Didymus

Why would a religion based on a mythical or "spiritual" figure outlast one founded by a genuine human being? It can't be that mythical figures make better gods; people have wondrous imaginations and can mythologize a real character to make him the equal of any mythical one. Seems like most "non-confessional" HJ folks think that's exactly what happened in the case of Jesus.

I am not one of those HJ folks, however, and I don't think that's what has happened in this instance. But I also don't think a god who supposedly lives in the heavenly domain has a longevity advantage over a fictional earthly one.

Didymus

darstec

Except of course if that historical hero worship runs smack into a wall of historic evidence. Which is why a mythological Jesus/Joshua has a unique advantage as there is no historical evidence to tone down his supernatural attributes. There are no records to say the incident with the demons and pigs didn't take place because he was in court at the time paying a chariot speeding ticket (or most likely a ticket for jaywalking if one believes a tecton was on the lower rungs of society, which I do not.).

RPS

No, it's a logical and appropriate inference. Paul repeatedly calls Jesus "Lord" and the Bible notes Jesus' siblings several times. It's possible that the usage "brother of the Lord" meant something else when written, but it's the claimant's burden to establish that.

Vorkosigan

You can't backread the Gospels into Paul. Paul can only be understood in the context of Paul. If you wish to backread the gospel narratives into Paul, it is your burden to establish that as a valid reading of the texts.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

Ixnay the gospels and you still have an historical Jesus in Paul, albeit, one that has been highly mythificated.

Vorkosigan

Sure, an HJ in Paul is a possible reading. So is an MJ, and this is reading Paul as an authentic non-fraudelent set of texts from the first century. If you treat Paul as a second century fraud, that only enlarges the possibilities.

I admit that we lack methods to unequivocally establish which Jesus Paul worshipped.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

Undoubtedly, we will never be certain. However, I think the evidence favors one theory over the other. I suppose the answers lie in the interpretation.

What evidence is there that they are second century frauds?

Also, what do you think of the "New Perspective" on reading Paul as a Jew?

Vorkosigan

I don't there is "evidence" yet as we have no methodology to produce it. What we have is data without a model for understanding it.

None. I've never been attracted by that reading. Those letters don't make sense to me as second century frauds. Although I haven't read Detering's latest work on it. And recent reading on epistolary novels in antiquity has given me pause.

Haven't formed an opinion yet. I still have yet to read the Paul-as-Stoic stuff that came out two years ago.

Michael

jakejonesiv

That is a large subject, but you can get started on that viewpoint here.

"The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight" Hermann Detering.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

We're working on it. Or at least, I'm working on it.

I browed through Detering's article that Jake Jones has linked. It's an interesting read, although I still must agree with your assessment that they don't read as 2nd century frauds. Perhaps if I have time later I may address Detering's article, or else wait until the big debate to do it.

Plenty of reading, eh? I do need to read the source myself, but the concept is interesting still, and is radical to my own thesis.