Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-16-2006, 10:21 AM

From above link

Quote:

Comparative History of Religions

Nor only Jensen dived into early Semitic literature. Chaldean and Sumeran influences on the Old Testament and New Testament were researched frequently around then, for example by A. Jeremias.

Jeremias still succumbed to the orthodox position and only admitted Chaldean origin of early Judaism, but couldn't deny that there was some sort of impact from old Babylon in the New Testament. The Babylonian-Chaldean worldview is about the most astralmythical and astrological worldview found in history of cultures; the terms 'astrological' and 'Chaldean' were used synonymously by many authors since Hellenic times.

In this sense Jeremias continued the works of Volney and Dupuis, who had been considered only by a certain Korn until then. The Christian calendar tells the story of the astral redeemer king, the 12 apostles are akin to the zodiac, and the 4 Gospels are akin to the cardinal points of the world.

The school of History of Religions went further, against the protests of Jeremias. This school, strong in the earliest 20th century, was boosted by new archeological discoveries around the turn of the century and pointed out more and more agreements in the various religions throughout space and time, especially mythological parallels. More and more traits of the Gospel stories could be identified as mythical commonplaces and thus readily dismissed as historically irrelevant for the research of early Christianity. Even without denying the historicity of Jesus straightforwardly, it pushed towards the impossibility of discovering anything about the historical Jesus in the New Testament.

It became impossible to see Christianity any longer as something unique. O. Pfeiderer and H. Gunkel were among the publishers of this school. Gunkel especially pointed out the role of the Mandean religion and pre-Christian apocalyptic Judaism. The apocalypse of John is a masterpiece of the latter influence. Gunkel is particularly aware of the possibility that talmudic Judaism suppressed more or less deliberately some rich apocalyptic tradition, which makes research hard and leads many scholars astray.

Death and resurrection of the savior clearly predate Christianity; both aspects of this theme are found in syncretic Judaism. Paulinic baptism concepts are found earlier in Hellenic mystery cults, along with the Paulinic person of Christ as such. Those traits have posthumously been transferred to Jesus. After deleting anything (pseudo-)historical from Jesus, one still stuck to an utterly unknown historical Jesus, the only thing to be known is that he was, for some unclear reason, posthumously attributed with all the syncretic features.

K. Vollers came closer to the denial of the historicity of Jesus. Also Vollers sees Christianity as a synthesis of Jewish messianism and the Hellenic concept of the dying and resurrecting Godman. Vollers pointed to the contradictions between Paul and the Gospels, and admitted that one doesn't necessarily need to assume an historical Jesus for explaining early Christianity.

Some scholar pseudonymously drew the consequences and finally admitted that the historical Jesus is nonsense, as syncretic religiosity of the turn of the era was clearly sufficient to explain Christianity without making a historicity assumption, so it's best not to make one. The Gospels are symbolic fiction, made by the church/community, and not the base on which a church was subsequently established.

EarlDoherty · 06-16-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jramsey

I am no expert in Greek, but the problem that I see is that kata is a weak spatial indicator. I find it telling that when C. K. Barrett, on pages 18-19 of his commentary on Romans (in this case verses 1:1-5), translates kata as "in the sphere of," he uses "sphere" in a very abstract sense, rather than in the sense of a concrete region of space or a particular territory. Certainly when Barrett uses the phrase "in the sphere of the Holy Spirit," he does not mean that the Holy Spirit is confined to a certain region of space. Yet when speaking of spheres in a Middle Platonic sense, e.g. the realms below or above the lunar sphere, the concrete spatial sense is what is meant. The Middle Platonists understood the spheres as a real physical part of the world.

Perhaps they did, but this does not preclude any given writer or group from using a term and giving it a different emphasis. And you are right that Barrett envisions the fleshly “sphere” as somewhat abstract, though simply by using it at all, the inclusion of a certain sense of space is inevitable. If I say, “as far as the world goes about it,” I may be primarily talking about the people of the world and their activities, but the world as a spatial reference is still present in the background. And that is precisely how I see Paul’s use of kata sarka in the instances under debate. He is primarily using it just as you say Barrett is using it, or as I used it in my example: in a somewhat abstract fashion. He is essentially saying, “as far as flesh is concerned,” or “in regard to the flesh”: in regard to the flesh he was of the seed of David, in relation to the flesh he was of the Israelites. (Those are the only two passages where the phrase kata sarka is under dispute; the rest involve en sarki or other forms of the word flesh). But “where” was he, and in what state, during that relationship? If pressed to describe or envision it, Paul would have said (so I maintain) that it was in a non-earthly sphere, in non-earthly flesh. That is what lies in the background of his thought and his usage of kata sarka (or other forms of sarx as in Hebrews 5:7 or 1 Timothy 3:16). As I’ve said before, whether above or below the moon, I don’t know, though the latter is quite possible, depending on how closely early Christians adhered to Middle Platonic ideas.

Let’s see how some of Paul’s other uses of kata sarka fit this pattern, and whether they are “roughly the same meaning throughout,” as you claim.

Romans 4:1 …Abraham, our forefather kata sarka…
--Abraham, our forefather in regard to the flesh. Though why Paul felt he needed to make that stipulation is not at all clear.

Romans 8:4 …so that law fulfilled in those walking not kata sarka but kata pneuma…
--in those not conducting themselves according to the world or worldly values, but according to the spirit or spiritual values. Hardly the same meaning as the previous one.

Romans 8:13 …if you live kata sarka, you will die.
--NEB translates this, if you live by your lower nature, you will die. Here, as in the previous, the term is a denigration, a quality not implied in the 4:1 example.

2 Corinthians 5:16 …we know no man kata sarka…nor Christ kata sarka.
--the k.s. refers to knowing, and means by worldly standards. Bit of denigration perhaps, but nothing to do with descent as in 4:1 or even 1:3. The kata sarka does not describe Christ, but the knowing of him.

Col.3:22 …Slaves, obey your masters kata sarka…
--NEB: Slaves, obey your earthly masters.

When we add all the different usages of other forms of sarx, such as en sarki (with or without the preposition), we find a variety of meaning, and especially between Paul’s application of “flesh” to humans or to the world, and his application of “flesh” to Christ. The former can be literal, or referring to things “worldly” or denigrating it as one’s “lower nature.” When early writers like Paul speak of “flesh” as belonging to Christ, it is less clear, never straightforward. In Romans 8:3 is a “likeness” of flesh; in Hebrews 2:14, it is “in like manner” that he shared the same things as humans, namely blood and flesh; in the Philippians hymn, although those words are not actually used, the “form” he adopts is also “like” (stated 3 times). In the hymn of 1 Tim. 3:16, he was “revealed in flesh”. Revealed? Manifested? Why not say he lived a life, why not “on earth”? “En sarki” here could refer to the ‘sphere’ idea, especially as the succeeding line is equally vague as to whether he was resurrected into the spiritual sphere (heavens) or in a spiritual state (contradicting the Gospel account, by the way). In Hebrews 5:7 “in the days of his flesh” he does something in scripture, not identifiable as an earthly activity.

In a significant number of other cases, Christ’s “flesh” is used in a highly mystical and metaphysical way, which cannot possibly refer to a human being. Eph.2:14 “abolishing in his flesh the Law”, “creating in this one body (soma, often used interchangeably with sarx) a new man to reconcile (Jew and Gentile) to God…” Eph. 5:29-31 speaks of Christ’s body and flesh in which deity and believer become one. Paul frequently defines the “body” of Christ as the church, or describes the latter as an entity of which he forms the head and the believers the limbs (e.g., Col. 1:18). In Hebrews 10:20, Christ’s “flesh” is the curtain opening the way into a new Temple. You may claim that this is all metaphorical, but Paul certainly sounds as though he is being literal—in a mystical sense. This is how he thinks of, and expresses, his view of Christ, his nature and how he operates and relates to humanity, and that operation is virtually always in the present, not the past.

This kind of thought represented a view of higher reality, and is in keeping with much of the expression of the time, as in Philo. It also makes much better sense that this extreme high Christology and mystical portrayal of Christ was applied to an entirely transcendent being, than that it was applied to a recently crucified criminal and accepted without qualm or debate across half the empire by countless people who had never known the man, and who promptly lost all interest in anything to do with his earthly life. On my side, I have merely to explain the possible meaning of a bit of stereotyped terminology which can fit the philosophy of the period and is never clearly linked with any historical time, place or figure. You, on the other hand, have a far more difficult task to make the historical Jesus paradigm make sense in light of the entire record of early Christianity which doesn’t seem to know him.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Steven Carr · 06-16-2006, 02:49 PM

If Earl Doherty's arguments have already been refuted by professional historians, all people would have to do is take, say, Doherty's 20 top silences, go to the standard literature and wheel out the explanation for the silence that is generally accepted by these professional historians.

It might take a bit of cutting and pasting, but I'm sure there are people on this forum who are prepared to churn out for our benefit the professional historians explanations of those places where Doherty has pointed out a silence where he thinks there should be no silence.

I mean, it was all done ages ago, wasn't it?

rlogan · 06-16-2006, 03:52 PM

I just wanted to thank spin for participating in the thread.

Although I am of the opinion that there was no person who attained some following that provided a linear descent to Christianity as we know it -

He is right that on an evidenciary basis alone we have to be on the fence.

Johann_Kaspar · 06-16-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

It is either Jewish Christian or Gentile Christian literature.

Messianic Jewas would never called themselves xians. The gospels are originally 100% Jewish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Unfortunately, you have NO plausible explanation as to how such a saying entered the tradition. Yet you laugh at me for some reason.

It is better to have no explanation than to invent one to suit your agenda. I am not laughing at you but at your guesswork. Is it so difficult to understand the difference? Guesswork is only expanding the myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

You wrote, "it means there is about nothing historical in them as a matter of facts". For all intents and purposes I didn't misread you at all.

"About nothing" is not "nothing" and and the "about nothing" was limited to "facts", not to all the content of the gospels (which are ideologically very rich), and furhter you spoke about a theory... Yep, you misread completely. Sorry.

Johann_Kaspar · 06-16-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What are your feelings regarding the proposition, put forward by Detering, that 'Paul' was in fact not a Jew, possibly Simon Magus(?).

I thought he made a pretty good case for his hypothesis. Besides, I believe he is also correct in stating that the issues expounded upon by the Dutch have never been adequately refuted.

Which "Paul" or should I write "Saul"? The Saul/Paul of the Acts is a fictional character created by one or more Jewish writers. Simon Magus (when Simon is a Jewish name...) is only an unvalidated hypothesis. Guesswork.

I think that the US researchers should read more what is published the other side of the pond.

gstafleu · 06-16-2006, 05:03 PM

Talking about Detering, he has an interesting analogy that puts to words quite wel what I sometimes feel is a problem with HJ:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detering

The basic methodological principle that one follows in doing this is sincerely simple: everything [in Acts] that somehow seems miraculous or imaginary is unhistorical; and everything, on the contrary, that proceeds in a rational and natural way and also agrees somehow with the letters is historical.
This method, however, which in its most cultivated form is even employed by the critical New Testament scholar G. Bornkamm in his prudent and well-considered book on Paul, has fatal similarity with that of a man who, at any cost, wanted to hold on to a historical kernel in the story about Little Red Riding Hood and, to this end, removed all the mythic components (the wolf who speaks, red riding hood and grandmother in the stomach of the wolf) in order to hold fast to the historical existence of a little girl named Red Ridinghood who visited her grandmother in the forest sometime long ago and met a wolf on her way.

The quote is in regards to a historical Paul.

Johann_Kaspar · 06-16-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

May we have some comment on this link? It looks like game set and match to the mythicists to me!

Which is maybe why historians don't bother with the subject - they see it closed in the mythicists favour.

Wait! It is not so simple. The context is different. Let's say it is more secular and less emotionnal (see the creationist debate in the US, which looks 19th century here). Personally I do not consider the case closed... but rather that it is not important. It could be fun to find out just out of curiosity. What is important are the ideas of those who wrote that literature and their intentions. But this is very seldom addressed, afaik.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The only hjists are apologists and those who accept the hjist arguments, primarily out of ignorance of the people quoted above. Doherty has approached the subject from a slightly different direction and come to the same conclusions.

What probably is required is that this summary or something similar becomes the basis - like origin of the species - for study in this area.

The current list is Past and Past, new authors should be added to the list.

On the other side also "French" authors seem to be completely ignored in the US, such as Daniel Massé or Raoul Roy. They are/were making very good points thanks to their vast knowledge. Their HJ is a scandal for almost all xians.

Johann_Kaspar · 06-16-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1) How many hands worked on Matthew?
2) If #1 is plural, were the purposes of the earlier writers the same as the later ones?
3) Who exactly wrote the gospel of Matthew?
...

The best questions ever. Why nobody cares to answer, like if the gospels were written in a few weeks...

1) Four at least, surely many more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you really want to tout Eusebius on Papias??

Have fun.

spin

Yeah, it is fun to mention Papias, a key to understand what happened before and after...
:wave:

Didymus · 06-16-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I'm not offering it as a rule. I'm offering it as observed usage.

Fair enough. I'd just like to blur the line a bit.

Didymus

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

06-16-2006, 02:49 PM	#143
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	If Earl Doherty's arguments have already been refuted by professional historians, all people would have to do is take, say, Doherty's 20 top silences, go to the standard literature and wheel out the explanation for the silence that is generally accepted by these professional historians. It might take a bit of cutting and pasting, but I'm sure there are people on this forum who are prepared to churn out for our benefit the professional historians explanations of those places where Doherty has pointed out a silence where he thinks there should be no silence. I mean, it was all done ages ago, wasn't it?

06-16-2006, 03:52 PM	#144
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	I just wanted to thank spin for participating in the thread. Although I am of the opinion that there was no person who attained some following that provided a linear descent to Christianity as we know it - He is right that on an evidenciary basis alone we have to be on the fence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.