adorned him with a royal pedigree. I am saying Paul locked horns with the followers of the earthly Jesus, transparently accusing them of idolatry, and ridiculed their credentials (presumably of personally knowing Jesus). It was a principled stance.

Now, your position strikes me just as speculative as mine. It lacks historical corroboration. You say Paul did not mention certain events because they did not happen. How do you prove that ?


I think this is an excuse to justify why Paul is glaringly silent on the purported aspects of Jesus life.
I find it interesting and convenient that Paul makes no mention of:

1) The crucifixion


Paul mentions the crucifixion in a number of places. It is an event of central importance to him. In 1 Cor 2:2, he says 'I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified '. Now, you will note that my little theory can point to this verse when explaining why Paul is not interested in the servant Jesus' trials and tribulations on earth. Can yours ?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why Paul would not be interested in the sublunar wonders of JC before the monsters nailed him. Pray tell !


2) Pilate or the Romans


He does not mention them because in his "Christ crucified" scenario they are "rulers of the age". Pilate does not matter to Paul: the tortured and resurrected Son revealed in his body does.


3) Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents


These are a product of later Christian imagination. These "events" do not have the making of history.


4) Judas


Judas is a later invention, I think everyone agrees on that.


5) Holy women at the cross
6) No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion


Again, this is devotional material, and I have no problem with setting it aside as mythical adornments, or a "historical Korsakoff" if you know what I mean.

Pilate, we know from Josephus, was known to execute non-Roman prisoners without a trial. It is more likely than not, that Jesus, being mostly an unimportant nuisance in Jerusalem, was nailed by Pilate without ceremony or philosophical debate.


He makes no allusions to any of the above in any vein, and he also
never quotes Jesus' purported sermons and speeches. He makes no mention of Jesus's virgin birth, or his alleged wonders and miracles.


If it helps you in any way, I believe that if Paul had read the Gospels he would have gone glossolalic. Yes, he would have seen mostly his own creation making the earthly rounds, but he would have abhorred the implied idolatry and the falsification of truth about the earthly Jesus that the gospel stories represented.


While Paul could have chosen to omit such details, it's a stretch to imply that none of the essential and fantastic aspects of Jesus's life would not get an iota of discussion.


As I said, he would have seen most of it as rubbish. Paul saw the earthly Jesus as a deluded fool, sorcerer and blasphemer. When the light struck Paul he reckoned the poor guy whom he badmouthed either got dealt fate from the bottom of the deck or he was actually God's true progeny. Paul made his choice and stuck with it. That's all that matters, I think.

Jiri

[jjramsey]

And so the question is: What might Jesus of Nazareth have done -- in fact, not in legend -- to have inspired a comparable veneration

What might Jim Jones have done to have inspired his followers to kill themselves? What might David Koresh have done to have inspired his followers to think he was the messiah? The idea that Jesus required anything other than personal charisma to get people to venerate him seems rather naive.

[TerryTryon]

I don’t know why I did it except for the pure satisfaction of reading something through, but I have read, in the past three days, every single post on this discussion. I must say that the threads in this sub-forum on the controversy of whether Jesus is myth or history are every bit as tedious, misinformed, and silly as the ones on the evolution sub-forum that deal with the survival advantage of homosexuality.
While I am in awe of some who have so much knowledge of Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages as well as the various texts, I dismay that these same “scholars” lack even the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic. For example, what is the gain of parading for ridicule a simple typographical error in which the “l” in circle was in some way duplicated?
Is the “Jesus” in the New Testament—if indeed the various different formulations of this god of the Christians can be said to have enough internal consistency to be categorized as a single personage at all—have a historical precedent? The answer to this is, “Of course not.” The NT Jesus is always presented as a supernatural entity and what place he has in history as presented in the NT as such is badly shoehorned into a milieu for which the unidentified writers writing at an undetermined time had no firsthand knowledge and no primary source material. There is no history for the NT Jesus Christ. One can try to pull knowledge from ignorance, as a magician draws a rabbit from his hat, but in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors. Evidence is lacking. Evidence is not forthcoming and everything written about irrelevant minutia that illustrate only that one has an outstanding grasp of ancient languages will not change that fact. It only substantiates the fact that there is nothing here but grasping at straws.
Now I have a ream of paper printed with pure silliness. I wish I had more endurance in reading from a computer screen. Maybe, I could have spared myself a ream of paper and a substantial portion of the toner in the printer’s cassette.

[ynquirer]

I don’t know why I did it except for the pure satisfaction of reading something through, but I have read, in the past three days, every single post on this discussion. I must say that the threads in this sub-forum on the controversy of whether Jesus is myth or history are every bit as tedious, misinformed, and silly as the ones on the evolution sub-forum that deal with the survival advantage of homosexuality.
While I am in awe of some who have so much knowledge of Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages as well as the various texts, I dismay that these same “scholars” lack even the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic. For example, what is the gain of parading for ridicule a simple typographical error in which the “l” in circle was in some way duplicated?
Is the “Jesus” in the New Testament—if indeed the various different formulations of this god of the Christians can be said to have enough internal consistency to be categorized as a single personage at all—have a historical precedent? The answer to this is, “Of course not.” The NT Jesus is always presented as a supernatural entity and what place he has in history as presented in the NT as such is badly shoehorned into a milieu for which the unidentified writers writing at an undetermined time had no firsthand knowledge and no primary source material. There is no history for the NT Jesus Christ. One can try to pull knowledge from ignorance, as a magician draws a rabbit from his hat, but in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors. Evidence is lacking. Evidence is not forthcoming and everything written about irrelevant minutia that illustrate only that one has an outstanding grasp of ancient languages will not change that fact. It only substantiates the fact that there is nothing here but grasping at straws.
Now I have a ream of paper printed with pure silliness. I wish I had more endurance in reading from a computer screen. Maybe, I could have spared myself a ream of paper and a substantial portion of the toner in the printer’s cassette.

Do you mean to imply you are smarter than the rest of contributors to this thread or else less smart than them?

[jgibson000]

I don’t know why I did it except for the pure satisfaction of reading something through, but I have read, in the past three days, every single post on this discussion. I must say that the threads in this sub-forum on the controversy of whether Jesus is myth or history are every bit as tedious, misinformed, and silly as the ones on the evolution sub-forum that deal with the survival advantage of homosexuality.

Could you point out please just where the threads are "misinformed"? I'd also be grateful to know what your criteria are for judging them so.

While I am in awe of some who have so much knowledge of Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages as well as the various texts, I dismay that these same “scholars” lack even the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic. For example, what is the gain of parading for ridicule a simple typographical error in which the “l” in circle was in some way duplicated?

How does this show, as you claim it does, a lack on my part of "the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic"?

Is the “Jesus” in the New Testament—if indeed the various different formulations of this god of the Christians can be said to have enough internal consistency to be categorized as a single personage at all—have a historical precedent? The answer to this is, “Of course not.” The NT Jesus is always presented as a supernatural entity

He is? Always? Could you please define "supernatural entity"? I'd also be grateful if you'd give some evidence for you hidden assumption that in the ancient world, presenting someone as a "supernatural entity" or as having "divine" origin, prerogatives, and/or powers was thought to be a denial that they were human, let alone historical.

Jeffrey Gibson

[aa5874]

My view evidently lacks a conclusive proof. I am aware of that and therefore make no claims to its historical verity. Incidentally, I am not an orthodox apologist who claims Paul worshipped the earthly Jesus and adorned him with a royal pedigree. I am saying Paul locked horns with the followers of the earthly Jesus, transparently accusing them of idolatry, and ridiculed their credentials (presumably of personally knowing Jesus). It was a principled stance.

Now, your position strikes me just as speculative as mine. It lacks historical corroboration. You say Paul did not mention certain events because they did not happen. How do you prove that ?


Any person who claims an event or entity did not occur or exist, has no evidence of its occurence or existence. It is as simple as that. That is the basis of their conclusion, no evidence, nothing. The person has come up empty-handed, with a blank sheet. There is no credible information, no eyewitnesses, no person of interest, no DNA, no achaelogical evidence, no contemporary evidence.

Now, if I say 'Solo' does not exist, then I have no evidence that 'Solo' exists. Now, if 'Solo' exists, he will prove his existence. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. All entities that are deemed to be non-existent, it is because there is no proof of their existence, that is, no evidence.

So, if a person claims that Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul were never real, it is because they have no evidence of their realities and no-one has proven that those entities actually lived.

If you believe Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul actually lived based on speculation, then your belief is worthless.

If I believe a missing person is dead and you believe the same missing person is alive, based on speculation, the person is still missing, and nothing has been resolved.

Again, if you claim Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul exist, then I expect you to have evidence or proof. I believe Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul are mythical, I have nothing to demonstrate that they existed, nothing at all. Solo, what do you have, speculation, probabilities, plausibilties....?

[Ben C Smith]

Hi Ben,

Revelation Chapter 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2012&version=31)
The Woman and the Dragon
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

Well, this is as pertinent as anything you have searched outside the scriptures. The scene is set in heaven.
Here we have a woman, allegorical to be sure, but never-the-less described as a heavenly woman. She is pregnant, about to give birth to a male child. And in v. 5 she is indeed said to give birth to a son.

This is devastating to your case that the redactor's comment of the Son of God born of a woman in Gal 4:4 necessarily means a historical woman and a historical child.

I have nowhere made a case that a redactor reworked Galatians 4.4 at all.

Nor have I anywhere made the case that my interpretation is necessary, only that it is the most probable.

And the syntax of Revelation 12.2 is και σημειον μεγα ωφθη εν τω ουρανω, which is perfectly compatible with the sign appearing in heaven. That the sign appeared in heaven does not tell us where the contents of that sign take place.

Finally, there is a great difference of genre between Revelation and the epistles of Paul. What one sees in a vision and what one writes in a hortatory epistle can be two very different things.

Ben.

[TerryTryon]

Do you mean to imply you are smarter than the rest of contributors to this thread or else less smart than them?

I merely read all the posts and I found the same arguments used over and over with much erudition and little sense of critical thinking. In particular, your rather pointless and tedious debate with Spin over Tacitus, Pilate, and the etymology of "procurator" was exceptionally outrageous. Do the words, "I was wrong." even occur in your vocabulary? What is this fascination with beating a dead horse?
No. I cannot match your knowledge base. You certainly know a lot more about ancient Latin usage, than I ever will, but, in this case, it was obvious that you were grasping at straws. But your arrogance, also evinced in the snide quote above, is your undoing. If you have to be right all the time, every time, in every particular, where is there any hope of learning from you at all?

[No Robots]

The problem is, we have no idea what oral traditions might have consisted of at the time of Paul, nor do we have any reason to think the branch that led to the Gospels is the same branch Paul was involved in. Paul's letters prove there were competeing Christian churches from the earliest records, each with different teachings.

We don't know that the Gospels came from Paul's branch, and it certainly seems unlikely. But even if we knew that, it would still be invalid to extrapolate backward from the Gospels to Paul, since there is no reason to expect oral tradition to remain constant over time, particularly considering that the various creeds designed to promote uniformity had not yet been invented.

I question that it is truly a "scholarly consensus" but it is unsubstantiated speculation.


There is a great deal of scholarly discussion of the oral antecedents of the written Gospels. Just search "gospels+oral" in Googlebooks. I came up with this (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN0521008026) rather interesting work.

[TerryTryon]

Could you point out please just where the threads are "misinformed"? I'd also be grateful to know what your criteria are for judging them so.



How does this show, as you claim it does, a lack on my part of "the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic"?



He is? Always? Could you please define "supernatural entity"? I'd also be grateful if you'd give some evidence for you hidden assumption that in the ancient world, presenting someone as a "supernatural entity" or as having "divine" origin, prerogatives, and/or powers was thought to be a denial that they were human, let alone historical.

Jeffrey Gibson

When two people write posts, such as in this thread, that are so contrary to one another and with such vehement language, one must conclude (from the dispute) that one or the other is wrong, i.e, misinformed and (from the bitterness) not willing to become better informed.
You should know what the art of rhetoric is. And you should also know that ridicule is not effective rhetoric. Ridicule based on a typo is so puerile, it disgusts me.
The reason that Jesus appears in the gospels is to establish his godhood. If not so, then there is no basis for the religion of Christianity at all. A god is among other things a supernatural entity. Now I could spend hours discussing the simple definitions of "supernatural" and "entity." We could waste pages and pages on that. It is clear that the gospels were indeed trying to identify Jesus as a historical character, but only as a spin in establishing his godhood. They are religious tracts, not historical documents.
I hope I am not going farther from what I have read in the posts of this thread. There is good scholarship based on texts and cross referencing and civilized debate. Then there are those who resort to ridicule, pointless minutia and constantly citing their laurels.

[ynquirer]

I merely read all the posts and I found the same arguments used over and over with much erudition and little sense of critical thinking. In particular, your rather pointless and tedious debate with Spin over Tacitus, Pilate, and the etymology of "procurator" was exceptionally outrageous. Do the words, "I was wrong." even occur in your vocabulary? What is this fascination with beating a dead horse?
No. I cannot match your knowledge base. You certainly know a lot more about ancient Latin usage, than I ever will, but, in this case, it was obvious that you were grasping at straws. But your arrogance, also evinced in the snide quote above, is your undoing. If you have to be right all the time, every time, in every particular, where is there any hope of learning from you at all?

I see your point. How would you address the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals 15:44 with, say, a little sense of critical thinking?

[jgibson000]

When two people write posts, such as in this thread, that are so contrary to one another and with such vehement language, one must conclude (from the dispute) that one or the other is wrong, i.e, misinformed and (from the bitterness) not willing to become better informed.

Or, unless one wants to engage in the fallacy of bifurcation, that both are wrong. Speaking of not being familiar with rudimentary logic ...

You should know what the art of rhetoric is. And you should also know that ridicule is not effective rhetoric.

Is it really? Better tell that to some of the Attic Orators. And how could I know what is ineffective rhetoric is unless I was not lacking in the rudiments of rhetoric, as you previously claimed I was.

Ridicule based on a typo is so puerile, it disgusts me.

Nice to know. But all I did was to quote exactly what my interlocutor wrote.

The reason that Jesus appears in the gospels is to establish his godhood.


It is? Aren't you confusing establishing Jesus as God's Messiah/definitive emissary (within a context in which there were other competitors and candidates for this claim) with establishing Jesus as God?

If not so, then there is no basis for the religion of Christianity at all.

This very much depends on what one thinks -- and especially what the early church thought -- "Christianity" was all about. My take is that it was originally all about accepting as true and living according to an alternative vision of how the people of God were to be faithful to the aims and intents of the God of Israel. Yours seems to equate Christianity with Gnosticism.

Now I could spend hours discussing the simple definitions of "supernatural" and "entity." We could waste pages and pages on that.

How about just spending a few minutes?

It is clear that the gospels were indeed trying to identify Jesus as a historical character, but only as a spin in establishing his godhood.

How is this clear? And what makes you think this is the Gospel's aim?

And even if it was their aim, what purpose did establishing Jesus' "godhood" (an undefined term if there ever was one)t serve -- especially in the context of the intra and extramural debates about what God wants of his people and where the will and character of the God of Israel is most bindingly and decisively known in which the early church and the Gospels arose?

They are religious tracts, not historical documents

So is the story of Moses or the Maccabees. But that the Gopsels are religious tracts does not mean that the Gospels have the aim you say they had, especially since your implicit claim about what the ends and aims of "religious tracts" (to establish someone's "godhood") is something that first needs to be proven, and not as you seem to be doing, assumed.

I hope I am not going farther from what I have read in the posts of this thread.

Whether or not this is the case, it is clear that you are approaching the debate therein with some pretty question begging theological, literary, and historical apriorii.

There is good scholarship based on texts and cross referencing and civilized debate. Then there are those who resort to ridicule, pointless minutia and constantly citing their laurels.

Who specifically in this thread has constantly cited their laurel?

JG

[Amaleq13]

There is a great deal of scholarly discussion of the oral antecedents of the written Gospels.

I did not deny the existence of "a great deal of scholarly discussion", I denied the existence of a "scholarly consensus" that is substantiated by evidence or reliable methodology.

Just search "gospels+oral" in Googlebooks. I came up with this (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN0521008026) rather interesting work.

I agree that the book appears interesting but I also note that nowhere is it claimed that the author has actually established substantiation for the notion that any specific part of the Gospels can be reliably identified as based on an oral tradition.

[jgibson000]

I did not deny the existence of "a great deal of scholarly discussion", I denied the existence of a "scholarly consensus" that is substantiated by evidence or reliable methodology.

Are you saying that the scholars who assert that the Gospels are composed of material that was originally passed on orally have no and/or have never cited any evidence for their claims?

What, in you judgment, is the evidence that is lacking in the scholarly discussions, say, of Bultmann, Dibelius, Schmidt, Jeremias, Dalmann, Brown, Gerhardsson, Taylor, Dunn, Meier, and Crossan, for their claims of oral tradition standing behind much of what is in the Gospels? What is it in the methodology they have employed to establish the existence, as well as the nature and extent or substance, of pre-gospel oral tradition that you find to be "unreliable"? In fact, what do you think -- or know -- that methodology is?

Would you also say that those who assert an oral tradition behind such things as the Mishna or the classical Midrash or even 1 Maccabees or Homer have not substantiated their claims with evidence or used a reliable methodology to come the conclusions about oral tradition in and behind these works that they have come to?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Toto]

There is a great deal of scholarly discussion of the oral antecedents of the written Gospels. Just search "gospels+oral" in Googlebooks. I came up with this (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN0521008026) rather interesting work.

Jesus and Gospel by Graham N. Stanton is searchable on Amazon.

There is a review here (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521008026). 'Gospel' initially referred to oral proclamation concerning Jesus Christ, but was later used to refer to four written accounts of the life of Jesus. How did this happen? Here, distinguished scholar Graham Stanton uses new evidence and fresh perspectives to tackle this controversial question. He insists that in the early post-Easter period, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was heard against the backdrop of a rival set of 'gospels' concerning the Roman emperors.

Interesting but this doesn't seem to indicate that the written gospels were based on the earlier oral gospel.

[Toto]

Are you saying that the scholars who assert that the Gospels are composed of material that was originally passed on orally have no and/or have never cited any evidence for their claims?

...
Jeffrey Gibson

I have not read all of your sources, but I have never seen any evidence, and I can't imagine what evidence there would be that a written work from 2000 years ago was based on oral tradition, much less that those oral traditions can be used as proof of the existence of Jesus (the real question here, is it not?)

There is the assumption that since the gospels were not written until some time after people believe that Jesus lived, that there must have been oral traditions, as here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html) from Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University:

All we have from this period about Jesus is text, finally. And we try to work backwards and say, "How did we get these texts? Who wrote these texts? Where did they get the ideas?" Surely behind the written text there were oral traditions, we know that. There were oral traditions that went on after the written text, and we have evidence of those being written down later.

Surely... we know that.

Then there is form criticism (http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/forms.html), but this also seems to be based on the assumption that there is an oral basis to the gospels. And I doubt that the idea that the sayings or parables attributed to Jesus were originally oral is very controversial. But is there any way to trace these reputed oral traditions back to a historical Jesus? I don't think that there is evidence of that.

[No Robots]

Interesting but this doesn't seem to indicate that the written gospels were based on the earlier oral gospel.

This seems a strange assertion. Whatever else would the written Gospels be based on if not earlier oral Gospels, at least as far as Stanton is concerned? I haven't read the book, but it isn't hard to find passages that refer to the oral foundations of the written Gospels. For example (p. 15):

Matthew opens the first of his five carefully constructed presentations of the teaching of Jesus with the Beatitudes. In fact, I think it very probable that the evangelist Matthew extended the echoes of Isaiah 61 already present in the tradition which came to him.

[TerryTryon]

I see your point. How would you address the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals 15:44 with, say, a little sense of critical thinking?

I think that I have already indicated that I feel that Spin's casting doubt on its authenticity has the ring of critical thinking. I would not, however, accept this as being more than speculation, although speculation that is based on what seems to be a thorough understanding of Tacitus. I do not have such an understanding as I freely admit, so I must decide on the basis of who brings the best authority to bear on the matter. Your counter arguments, on the other hand, have the ring of someone trying to salvage whatever one can of a debate long since grown unsupportable.

[Amaleq13]

Are you saying that the scholars who assert that the Gospels are composed of material that was originally passed on orally have no and/or have never cited any evidence for their claims?

It is a reasonable general assumption but making specific identifications remains a speculative endeavor as far as I know.

What, in you judgment, is the evidence that is lacking in the scholarly discussions, say, of Bultmann, Dibelius, Schmidt, Jeremias, Dalmann, Brown, Gerhardsson, Taylor, Dunn, Meier, and Crossan, for their claims of oral tradition standing behind much of what is in the Gospels?

I am specifically following Crossan, from The Birth of Christianity, where he acknowledges the absence of an established, reliable methodology for the claim and tried but failed to make such an identification for the Gospels. He took known written examples of oral tradition (Irish funeral poems, IIRC) and identified what he considered to be evidence of the process but found nothing even vaguely similar in the Gospels.

[ynquirer]

I think that I have already indicated that I feel that Spin's casting doubt on its authenticity has the ring of critical thinking. I would not, however, accept this as being more than speculation, although speculation that is based on what seems to be a thorough understanding of Tacitus. I do not have such an understanding as I freely admit, so I must decide on the basis of who brings the best authority to bear on the matter. Your counter arguments, on the other hand, have the ring of someone trying to salvage whatever one can of a debate long since grown unsupportable.

Coming from someone that does not have a thorough understanding of Tacitus - as you freely admit - while does entertain an unbiased stance on the topic - as you obviously do - your feeling of what seems to be such thorough understanding is useful feedback. Thank you very much.

[spamandham]

While I am in awe of some who have so much knowledge of Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages as well as the various texts, I dismay that these same “scholars” lack even the rudimentary principles of rhetoric and logic. For example, what is the gain of parading for ridicule a simple typographical error in which the “l” in circle was in some way duplicated?

I've had the same distress. It's a shame so many brilliant people can gather together and contribute fabulous work, and yet nothing be accomplished toward answering the OP. I can't seem to ask anything without someone trying to make a debate win rather than simply answering. Debating is fun and all, but it's rarely productive for any purpose but boosting one's ego. My guess is there aren't many people here who really need their egos inflated more.


Is the “Jesus” in the New Testament—if indeed the various different formulations of this god of the Christians can be said to have enough internal consistency to be categorized as a single personage at all—have a historical precedent? The answer to this is, “Of course not.”

I'm not sure it's that simple. Santa Claus is a similarly mythicized person, yet there seems to have been a historical figure deeply intertwined with the myth (even though much of the myth predates him) {please, let's not get into whether or not the Catholic church invented him in this thread}.

In my mind, Jesus is either pure myth, or he is a historical figure whom people wrapped up into pre-existing myths and legends and then grew them from there. Outside Christian "scholars", I don't think anyone seriously considers a magic god-man named Jesus may have walked the earth.

In my mind, this discussion is about an ordinary man and why there is a scholarly concensus that he not only existed, but was an itinerate preacher in the first century.

[No Robots]

I am specifically following Crossan, from The Birth of Christianity, where he acknowledges the absence of an established, reliable methodology for the claim and tried but failed to make such an identification for the Gospels. He took known written examples of oral tradition (Irish funeral poems, IIRC) and identified what he considered to be evidence of the process but found nothing even vaguely similar in the Gospels.

Crossan doesn't deny an oral foundation for the Gospels, acknowledging that "the culture of Jesus was between 95 and 97 percent illiterate" (p. 68). He neglects, however, to make the obvious comparison of the Gospels to the Talmud. Perhaps he doesn't relish the idea of dissolving the NT into ammé haaretz midrash.

[spamandham]

As I said, he would have seen most of it as rubbish. Paul saw the earthly Jesus as a deluded fool, sorcerer and blasphemer. When the light struck Paul he reckoned the poor guy whom he badmouthed either got dealt fate from the bottom of the deck or he was actually God's true progeny. Paul made his choice and stuck with it. That's all that matters, I think.

Jiri

The more I read your posts, the more I'm beginning to think you know what you're talking about. Do you have a consolidated write up of your thoughts on Paul somewhere?

[Amaleq13]

Crossan doesn't deny an oral foundation for the Gospels...

I didn't say he did and neither have I. I've denied that you can reliably identify it in the stories of the Gospels and, in that, I am following Crossan.

[Vorkosigan]

What, in you judgment, is the evidence that is lacking in the scholarly discussions, say, of Bultmann, Dibelius, Schmidt, Jeremias, Dalmann, Brown, Gerhardsson, Taylor, Dunn, Meier, and Crossan, for their claims of oral tradition standing behind much of what is in the Gospels? What is it in the methodology they have employed to establish the existence, as well as the nature and extent or substance, of pre-gospel oral tradition that you find to be "unreliable"? In fact, what do you think -- or know -- that methodology is?

The methodological basis for their claims is not sound, and IMHO appears to be driven largely by the a priori need for a tradition older than the gospels.

But why not push this discussion forward? What argument based on sound evidence derived from a generally accepted methodology for oral tradition in the Gospels is the strongest? Can you offer us an example from any of the gospels of either an argument you consider strong (someone has convinced you that passage X in Gospel Y was derived from an oral source), or one that is generally considered strong (the field is convinced that passage X in Gospel Y is derived from an oral source)?

Michael

[rlogan]

The methodological basis for their claims is not sound, and IMHO appears to be driven largely by the a priori need for a tradition older than the gospels.

But why not push this discussion forward? What argument based on sound evidence derived from a generally accepted methodology for oral tradition in the Gospels is the strongest? Can you offer us an example from any of the gospels of either an argument you consider strong (someone has convinced you that passage X in Gospel Y was derived from an oral source), or one that is generally considered strong (the field is convinced that passage X in Gospel Y is derived from an oral source)?

Michael

We can certainly look to other oral traditions to clue us in here. The Greeks of course had epic poems and songs for their myths, which are constructed in a form specifically to assist in memory.

In biblical texts the only person I see who has demonstrated literary devices that might qualify on these grounds is this guy named Vorkosigan.

He's written quite a bit on the chiastic structure of Mark, for example. He would have to comment directly here on whetjer he considered this a device meant to assist in oral transmission.

[Vorkosigan]

I do not think that the elaborate structure of Mark is a sign of orality. Quite the opposite; it looks like it was worked out on paper. At least to me.

Vorkosigan

[TerryTryon]

Although I will participate in those discussions where my expertise is relevant, I am not getting into a tit-for-tat flame war with anybody on this thread. That kind of debate is, what in my already stated opinion, has made this thread a total waste of time for anybody, especially the unsophisticated reader, sincerely wanting to know about the current scholarly thinking on the history of early christianity, especially regarding the essential nature of the eponymous "founder" of the religion. Since I do not have the background to debate such things, I can only watch as various arguments turn sour from lack of support. Sarcasm and ad hominim attacks seem to be the best indicator of that. Certainly, if I make a generalization regarding the tone of the thread, I find it exceedingly tedious for the other readers as well as myself to slog through the 500 sheets of paper to document where each violation occurred. I would assume that people participating in this thread will have read the posts and will know if I am a paranoid nutcase or not. If such be, it will require only the effort of a quick glance and pass on to the next relevant post.
[Personal disclosure: I have been certified by several competent mental health specialists to suffer from paranoia.]

[Doug Shaver]

What might Jim Jones have done to have inspired his followers to kill themselves? What might David Koresh have done to have inspired his followers to think he was the messiah?
If you honestly believe those are relevantly analogous to how the Jerusalem Christians are supposed to have thought about Jesus, then you've got me, because I can't think of a good response.

[No Robots]

Although I will participate in those discussions where my expertise is relevant, I am not getting into a tit-for-tat flame war with anybody on this thread. That kind of debate is, what in my already stated opinion, has made this thread a total waste of time for anybody, especially the unsophisticated reader, sincerely wanting to know about the current scholarly thinking on the history of early christianity, especially regarding the essential nature of the eponymous "founder" of the religion. Since I do not have the background to debate such things, I can only watch as various arguments turn sour from lack of support. Sarcasm and ad hominim attacks seem to be the best indicator of that. Certainly, if I make a generalization regarding the tone of the thread, I find it exceedingly tedious for the other readers as well as myself to slog through the 500 sheets of paper to document where each violation occurred. I would assume that people participating in this thread will have read the posts and will know if I am a paranoid nutcase or not. If such be, it will require only the effort of a quick glance and pass on to the next relevant post.
[Personal disclosure: I have been certified by several competent mental health specialists to suffer from paranoia.]

This is part of a new educational process that takes high scholarship into an open forum. It is fun and enlightening, but it has problems. The biggest problem is the bad blood between different outlooks. If you look past that, though, there is a wealth of helpful material for serious students. I for one have discovered over the last few hours of discussion here that the most promising area of NT research lies precisely in the question of oral antecedents. Skeptics help drive research forward by focussing on deficiencies in current understanding. It is always of benefit when doing serious investigation to focus on the position opposed to your own.

[jgibson000]

Although I will participate in those discussions where my expertise is relevant, I am not getting into a tit-for-tat flame war with anybody on this thread.

So far as I can see, nobody has asked you to go tit for tat with anybody, let alone to enter into a flame war. All you've been asked to do is to clarify your terms and to provide some documentation for your claim that there are people who have been constantly "reciting" their laurels. And since to do this requires no particular expertise in Gospel studies, it is curious that you not only do not do what has been asked of you, but that in reply for the call to do so, you mount what appear to me to be red herring excuses not to do so.

That kind of debate is, what in my already stated opinion, has made this thread a total waste of time for anybody, especially the unsophisticated reader, sincerely wanting to know about the current scholarly thinking on the history of early christianity, especially regarding the essential nature of the eponymous "founder" of the religion. Since I do not have the background to debate such things, I can only watch as various arguments turn sour from lack of support.

Seems to me that if anyone is not supporting his or her claims, it's you. And you haven't been asking questions or seeking information about scholarly thinking on the history of Christianity and the "essential nature" of the founder of "the religion". You've been making apodictic claims about these things.


Sarcasm and ad hominim attacks seem to be the best indicator of that. Certainly, if I make a generalization regarding the tone of the thread, I find it exceedingly tedious for the other readers as well as myself to slog through the 500 sheets of paper to document where each violation occurred.

Err, what? You find your slogging through your print outs extremely tedious for other readers of this thread? Are you cite this as the basis for your making generalizations about the tone of the thread?

In any case, I did not ask you to document where each and every violation occurred. I asked you only to point out a few examples of what you considered to be such violations and to name those you thought were at fault. Surely, this doesn't entail "slogging" though the entire exchange, especially since you must have already had some examples in mind when you first made the charge.

I would assume that people participating in this thread will have read the posts and will know if I am a paranoid nutcase or not. If such be, it will require only the effort of a quick glance and pass on to the next relevant post.

But the issue is not whether you are paranoid. It is whether you are willing to define your terms and document the claims you make.

Are you?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Amaleq13]

If you honestly believe those are relevantly analogous to how the Jerusalem Christians are supposed to have thought about Jesus, then you've got me, because I can't think of a good response.

Setting aside all MJ vs HJ debates, I think they are a very good way to conceptualize the group that revered the living Jesus.

[No Robots]

Crossan doesn't deny an oral foundation for the Gospels

I didn't say he did and neither have I. I've denied that you can reliably identify it in the stories of the Gospels and, in that, I am following Crossan.

Yeah, I didn't realize that Crossan and the Jesus Seminar had a problem with this. It seems there really is a division in NT scholarship over oral antecedents. Birger Gerhardsson seems to be the point man on the pro-oral side with his book The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. A juicy extract from the linked review (http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/36678.acad.html?category=academic):

The central issue at stake concerns the touchstone of the historical Jesus research, namely, the nature and reliability of the oral tradition that preceded the manuscripts of the New Testament. Since the publication of his seminal doctoral dissertation, Memory and Manuscript: Oral tradition and written transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity (1961), Gerhardsson has proposed a thesis that challenged the dominant paradigm of the Form Critical School, and in recent years a basic tenet of the Jesus Seminar.

As explained in the Foreword, by Donald A. Hagner of Fuller Seminary, both the latter movements employ a negative assessment of the reliability of the oral tradition. Drawing on present-day experiences of memory, they conclude that the oral traditions underlying the gospels were basically unreliable. This led to the conclusion that there was a fundamental contrast between oral culture and print culture. In the former, they conclude, it was impossible accurately to hand on material.

Gerhardsson’s contribution consists in a painstaking textual analysis of the dynamic of oral transmission in Rabbinic Judaism, which he later extended to the early Christian tradition. He developed a sophisticated typology of different categories of tradition and the complex interface between manuscript writing and orality within each type of tradition. This is then also the main contribution of the three essays included in the volume under review. He concedes that in his first works he perhaps too readily assumed that the rabbinic sources after the second century reflected practices of the previous two. He also points out that the private written notation of the Hellenistic world still need further investigation. However, his cardinal view that material could and was transmitted with great care and accuracy remains unchanged. As Hagner puts it, though we do not have the ipissima verba of Jesus, Gerhardsson’s work shows that we do have the ipissima vox.

[jakejonesiv]

I have nowhere made a case that a redactor reworked Galatians 4.4 at all.

Nor have I anywhere made the case that my interpretation is necessary, only that it is the most probable. *

And the syntax of Revelation 12.2 is και σημειον μεγα ωφθη εν τω ουρανω, which is perfectly compatible with the sign appearing in heaven. That the sign appeared in heaven does not tell us where the contents of that sign take place.

Finally, there is a great difference of genre between Revelation and the epistles of Paul. What one sees in a vision and what one writes in a hortatory epistle can be two very different things.

Ben.

Hi Ben,

In regards to Gal. 4:4, you have previously stated that the "Son of God" is mystical or theological.

....
Sure, son of God is mystical or theological. But born of a woman is normally quite literal,
...
Not really sure about Revelation 12.
...
Ben.


So you are off on the wrong foot for a literal interpretaion of Gal 4:4. Your argument then must depend on the identification of the woman in Gal. 4:4 with Mary. But it doesn't say Mary, so you are left with mere assumption. But perhaps you will say, the woman in Gal. 4;4 doesn't have to be Mary, it could be any unidentified woman, just so long as she is an individual human being. I will state the obvious; if this is indeed your argument, then Gal 4:4 is divested of historical content.
If I have mischaraterized your position, apologies; please correct me.

But your postion is even worse. You have been looking for an example where a woman gives birth, but the woman is not a literal human being. And to this end you have scoured far and wide looking for an exact match to the extant Greek of Gal 4:4. As valuable as this method undoubtably can be, I have noted before the caveats with this approach, and how incomplete or misleading results can be obtained. In this case you have missed the passage with the closest content, and it occurs right in the NT! I can understand why you, and many other Christian scholars, are wary of Revelation Chapter 12.

Revelation Chapter 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2012&version=31)
The Woman and the Dragon
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
The signs, the woman and the dragon, are seen in heaven. It is not said that the woman descends to the earth before she gives birth. Your reply is


the sign appeared in heaven does not tell us where the contents of that sign take place.

Are you arguing that the "contents" (i.e the birth) was a physical human birth here on earth? And that it indeed refers to Jesus and Mary?

The story presented there has sevaral affinities with the Jesus story, but it really is rather a poor fit. In fact, it is questionable if the vision concerns Jesus at all.

To begin with, the woman most likely symbolizes Israel, since the images are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11. (in another thread I have argued that Revelation was oringally a pre-Christian document). Conservative scholars try to see the church in the woman and Jesus in the child. But regardless, the woman is not a literal single individual, yet the son born to her is said "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.," a clear allusion to Psalm 2:9.

Here we have what you have been looking for; a birth from a woman that is clearly not literal. This counts against the literal interpretation of Gal 4:4.

Ben, I don't don't see the relevance of the adjective "hortatory" has in this discussion. Can you explain? And certainly you must admit that Paul was no stranger to visions, 2 Cor. 12:2. (Sounds similar to the reported experience in Revelation).
In fact, Paul's knowledge of Jesus came primarily (perhaps even exclusively) from direct revelation.

Jake Jones IV

*
Corrections noted. :) Apologies for putting words in your mouth.
It has been my primary argument that since "born of a woman" didn't appear in Marcion's version of Gal. 4:4 that it is a latter interpolation by a proto-orthodox redactor. If "born of a woman" had been original, Tertullian would certainly have turned the phrase against Marcion. However, arguments down this line have not been persuasive to you (perhaps you still are thinking of Earl Doherty), so I am pointing out in this thread that even as allegedly redacted, born of a woman falls short of evidence for a human birth.

And, while I am at it, just because somebody wrote down that a person was born (I am thinking of the gospels accounts now, not Paul) isn't evidence that they were historical, especailly in tales that are filled up with fabulous occurances and myth. They could be lying, misinformed, telling a moralistic tale, creating a fiction, creating allegory, etc. Do you believe that Cain and Abel were the literal sons of Adam and Eve? Somebody wrote it, and alot of people have believed it, but it just ain't so.

[spamandham]

And, while I am at it, just because somebody wrote down that a person was born (I am thinking of the gospels accounts now, not Paul) isn't evidence that they were historical...

While this is certainly true, we haven't even proceeded that far. We've been stuck trying to figure out whether or not Paul believed Jesus to have been historical. I actually think Solo's theory is the most plausible scenario presented as to why Paul probably believed in a historical Jesus.

I think the reason we have dwelt on this point so long is that the MJ position seems to be mostly rooted in Paul. If Paul believed in a historical Jesus, then the evidence that Christianity started with a mythical Jesus pretty much collapses and we're back to HJ as being the simpler explanation.

By the way, thanks for bringing up the woman giving birth in Revelation. I thought about it pages ago but didn't mention it because I'm too weary to write a dissertation on the meanings of the words in my question.

[jakejonesiv]

...
In my mind, Jesus is either pure myth, or he is a historical figure whom people wrapped up into pre-existing myths and legends and then grew them from there. Outside Christian "scholars", I don't think anyone seriously considers a magic god-man named Jesus may have walked the earth.

In my mind, this discussion is about an ordinary man and why there is a scholarly concensus that he not only existed, but was an itinerate preacher in the first century.

This is a good sumary of the discussion. What pre-existing myths and legends do you see being wrapped around the ordinary man?

I mean, it seems to me if (for sake of argument) there was a HJ, he didn't amount to anything special, and had to be incorporated into a pre-existing mythical structure.

And that is what I see as the crucial dividing line in this debate. Not whether there was some failed preacher that manged to get himself killed, but whether there were pre-existing myths or legends that incorporated this guy.

IMHO, the debate is really about whether Christianity began as a unique religion sparked off by the deeds of a single historical man, or whether it evolved out of the myths, legends, and religions of the time, no matter if a historical man (or several) were incorporated.

Jake Jones IV

[Clivedurdle]

On oral and literary traditions, yes there is loads of evidence of very good memories and training in this, from Rome, druidism, Midrash etc.

There is also loads of very good evidence of story telling, of poetry, of trance states. There is no reason to believe what someone passes orally on is not amended, tweaked, improved on. The latest psychological studies are showing that we individually construct memories in our heads. The process of verbalising what we think we saw or heard is not direct.

And in cultures that wrote stuff down, there is loads of evidence of superb structures, highly skilled plays and again people tweaking things, amending them, taking a story from here and there and weaving them together.

An oral tradition simply and correctly passing on what happened between two and five generations afterwards is extremely unlikely, especially as there is clear evidence in the passion story especially of it being a play.

[Ben C Smith]

In regards to Gal. 4:4, you have previously stated that the "Son of God" is mystical or theological.

So you are off on the wrong foot for a literal interpretaion of Gal 4:4.

How can I possibly be off on the wrong foot here? I have made every distinction I know to make. Son of God is, I believe, a theological affirmation (in a modern sense, since I doubt the ancients would have made the same distinctions we do); it was applied to Roman emperors, too. Born of a woman is, I believe, a literal affirmation. I think that Paul, like the proto-orthodox and orthodox after him, believed Jesus to be both human and divine.

You cannot play the one against the other as if neither Paul nor I had noticed the difference.

Your argument then must depend on the identification of the woman in Gal. 4:4 with Mary. But it doesn't say Mary, so you are left with mere assumption.

I do not assume that Paul knew the name of the mother of Jesus, any more than the exact name of the mother matters in other instances of the phrase born of a woman.

But perhaps you will say, the woman in Gal. 4;4 doesn't have to be Mary, it could be any unidentified woman, just so long as she is an individual human being. I will state the obvious; if this is indeed your argument, then Gal 4:4 is divested of historical content.

Ah, the root of the problem. You seem to think that I am insisting that Galatians 4.4 proves that Jesus existed. That is not my argument at all.

My argument is that Galatians 4.4 shows that Paul thought that Jesus was really human, that Paul was not consciously writing of a purely mythical personage.

To put this argument into perspective, Galatians 4.4, on its own merits, strikes against mythicists like Doherty, but is useless against mythicists like Wells.

But your postion is even worse. You have been looking for an example where a woman gives birth, but the woman is not a literal human being.

No, born of a woman is a verifiably idiomatic expression. I have been looking for instances of that expression.

I can understand why you, and many other Christian scholars, are wary of Revelation Chapter 12.

I am not aware of being wary of Revelation 12. When you first pressed me about that, I responded that I was not sure about it, not because I was wary of it, but rather because I had no idea how you were going to make it relevant; I had no idea in what direction you were going to press that chapter.

Here we have what you have been looking for; a birth from a woman that is clearly not literal. This counts against the literal interpretation of Gal 4:4.

I have not been looking for a nonliteral birth. Those are actually quite common. What I have been looking for is a nonliteral application of the idiomatic expression born of a woman. Revelation 12 lacks that expression.

Ben, I don't don't see the relevance of the adjective "hortatory" has in this discussion. Can you explain?

Certainly. Hortatory documents (as the epistle to the Galatians quite plainly is, IMHO) generally strive for clarity in a way that apocalyptic documents do not.

We should read hortatory epistles differently than apocalypses.

And certainly you must admit that Paul was no stranger to visions, 2 Cor. 12:2. (Sounds similar to the reported experience in Revelation).

Right. Paul apparently experienced them with some frequency. This in no way means that he always, or even ever, wrote as if he were experiencing one at the time of writing.

The Quaker John Woolman experienced visions, too. But his journal is quite easy to read, and quite literal.

[SIZE="1"]It has been my primary argument that since "born of a woman" didn't appear in Marcion's version of Gal. 4:4 that it is a latter interpolation by a proto-orthodox redactor. If "born of a woman" had been original, Tertullian would certainly have turned the phrase against Marcion. However, arguments down this line have not been persuasive to you (perhaps you still are thinking of Earl Doherty), so I am pointing out in this thread that even as allegedly redacted, born of a woman falls short of evidence for a human birth.

On the one hand, born of a woman is such a good indicator of humanity that Tertullian would certainly have used it against Marcion; on the other hand, born of a woman falls short as evidence of humanity. I honestly do not understand your position here.

And, while I am at it, just because somebody wrote down that a person was born (I am thinking of the gospels accounts now, not Paul) isn't evidence that they were historical, especailly in tales that are filled up with fabulous occurances and myth. They could be lying, misinformed, telling a moralistic tale, creating a fiction, creating allegory, etc.

Absolutely correct. The weight that I place on Galatians 4.4 is not that it proves Jesus existed, but rather that it shows that Paul thought he existed. Which is a serious blow against some mythicists, but not all.

Ben.

[ynquirer]

Hi TerryTryon,

As time passes by I get increasingly convinced that yours is an important point. This board is two-fold and sometimes my vision becomes exceedingly one-sided. On the one side, it is a forum that welcomes everybody that is willing to learn from others and/or share their knowledge, opinions or mere conjectures. That is the side you vindicate. On the other side, it is a sort of field in which a group of people play intellectual sports, the more competitive, the better. I must confess that I am inclined to give more importance to this side than to the other, because I use to concentrate on the game, that is, on the sport. Have my discussion with spin in this thread, which you mentioned in a previous comment. He is a hard opponent, to be sure. That’s fine. Neither asked for mercy. That’s ok, too. He has all my respect, yet I don’t think next time it will be less hard. Both of us know that, and that’s ok. You say I am arrogant. Perhaps I am: I accept your critique. Thing are as they are, though. The sport side of the board is what it is. Other participants have accepted this, too. And courtesy of all together this thread has had a fairly good audience: 451 posts and 6,100+ views so far. I’d say it is a good thread.

For the records, a brief survey of the Tacitus issue, for others can speak of issues as important in this thread. Tacitus is a significant issue because it is secular evidence for the consensus that Jesus existed as a human - that’s the topic of the thread. Annals 15:44 says that one Christus, from whom the name of Christians is derived, was put to death by procurator Pontius Pilate under the rule of emperor Tiberius. If accepted at face value, this is hard evidence that Jesus existed as human. So far so good.

Bruno Bauer (1809 - 1882), a disciple of Hegel the German philosopher and the founder of modern mythicism, was skeptic of the narrative of the gospels, which he deemed to be a purely literary undertaking. He spoke, in particular, of Pontius Pilate as a fictional character. In 1961, a stone was found that contained the name of Pilate and the incomplete phrase “…ectus Iudaeae,” and there is a consensus that it is the end of a phrase meaning “the prefect of Judea.” On the one hand, Pilate was not a fictional character after all; on the other, the inscription does not call him “a procurator of Judea,” as Annals 15:44 says, but “a prefect of Judea.”

A contemporary mythicist, G.A. Wells, writing in 1971, took for granted that Pilate was not a procurator and questioned Tacitus’ care in cross-checking his sources. During the last three and a half decades, however, extensive research has proven that Tacitus’ information is for the most part reliable, and it is assumed that reliable information is not available as a whole but through a careful checking of sources. Although Wells’ hypothesis that Tacitus was careless this time has not lost all its teeth - you have perhaps noticed that some participants in the thread still adhere to it - another conjecture developed that Annals 15:44 might be a later, misinformed interpolation within a work that is trustworthy wholesale. This is a position in which skepticism has grown stronger - and is spin’s position, by the way.

I have for months followed current as well as past discussions on the topic in this forum and found that there was a consensus, or a near-consensus on the opinion that Annals 15:44 is a later interpolation. I assumed the challenge to prove that the issue is far from settled. If you now say that spin cast doubts on the authenticity of Annals 15:44, that for me is useful feedback, as I said, since it implies that it was I that defended the consensus while I was supposed to criticize it. I am more than satisfied. Thank you very much, indeed.

As for you feeling of boredom in reading my comments, I realize it may be so. Sadly enough, criticizing consensus in such a belief-loaded field as this is a task of minutia and endless details, not of bright, sudden revelation. I hope you will understand that mine is not the role of a preacher like Paul. I’d like to be, but I’m not. Sorry. I apologize for the inconvenience - the time, paper and toner you have wasted. I’ll try to improve next time.

All the best,

[Clivedurdle]

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

[spamandham]

What pre-existing myths and legends do you see being wrapped around the ordinary man?

I'll provide some, but I have no intention of supporting these, so take them or leave them as you see fit:
- the story of the 153 fish in Matthew is derived from the Pythagoreans
- the story of the resurrection of Lazarus is derived from pyramid texts. I have seen a lot of claims that this was pulled straight out of the backside of Achira S., but I have seen translations of the texts, so I believe it is genuine
- The birth story in Matthew is astrological symbolism
- The water into wine trick comes from followers of Bacchus
- The virgin birth idea comes from astrotheology

This is not intended as a complete list by any means.

Triplicate post. A new personal record.

Heh, I got one four times yesterday. That makes me 1/3rd better than you. :Cheeky:

[ynquirer]

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

Not all skeptics accepted this before the stone was found in 1961. Now, things are quite different.

[spamandham]

... especially as there is clear evidence in the passion story especially of it being a play.

Assuming this is true, does this support the idea that Jesus was invented as a fictional character whom people later came to believe had been historical? Do you suppose Christianity was the first century's version of The Church of the Jedi?

Could it be that Paul knew Jesus was a fictional character from a play, and that's why he preferred to concentrate only on "Christ crucified", never really mentioning anything salient about the life of Jesus?

[xaxxat]

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

Pussy Galore is real too. When I was a teenager, she appeared to me in several nightly visits. I was exstatic to see her. She left an indelible impression on me...


;)

[Toto]

Not all skeptics accepted this before the stone was found in 1961. Now, things are quite different.

ynquirer - We had a long thread a while back in which we tried to find anyone who had doubter the existence of Pilate. We couldn't. Pilate is attested to in Josephus and Philo. It appears that Christian apologists have invented the myth that skeptics doubted the historical existence of Pilate for their own purposes.

Please provide some support for the idea that Bruno Bauer doubted the existence of Pilate.

[andrewcriddle]

To begin with, the woman most likely symbolizes Israel, since the images are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11. (in another thread I have argued that Revelation was oringally a pre-Christian document). Conservative scholars try to see the church in the woman and Jesus in the child. But regardless, the woman is not a literal single individual, yet the son born to her is said "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.," a clear allusion to Psalm 2:9.


If the woman symbolises Israel (which is IMO probable) then since Israel in this context is a collective entiry upon Earth the birth of the man-child from the woman is also presumably an event upon earth.

Andrew Criddle

[jakejonesiv]

If the woman symbolises Israel (which is IMO probable) then since Israel in this context is a collective entiry upon Earth the birth of the man-child from the woman is also presumably an event upon earth.

Andrew Criddle


Hi Andrew,

Good point.

The woman and the child both represent collective groups.

Jake Jones IV

[Solo]

Really? I should have thought that what needs to be proven is your hidden assumption and implicit claim that "sending" language necessarily implies "pre-existence", let alone that assertions about a being's or an object's "pre-existence" necessarily and always meant actual existence from or before the beginning of time. Does it? In Paul?


You are dangling a red herring, Jeffrey. "Pre-existent" does not mean "eternal", it means existing (presumably "en morphe theou") prior to bio-birth. Paul is vague about the dimensions of his liturgical time. We know though that in the direction of the future he did not consider the Son co-extending with God (1 Cor 15:27-28). God is the ultimate reality to Paul.



Because for them to claim that Paul meant to imply that at the point of the Son's sending only God existed, is utterly baseless and preposterous.


Why? Because you say so?

Would you care to mount an argument for this claim rather than deliver it as a fiat?


Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So if he emptied himself of the form of God (sounds like volition is implied in that), and was made something else than the form of God (presumably by God), WHEN did that happen ?

Can it work any different than with Paul who "was set apart before born" (Gal 1:15) ? Don't think so.


Have you read the section on Gal. 4:4a in Dunn's Christology in the Making or in his commentary on Galatians or in that of, say, Longenecker or of Martyn that deals with the question of what OTE DE HLQEN TO PLHROMA TOU XRONOU, EXAPESTEILEON hO QEOS TON hUION AUTOU means?

If so, what is it [B]specifically within their arguments about the meaning of this expression that in your eyes they got wrong?


I have not read the arguments you cite.

Jiri

[spamandham]

Hi Andrew,

Good point.

The woman and the child both represent collective groups.

Jake Jones IV

This does not seem unreasonable to me, but how do we go about determining if Paul had this mystical idea in mind rather than an ordinary human birth? I think that the allusions further down in Gal 4:21-26 give strong support to the idea that the birth being referred to in 4:4 is mystical rather than literal, and the nearly endless language about children, births, adoption, etc. used in nonliteral senses throughout Gal 4 indicate the same thing. I also think it is relevant that the phrase "Son" was used instead of "Jesus". I don't think this was just poetic license on Paul's part. I think it he did it on purpose as a reference back to similar language used in Isaiah where the nation of Israel is anthropomorphicized to be a slave. I might speculate that Paul is saying "we were born under the law as slaves, but now we have become adopted children of god through the Son." I might also speculate that the "Son" is not a physical person, but a mystical presence of god.

I can drawn connections between these things, and possibly even make a consistent argument, but I don't know if it holds any water.

Uhg. ...so much effort expended trying to figure out what Paul meant by this phrase, and we don't even have reasonable certainty he wrote it.

[rlogan]

I do not think that the elaborate structure of Mark is a sign of orality. Quite the opposite; it looks like it was worked out on paper. At least to me.

Vorkosigan

It seems a little too elaborate, yes, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. A poem with a rhyme and a song with a cadence are very simple devices on the other hand.


Nobody has yet to point out that the texts do not themselves give testimony to an oral tradition.

That is of course because they are perpetrating fraud to begin with in the pretense that they are written so close to the events they allege.

So here we sit, for the most part, arguing about whether there was an accurate oral transmission regarding events that were later fraudulently authored as if they were close in time to the mythical events.

We have no writings commenting on accuracy in capturing an initial oral transmission, nor disagreements with one. In fact, it's pretty much exactly the opposite. We have Marcion and etc. pulling "ancient" documents out of their hats to war with one another in battles over the tenets of nascient Christianity.

[Llyricist]

Uhg. ...so much effort expended trying to figure out what Paul meant by this phrase, and we don't even have reasonable certainty he wrote it.

No No, you have to choose, either maybe it was interpolated or he meant it mystically. You can't leave both options open, it simply wouldn't be fair to those that argue historocity, or something..... somehow the fact that there are more possibilities consistent with a mythical Christ than there are for an historical one is "intellectually dishonest" .... or something. :huh:

It seems to be extra frustrating for some that the only historical anchors (or straws to grasp) to be found in "genuine" Paul are "born of a woman", "kata sarka" and "brother of the lord".

That being said, I'm with spin... but I lean toward myth, or at most a person so remote from the stories as to be unrecognizable, possibly even one or more of Josephus' Jesuses (Jesii?) that rlogan mentions from time to time.

[Vorkosigan]

Not all skeptics accepted this before the stone was found in 1961. Now, things are quite different.

ynquier, can you give us a list of, say, five prominent skeptics who doubted the existence of Pilate (mentioned in several ancient texts) prior to the discovery of that stone? We went over this before and were unable to find any.

Michael

[jakejonesiv]

No No, you have to choose, either maybe it was interpolated or he meant it mystically. You can't leave both options open, it simply wouldn't be fair to those that argue historocity, or something..... somehow the fact that there are more possibilities consistent with a mythical Christ than there are for an historical one is "intellectually dishonest" .... or something. :huh:
...

It is perfectly valid to propose alternate (even mutually exclusice) scenerios. Peter Kirby made an argument quite similar to this in his chapter of The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave page 234.

Jake Jones IV

[Clivedurdle]

Peter Kirby

Could we have some respect please, like writing PBUH when mentioning that name!:)

[Solo]

Originally Posted by Solo
As I said, he would have seen most of it as rubbish. Paul saw the earthly Jesus as a deluded fool, sorcerer and blasphemer. When the light struck Paul he reckoned the poor guy whom he badmouthed either got dealt fate from the bottom of the deck or he was actually God's true progeny. Paul made his choice and stuck with it. That's all that matters, I think.

Jiri


The more I read your posts, the more I'm beginning to think you know what you're talking about. Do you have a consolidated write up of your thoughts on Paul somewhere?

Thanks, spamandham. Unfortunately, I have nothing outside of what I am presenting on the board that I am ready to show, yet.

Jiri

[Llyricist]

It is perfectly valid to propose alternate (even mutually exclusice) scenerios. Peter Kirby made an argument quite similar to this in his chapter of _The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave_ page 234.

Jake Jones IV

ahem.... you didn't catch the facetious nature of what I said?

[spamandham]

That being said, I'm with spin... but I lean toward myth, or at most a person so remote from the stories as to be unrecognizable, possibly even one or more of Josephus' Jesuses (Jesii?) that rlogan mentions from time to time.

I waffle back and forth between MJ and HJ. I can see no valid reason to assume the historical Jesus, if he existed, was a first century itinerate preacher, unless a case could be made that John the Baptist is the prototype.

But in my mind, I can see no reason why the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, Julius Caesar, or even King Tut could not be the historical Jesus. Jesus is so intertwined with the Jesus myths (including aspects of it recorded by Josephus and Tacitus) that it doesn't seem valid to say anything at all about him.

In my mind, if you can't reasonably establish anything of substance about him, then you can't reasonably claim he is historical either. That doesn't mean he wasn't, it just means it isn't valid to conclude he was. "Parsimony" is not an acceptable argument to me, and thus far it's the only actual answer provided to the OP.

It also disturbs me that those who promote HJ wholesale ignore the books of Enoch in which a very similar Son of God character was recorded hundreds of years prior to the advent of Christianity, and they seem to completely gloss over the meaning of the word "Jesus". Sure, Jesus was a popular name in the first century, but it also has a meaning that makes it ideal for mystics. Are we really to believe that's just coincidence?

"I don't know" still remains the best answer as far as I can tell.

[Doug Shaver]

Setting aside all MJ vs HJ debates, I think they are a very good way to conceptualize the group that revered the living Jesus.
How so? None of Jim Jones' followers said he was any kind of god. Neither did any of David Koresh's, to my current knowledge.

Furthermore, what "living Jesus" are you talking about? Whatever Jones and Koresh accomplished with their personal charisma happened only while they still alive. If there was a real Jesus, his followers didn't do anything to attract anyone's attention until many years after he departed this world.

[jakejonesiv]

ahem.... you didn't catch the facetious nature of what I said?

No :redface: but I am glad :) you meant it that way. ;)

[Amaleq13]

But in my mind, I can see no reason why the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, Julius Caesar, or even King Tut could not be the historical Jesus.

I used to strongly agree with this but a thread Ben Smith created some time ago seems to me to present a compelling argument for a more recent HJ:

Paul and his older contemporary, Jesus. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=158630)

[Amaleq13]

How so?

The important similarity, IMO, is the enormous devotion of the followers that resulted in what most would consider deluded thoughts about the central figure.

If there was a real Jesus, his followers didn't do anything to attract anyone's attention until many years after he departed this world.

I agree that they essentially didn't do anything but continue to venerate him for many years after he departed this world. And that, alone, appears to have obtained the attention of Paul.

[andrewcriddle]

It also disturbs me that those who promote HJ wholesale ignore the books of Enoch in which a very similar Son of God character was recorded hundreds of years prior to the advent of Christianity,

You are probably referring to the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which does not speak of a Son of God but does emphasise a supernatural Son of Man with significant parallels to the use of that title in the Gospels.

(Son of God as a title does not occur AFAIK in the early Enoch material although in 1 Enoch 105 God says '...for I and my son will join ourselves with them for ever...')

The problem with the Similitudes of Enoch is that their date is very uncertain (unlike the other parts of 1 Enoch no fragments of the Similitudes were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) Dates by modern scholars vary between 100 BCE and 300 CE with most dating it in the 1st century CE.

Hence the pre-Christian date of the Similitudes is not at all clear.


Andrew Criddle

[jakejonesiv]

You are probably referring to the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which does not speak of a Son of God but does emphasise a supernatural Son of Man with significant parallels to the use of that title in the Gospels.

(Son of God as a title does not occur AFAIK in the early Enoch material although in 1 Enoch 105 God says '...for I and my son will join ourselves with them for ever...')

The problem with the Similitudes of Enoch is that their date is very uncertain (unlike the other parts of 1 Enoch no fragments of the Similitudes were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) Dates by modern scholars vary between 100 BCE and 300 CE with most dating it in the 1st century CE.

Hence the pre-Christian date of the Similitudes is not at all clear.


Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

I agree. A first century date CE would make the wrintings of Similitudes of Enoch and the rise of Christianity roughly contemporary. If Christianity is, as I suspect, a second century religion, the Similitudes could be a bit earlier.

In the Similitudes we see the combination of the Son of Man in Daniel with the servant of Isaiah, but no Jesus and no Son of God.

We see a judment scene in Matthew 25:31-46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46)that is similar to 1 Enoch 62-63.

I have already pointed out similarities in imagery between 1 Enoch and Revelation. (Note especially the comparision of Revelation 12:2 with 1 Enoch 62:4. ;) ).

Rather than insist that one was dependant on the other, do you think it is possible that both grew out of common religous ideas that were swirling in that era?

Jake Jones IV

[Doug Shaver]

The important similarity, IMO, is the enormous devotion of the followers that resulted in what most would consider deluded thoughts about the central figure.
OK. I don't have a good counterargument handy. I can only note at this point that I don't find it the least bit persuasive.

[spamandham]

OK. I don't have a good counterargument handy. I can only note at this point that I don't find it the least bit persuasive.

The counter argument is that fanatical believers exist even today, and not a single one of them can reasonably claim to have known Jesus or any friends of Jesus or any decendants of friends of Jesus, etc.

If that can be the case today, why can it not have been the case 2000 years ago?

[Amaleq13]

OK. I don't have a good counterargument handy. I can only note at this point that I don't find it the least bit persuasive.

I'm not sure what it is you don't find persuasive. It is a fact that humans can become so enamored with a spiritual leader that deluded beliefs about him/her can develop even after his/her death. That fact simply establishes the very real possibility that a human Jesus had similarly devoted followers who developed deluded beliefs about him after his death. There are far too many examples of such bizarre beliefs to discount that the possibility is entirely realistic.

[aa5874]

It is a fact that humans can become so enamored with a spiritual leader that deluded beliefs about him/her can develop even after his/her death. That fact simply establishes the very real possibility that a human Jesus had similarly devoted followers who developed deluded beliefs about him after his death. There are far too many examples of such bizarre beliefs to discount that the possibility is entirely realistic.

Without evidence, there will be numerous probabilities and plausibilities. In order for the historicity of Jesus Christ to be confirmed or an attempt to be made to verify it, one must show that at least one of the Gospels or the Epistles is credible. The question is, are the depictions of Jesus Christ based on true accounts, or are they all copies of one another or made up through imagination and rumors

It is known that the Bible contains fiction, the creation story, the tower of babel story, the sun and moon standing still story, the Exodus story and many more fictitious articles. There are far too many bizarre stories, in the Bible, to discount the myth of Jesus Christ.

The complete failure to provide evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ by the HJers have basically destroyed their view. The probabilty of Jesus Christ is immaterial without evidence.

[No Robots]

The question is, are the depictions of Jesus Christ based on true accounts, or are they all copies of one another or made up through imagination and rumors

My contention is thus that we have every reason to proceed on the assumption that Jesus' closest disciples had an authoritative position in early Christianity as witnesses and bearers of the traditions of what Jesus had said and done. There is no reason to suppose that any believer in the early church could create traditions about Jesus and expect that his word would be accepted.—Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, p. 39. Quoted here (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable-more.htm).

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Andrew,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rather than insist that one was dependant on the other, do you think it is possible that both grew out of common religous ideas that were swirling in that era?

Jake Jones IV

Hi Jake

I think that's quite likely.

Andrew Criddle

[Amaleq13]

Without evidence, there will be numerous probabilities and plausibilities. In order for the historicity of Jesus Christ to be confirmed or an attempt to be made to verify it, one must show that at least one of the Gospels or the Epistles is credible.

This sub-topic has never been offered as an effort to confirm or verify the historicity of Jesus Christ (which should have been obvious to anyone following it).

[spamandham]

There is no reason to suppose that any believer in the early church could create traditions about Jesus and expect that his word would be accepted.—Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, p. 39. Quoted here (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable-more.htm)

Gerhardsson obviously didn't think this through very well. There were numerous competing sects of Christianity from the earliest records on, each making up their own beliefs and claiming authority. This hardly seems likely if Jesus had actually existed and people remembered him, but it does seem likely if he was a fictional character that no-one actually knew.

[No Robots]

Gerhardsson obviously didn't think this through very well. There were numerous competing sects of Christianity from the earliest records on, each making up their own beliefs and claiming authority. This hardly seems likely if Jesus had actually existed and people remembered him, but it does seem likely if he was a fictional character that no-one actually knew.

I'm not really in a position to defend Gerhardsson at this point. I need to do more reading. But I would be wary of dismissing him. Neusner attacked Gerhardsson years ago, but recanted in a lengthy Introduction to a republication of Gerhardsson's breakthrough work, Memory and manuscript : oral tradition and written transmission in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity.

[Doug Shaver]

If that can be the case today, why can it not have been the case 2000 years ago?
It does not matter if it could have been the case. What would matter would be evidence that is probably was the case.

[Doug Shaver]

I'm not sure what it is you don't find persuasive.
Historicists allege that sometime in the early first century, some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was a god, and that those followers convinced many other Jews that they were right.

You are offering Jim Jones and David Koresh as evidence that the allegation is plausible. That is what I find unpersuasive. Their followers did not deify them. And even if they had, those followers grew up in a culture in which it was taken for granted that at least one man could be God incarnate. First-century Jews did not take that for granted. To the contrary, they were adamantly opposed to any such notion.

Even stipulating that a man could been so charismatic as to overcome that prejudice, any man with that much charisma would have been noticed by somebody within his own lifetime, and such a notice would have left some trace in the historical record. But there is none. That dog should have barked, loudly, and we don't have so much as a whimper.

[The Bishop]

Even stipulating that a man could been so charismatic as to overcome that prejudice, any man with that much charisma would have been noticed by somebody within his own lifetime, and such a notice would have left some trace in the historical record. But there is none. That dog should have barked, loudly, and we don't have so much as a whimper.
Why are all the documents that were written automatically excluded from your list of "historical record"? Jesus had "that much" charisma to obtain a following of maybe fifty individuals during his lifetime. That's enough to start a religion, but not really enough to impinge on contemporary record, by which we mean people writing in Rome.

This was Judaea we are talking about. What actual documents are we talking about that talk about things at the level of the life of Jesus and his followers? Josephus? He mentions Jesus. Even the gospels don't claim that Jesus had popular support to the level of a John the Baptist or even a Simon bar Kochbar. In that time, outside Rome you pretty much had to start a full scale war to make it into so-called historical record. But if you accept that five different authors writing within decades of the events were talking about somebody then there's plenty of what is consensually accepted as "historical basis".

[spamandham]

It does not matter if it could have been the case. What would matter would be evidence that is probably was the case.

The contention was that the existence of fanatical followers somehow provides evidence of a historical Jesus. The rebuttal is a direct demonstration that there can be fanatical followers who believe based only on what they have been told and never need to have met the man at all.

The conclusion is that the original premise was flawed, and that the existence of fanatical followers provides 0 evidence for the case of a historical Jesus.

I don't consider either the HJ or MJ position to be the default. Supporters of both are equally obligated to support their cases or be dismissed. The default position is "I don't know".

[Solo]

I'm not sure what it is you don't find persuasive. It is a fact that humans can become so enamored with a spiritual leader that deluded beliefs about him/her can develop even after his/her death. That fact simply establishes the very real possibility that a human Jesus had similarly devoted followers who developed deluded beliefs about him after his death. There are far too many examples of such bizarre beliefs to discount that the possibility is entirely realistic.

This is roughly Maccoby's view with which I wholeheartedly agree. The "greater than life" status is often conferred on a leader with high dominance but low social standing who essentially fails to command large following during his lifetime. Karl Marx would be a great example of post-mortem elevation to a peerless sage of someone who in his lifetime was a nullity, ignored or dissed everywhere. Marxist devotees, who were a handful during his lifetime but swelled in numbers to millions immediately once his cigars got the better of him, believe Karl invented a unversally valid scientific "method" (historical, or dialectial materialism) by application of which nature's most hidden secrets are instantly revealed. Surely, this is a but variation of the belief in the power of Holy Spirit to procure clairvoyance, though it must be said in fairness that Karl Marx put in long hours in the library of the British Museum studying her Majesty government's spending habits.

Jiri

[Amaleq13]

Historicists allege that sometime in the early first century, some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was a god, and that those followers convinced many other Jews that they were right.

I think I understand now. IMO, this is an extremely abbreviated version of both the psychological processes I've been referring to and the available evidence.

Try this, instead:

Some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was an incarnation of God's Wisdom. Over time and distance from its origins, that veneration developed to the point that believers in this figure considered him to be divine to the point of equality with God.

Sound more plausible?

Wise Teacher -> God's Wisdom Incarnate -> Heavenly Messiah Incarnate -> God Incarnate

[No Robots]

Some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was an incarnation of God's Wisdom. Over time and distance from its origins, that veneration developed to the point that believers in this figure considered him to be divine to the point of equality with God.

Sound more plausible?


Bang on, in fact. Give the man a cigar. Brings a wee tear to my eye, it does. Something about living that far North that forces a man to think, I guess. Except for rlogan, of course.:)

[aa5874]

My contention is thus that we have every reason to proceed on the assumption that Jesus' closest disciples had an authoritative position in early Christianity as witnesses and bearers of the traditions of what Jesus had said and done. There is no reason to suppose that any believer in the early church could create traditions about Jesus and expect that his word would be accepted.—Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, p. 39. Quoted here (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable-more.htm).

Your assumption is immaterial. You cannot confirm anything. Your supposition is useless. The historicity of Jesus Christ must be based on substantiated information.

Many religions have fabricated their Gods, to claim Christians have no reason to fabricate their God is absurd. The OT is a glaring example of the fabrication of a God ,and even worse, the fabrication of the Universe.

[aa5874]

Try this, instead:

Some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was an incarnation of God's Wisdom. Over time and distance from its origins, that veneration developed to the point that believers in this figure considered him to be divine to the point of equality with God.

Sound more plausible?

Wise Teacher -> God's Wisdom Incarnate -> Heavenly Messiah Incarnate -> God Incarnate

Is this a plausibility competition? I see no end to these probable scenarios. I have a few but I will not disclose them because I have no evidence to support the many possible scenarios.

It is not prudent to make one's imagination run wild when there is no evidence to support your pre-conceived notions.

[Amaleq13]

Is this a plausibility competition?

You still haven't read back through the relevant posts to understand the point of this discussion?

I see no end to these probable scenarios.

The scenario I offered is limited to the existing evidence (ie the texts related to Christianity and Q).

I have a few but I will not disclose them because I have no evidence to support the many possible scenarios.

Good because that, unlike the scenario I have offered, would be exactly what you are protesting.

It is not prudent to make one's imagination run wild when there is no evidence to support your pre-conceived notions.

I agree but the scenario I offered involved neither an "imagination run wild" nor "pre-conceived notions".

[ynquirer]

Please provide some support for the idea that Bruno Bauer doubted the existence of Pilate.

ynquier, can you give us a list of, say, five prominent skeptics who doubted the existence of Pilate (mentioned in several ancient texts) prior to the discovery of that stone? We went over this before and were unable to find any.

There are a few websites that charge "some skeptics” in general, and in one particular instance Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews with the belief that Pilate did not exist. Bruno Bauer’s works dealing with the topic are not easily available in English at short notice, yet Drews’ are. I have verified Arthur Drews thought Pilate to be a historical character. Now, I am reasonably convinced that no serious mythicist ever supported the view that Pilate was a fiction. I was wrong.