GakuseiDon

It would mean lots of tombs for Osiris:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/A.html

The traditional result of Osiris's dismemberment is that there are many so‑called tombs of Osiris in Egypt;89 for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it. Others deny this and assert that she caused effigies of him to be made and these she distributed among the several cities, pretending that she was giving them his body, in order that he might receive divine honours in a greater number of cities, band also that, if Typhon should succeed in overpowering Horus, he might despair of ever finding p47the true tomb when so many were pointed out to him, all of them called the tomb of Osiris.90

Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member,91 for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it;92 and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus,93 in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival.

Also:

... not the least important suggestion is the opinion held regarding the shrines of Osiris, whose body is said to have been laid in many different places.98 bFor they say that Diochites99 is the name given to a small town, on the ground that it alone contains the true tomb; and that the prosperous and influential men among the Egyptians are mostly buried in Abydos, since it is the object of their ambition to be buried in the same ground with the body of Osiris. In Memphis, however, they say, the Apis is kept, being the image of the soul of Osiris,100 whose body also lies there. The name of this city some interpret as "the haven of the good" and others as meaning properly the "tomb p53of Osiris."

show_no_mercy

This is a problem for mythicists in the same way it's a problem for anyone who thinks that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

EarlDoherty

1 Thess. 4:14 - We believe Jesus died and rose again...

We believe Jesus died? We believe he rose again? Does that sound like the reporting of eyewitnessed facts in recent history? Or might it support my reading of "kata tas graphas" (according to the scriptures) of 1 Cor. 15:3-4 as meaning "as the scriptures tell us", since in that case faith would be required for both the dying and the rising--something taking place in the heavens or at least some unknown time and place?

But then, Steve, you have always struck me as someone who doesn't let a good counter-argument interfere with your established preconceptions.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

spamandham

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There are two perspectives, both of which favor mythicism over historicism.

The first is that the passage is simply inauthentic. There are good arguments for this, and since Price covers those and you are familiar with Price's argument, no need to go into that. But if it isn't genuine, then we have here evidence of someone tampering with Paul to put a later theology into his pen. The conclusion then is that these details did not exist in Paul's day, and so they are a later development - not historical.

The second perspective is more directly mythical, and although I've argued at length on this forum that all of 1 Cor 15 is unlikely genuine, I'm starting to think it may very well be genuine, as there is a very straightforward way of harmizing it with the rest of the Pauline corpus....

Notice that Paul does not say *how or from whom* he received this information. The typical assumption is that he received it from the Jerusalem church or some other contemporary Christian, and this is the unwritten assumption I myself have been guilty of inserting in the past. But as Price argues, this is in direct conflict with other statements Paul makes that his gospel was not received from any man. Elsewhere in the genuine Pauline corpus, Paul confirms that he did indeed receive his gospel, but he tells us he received it by direct revelation from Jesus in the 3rd heaven, that it was a secret buried in the scriptures that was revealed to him. This is what makes Paul so special in his mind. He was the one handed down this revelation directly from Jesus in a vision.

So if the passage is genuine and we are familiar with the rest of the Pauline corpus wherein Paul tells us he received his gospel through revelation, then Paul is directly telling us that the death, the resurrection, and the appearance to Peter and the twelve are all part of the vision wherein Jesus shows Paul how they are discerned from scripture.

You really have to jump through hoops to make this compatible with historicism.



edit: In this passage, 'the twelve' may be referring to the 12 tribes of Israel rather than the 12 disciples, and Peter might be shorthand for the Rock of Israel mentioned in Gen. 49:24 - aka the god of Israel. This would explain why Peter comes first in the list of revelations, and is distinct from the 12 rather than being one of them.

Juststeve

Spam:

Let’s go with your speculation that the 12 are not the 12 disciples but rather the 12 tribes of Israel, and the reference to Peter is not Peter the disciple but rather the Rock of Israel. Continuing with this theme what do you think Paul meant when he said Christ appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep? Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born?

This as always looked to me as if he were amassing evidence in support of the proposition that Jesus really rose from the dead because look at all the people who saw him alive. Do you think these alleged appearances have some hidden meaning? What is it?

Steve

gurugeorge

As others have been saying, I think that if you read it as genuine it's actually potentially one of the strongest supports FOR mythicism - as Earl says, "according to Scripture" means just that. It means that Scripture is precisely where they get the idea that the Messiah has been and gone and done his thing from.

Couple that with the other stuff in Paul about it being a "secret", and you get idea that this was a sect of Messianists who weren't looking at any contemporary or future putative Messiah claimant, or any recent past claimant that any of them had known personally, but rather believed that THE MESSIAH had already been and gone (at some indeterminate time in the past, maybe the recent, but not too recent past, or some "yea time"), and that he'd done his thing sub rosa, to fool the Archons (who were waiting for the great military victor who would come with fanfare, etc.) and that it had been a spiritual victory rather than a military victory to put the Jews on top.

IOW, they were a sect of Messianists who were indulging in a sort of trope-reversal, or "revaluation of values" of the usual Messianic tropes, and they believed they were justified in doing so by their reading of Scripture - and (one has to add, in all likelihood, judging by the "appearances", and by the evidence that Paul was a mystic and visionary) their own visions and mystical experiences.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they didn't believe that some of the biography of THE Messiah (as they understood THE Messiah) actually happened in some earthly/fleshly format, or was historical in that sense - but it seems to be subordinate, or a sort of Platonic cave-shadow, of the "real thing", which was a cosmic event.

But the main point is there seems to be very little evidence that can be construed as evidence that anybody Paul is talking about personally knew this Messiah of whom they spoke. That's the absolute key problem for historicism. If we just take this lack of evidence as a given - instead of making excuses for it, by pretending to know Paul's psychology, etc. - then the mythicist alternative is more attractive.

(The idea that the people Paul is talking about, the first apostles, actually personally knew the Messiah they were preaching, is something that seems to come into the tradition later, with GMark (or an "ur-Luke"?) - perhaps as an honest mistake, perhaps as a literary trope, or whatever. Once that idea gained traction, the idea of the apostolic succession was able to get underway, and that was taken advantage of by the proto-orthodoxy in their ascendancy over the more numerous proto-Gnostic, Marcionite, etc., churches.)

spamandham

Read the sequence carefully. The appearance to Peter and then the twelve are part of what was received by Paul - part of the same sentence and the same thought. "After that" separates the first point from the 2nd. The secondary point is a listing of contemporary appearances, since Paul puts himself in that same list.

I think everything following "after that" is intended to demonstrate that visions of Jesus are the norm, and therefor readers should trust Paul's vision. If you include Peter and the twelve in that secondary thought then it isn't clear what it is that Paul is saying he received, since Peter and the 12 are part of the same sentence as the death and resurrection. I don't think it's valid to simply cut the thought off in the middle of the sentence and presume Peter and the 12 are part of the secondary thought.

vid

I disagree that "according to Scripture" supports mythicism so well. It can still be explained as claim of fulfilled scriptural prophecy.

gurugeorge

It can be, but why should it be? What reason would there be to interpret it that way?

It might make sense that way if there were elsewhere in Paul evidence of a human Jesus - then it might make sense to say "ah yes, these people were seeing in Scripture a prophecy of the doings of this guy they recently knew". But absent that evidence, the "sheer report" reading actually makes more sense.

Juststeve

Paul says Jesus was born of woman. Isn't that evidence of a human Jesus?