Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 03-25-2011, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hjalti, let's confirm what you are saying: IF it is not interpolation, then it is an indication of a belief by Paul in an earthly Jesus. Is that correct?

It's clearly incorrect to infer that I said anything like that, so I don't know why you use language like "confirm what I'm saying."

What implications this verse would have upon the historicity of Jesus, if it is genuine, would depends on how you interpret these verses.

Now, why shoudn't we consider this verse to be a part of an interpolation?

gurugeorge · 03-25-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Guru:

Actually we do get biography. Paul thinks Jesus was born into the line of King David. That means that Paul regarded Jesus as having been born here on earth and to have become from a specific family. That's as biographical as if I asserted that my ancestors came over on the Mayflower, which they didn't.

Yeah but the problem is that little tidbit could be mythical "biography". Mythical entities often had earthly aspects or did things on earth or were born of mixed human/divine sexual relations, or whatever. The sheer presence of a quotidian aspect in the story doesn't mean that aspect is about a human being.

The problem for HJ-ers is that that little tidbit is overdetermined because, since we haven't yet found a candidate for the historical Jesus in history outside the Jesus myth itself, its status is kind of floating. It could just be part of pious mythical biography (i.e. that's where Jesus - human or mythical - had to have been born to make the story part of a tradition).

Later note: just to make that absolutely clear, even if there were an HJ, such a reference might have nothing to do with him.

dog-on · 03-25-2011, 09:46 AM

"Born of the seed of David", simply refers to the fact that JC was grokked from existing Jewish scripture..ie, the seed of David...

EarlDoherty · 03-25-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yeah but the problem is that little tidbit could be mythical "biography".

Yes, and where was that "biography" taken from? Like everything else in Paul's gospel, from scripture. And what does verse 2 tells us? Exactly that. Paul got the datum about Christ's relationship to David kata sarka from the gospel of God about his Son as found in the prophets, just as he got the "kata pneuma scene in verse 4 from Psalm 2. The prophets are full of prophecies that the Messiah will be descended from David. Paul believed that his heavenly Christ was the promised Messiah. Even if that Messiah concept was a reworked one over the older traditional messianic expectation (he was the actual Son of God, not just a son of God in the privileged human sense), those prophecies still had to be fulfilled in the new heavenly Messiah.

Did Paul understand that relationship between a heavenly Son and the earthly David? I doubt it. He simply relied on scripture pointing to some mystical connection, just as he has no problem in giving his Christ a mystical relationship with Abraham (the "seed of Abraham," based on scripture, not on historical tradition) in Galatians 3. And let's not forget that in Hebrews, Christ is High Priest through a connection with Melchizedek, not David. It is a heavenly Melchizedek who has the necessary connection to a new tribe (Judah), it is not David who fills that necessity.

Why the "kata sarka" in Romans 1:3? Contrary to the don't-take-me-outside-the-box attitude of many, there are other ways to understand the significance of this phrase here. Paul is quite capable of coming up with mystical relationships to human beings, as in his "body of Christ" concept. "Kata sarka" is certainly woolly enough, and we've seen different applications and meanings of the phrase in the Pauline language, as in 2 Cor. 5:16's "by worldly standards" [NEB] or "from a worldly point of view" [NIV]. In Romans 1:3 I have suggested that it means "in relation to the flesh" (or sphere of the flesh).

Scripture required it, Paul accepted it, the 'mystery' of his faith declared it. It wouldn't have mattered if he did not fully understand it.

As I say in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.171-2:

Quote:

Throughout this book, the concept has been stressed of scripture itself being the embodiment of the ‘event’ of Christ. He and his activities have been “revealed” through a new reading of scripture, and apparently solely from scripture. From there one discovers information about him—even including what he “says.” Hebrews 10:5 assigns him a “body” for sacrifice because it said so in Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX), which the author quotes, understanding it as the voice of Christ speaking from scripture. Even in 5:7, the writer has Christ performing things “in the days of his flesh” which are drawn from scripture. 1 Peter 4:1 has him “suffering” (which had to be in “flesh,” not in spirit) because Isaiah 53 told him so, and that is the sole source he appeals to in 2:22-23. There is no oral tradition or historical memory anywhere in evidence. Through such revelation Christ has “come” in the present time, which is why so many of the references in the early non-Gospel record talk of Christ in the present tense. As Bishop Lightfoot observed in regard to 1 Clement over a century ago, they know him as a present phenomenon rather than as an historical man of the past. Thus, Christ is “of the seed of David” because it said so—even using those very words—in many messianic passages of scripture now identified with the spiritual Christ. And maybe that was simply that.

If Christ can be seen as having a mystical relationship with David, he can be seen as having a mystical relationship with Israel as a whole. If he can be seen as in some way of the seed of David kata sarka, he can have some connection to Israel kata sarka as well. As noted earlier, savior gods are usually associated with the nation or people that have given rise to them, and we can note that in the Romans 9 passage, Christ is included in a list of things that ‘belong’ to Israel, for which they are to be valued: such things as “the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises, (and) the patriarchs.” As part of that picture, Paul says, Christ is linked to the patriarchs “kata sarka,” implying no more than another of the mystical links he has created for his Savior Jesus. Those patriarchs and the Jews in general have produced the Christ, perhaps having the thought in mind that he has been discovered in scripture, as the epistles repeatedly tell us. Again, there was no need for the early Christian cult to understand exactly what this meant. The general concept of spiritual-material parallels between heaven and earth would aid in accepting it in principle if not through comprehension. And since the thought of people like Paul already contained so much of a mystical nature that could hardly be rationally explained, such as the inclusion of humans in the spiritual “body” of Christ, why should anyone have balked at Romans 1:3 or 9:5?

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hjalti, let's confirm what you are saying: IF it is not interpolation, then it is an indication of a belief by Paul in an earthly Jesus. Is that correct?

It's clearly incorrect to infer that I said anything like that, so I don't know why you use language like "confirm what I'm saying."

You wrote, "When debating the historicity of Jesus many historicists point out to the passages in the pauline epistles that seem to talk about an earthly, historical Jesus."

So, are historicists wrong to use that passage, even if it isn't an interpolation? I.e. If the passage is an interpolation, historicists can't use it; but if it isn't an interpolation, historicists can't use it?

Toto · 03-25-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

..

So, are historicists wrong to use that passage, even if it isn't an interpolation? I.e. If the passage is an interpolation, historicists can't use it; but if it isn't an interpolation, historicists can't use it?

You got it. Even if original to Paul, the passage is not support for a historical Jesus.

What's so hard about that?

hjalti · 03-25-2011, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hjalti, let's confirm what you are saying: IF it is not interpolation, then it is an indication of a belief by Paul in an earthly Jesus. Is that correct?

It's clearly incorrect to infer that I said anything like that, so I don't know why you use language like "confirm what I'm saying."

You wrote, "When debating the historicity of Jesus many historicists point out to the passages in the pauline epistles that seem to talk about an earthly, historical Jesus."

So, are historicists wrong to use that passage, even if it isn't an interpolation? I.e. If the passage is an interpolation, historicists can't use it; but if it isn't an interpolation, historicists can't use it?

Whether it supports the historical existence of Jesus or not depends on how we interpret them.

So, do you consider v. 2-6 to be an interpolation or not? And why?

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2011, 11:41 AM

I haven't really thought about it, but nothing in the link in your OP appears sound. Jesus was the seed of Abraham, but not of David? Jesus came in sinful flesh but couldn't be Son of David according to the flesh? Paul emphasizes in Romans how Christ came from the Israelites (9:4), but putting "Son of David" in a long introduction is suspicious? I'd need to see more on the analysis side. But then again, I'm not an expert in any sense here, so my view shouldn't be considered one way or the other.

Toto · 03-25-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I haven't really thought about it, but nothing in the link in your OP appears sound. Jesus was the seed of Abraham, but not of David?

The link does not mention Abraham. Mentions of Abraham would need to be considered separately.

Quote:

Jesus came in sinful flesh but couldn't be Son of David according to the flesh?

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Big difference.

Quote:

Paul emphasizes in Romans how Christ came from the Israelites (9:4), but putting "Son of David" in a long introduction is suspicious? I'd need to see more on the analysis side. But then again, I'm not an expert in any sense here, so my view shouldn't be considered one way or the other.

Noted.

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I haven't really thought about it, but nothing in the link in your OP appears sound. Jesus was the seed of Abraham, but not of David?

The link does not mention Abraham. Mentions of Abraham would need to be considered separately.

Well, let's consider it. If Paul thought Jesus was the seed of Abraham, I can't see why his mention of Jesus as the seed of David is unusual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Jesus came in sinful flesh but couldn't be Son of David according to the flesh?

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Big difference.

Is it? From a "Son of David" perspective, what's the difference?

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

03-25-2011, 09:46 AM	#13
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	"Born of the seed of David", simply refers to the fact that JC was grokked from existing Jewish scripture..ie, the seed of David...

03-25-2011, 11:41 AM	#18
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	I haven't really thought about it, but nothing in the link in your OP appears sound. Jesus was the seed of Abraham, but not of David? Jesus came in sinful flesh but couldn't be Son of David according to the flesh? Paul emphasizes in Romans how Christ came from the Israelites (9:4), but putting "Son of David" in a long introduction is suspicious? I'd need to see more on the analysis side. But then again, I'm not an expert in any sense here, so my view shouldn't be considered one way or the other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.