Toto

We are not on a science forum, but you and others keep referring to a consensus of authorities. Now you seem to have noticed that the authorities are not in agreement. Maybe this is progress.

What I want to ask - at some previous time I referred you to William O. Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. You can read most of it on google books in the US, and there is an old thread with a summary of the arguments. Some of what I write assumes that as a background, and if you haven't read that book or the thread, we need to start there.

I did not introduce the word 'overwhelming.' You seem to agree that most scholars don't see much evidence that Paul had a human Jesus in mind, which goes against the arguments from GDon and TedM that he clearly did.

archibald

I for one, have never said that most scholars thinking something is anything like an adequate reason to think it true. My general opinion of scholars is that they are open to possible bias. I wish a secular historian would do a thorough historiographical study of some of the things that are discussesd here. It would surely be useful and interesting, to see how the Jesus story stands up to their methodologies.

Mind you, everyone is open to bias. I cannot help thinking that there is also a phenomenon going on where some, for whatever reason, prefer a myth scenario, and filter their perceptions and interpretations accordingly. I'm not saying you. But looking around even just this thread.......

I think you may be confusing people noting a 'scholarly consensus' with saying that it follows that.........

There is something reasonable to be said for academic consensus, but not, in this particular wing of the humanities, that it proves anything.



I'm not sure I ever thought otherwize. at least I may have thought so many years ago, but I had already noticed otherwize before joining FRDB.

I'm here to progress, and yes, I am glad I came, because I am more open to the idea that reading Paul, for example, as monolithically conceived and untampered with, may not be justified. I agree with...Price, I think it was....who said that a proper analysis of the gradual development of Paul, much as the analysis of the Gospels has been done, is overdue.

But I am afraid to say that I haven't yet seen anything to lead me to think MJ is more likely than HJ. In fact, some of the things I have learned have led me in the opposite direction. Hegemonic shennanigans, yes. MJ cover up? Don't think so. Other non-conspiratorial hypotheses (eg Gurugeorge's, or maryhelena's or even mountainman's, or Earl Doherty's....sorry if I have left anyone out)? Interesting, but not as persuuasive as the humdrum option that J was just like other eschatological prophet types. Boring, I know. History throws up fertile conditions, messianic claimants pop up, some stooge gets nominated, and for a variety of reasons (probably more to do with the persuasive skills and fanaticism of followers) a new religion is born. It's happened since, and it will probably continue. I think there are still followers of Sabbatai Zevi, for example. he's on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

..which isn't even complete, as it doesn't appear to include several 'prophet types' in Josephus, and there are probaly others who haven't shown up on our historical radar.

'Common as muck' is a phrase which springs to mind. :]

Eschatological/millenarian cults starting up without a messiah figure, who then getrs ascribed an existence in what appears to be fairly quick-time (historically speaking)? Not very many. D Hume test applies. Strong evidence needed.

Btw, I hope it's clear that I am not delving into how many on that list were or weren't actually historical. i'm just asking how many were believed to be non-existent first.

Asking the same question of other religions around the world might also be valid.



Fair point Toto. I will endeavour to read that. Do you have the time to remind me of the link? I will try to root it out if you haven't. :]

What I am wondering is, what will I find? Will I find that the case for there being more interpolation is good? That, now, would not surprise me. What I hope is that you and others are not using that general argument as a springboard for 'anything goes', in which you use it to allow yourselves to cite interpolations at will, to suit whatever personal hypothesis you may have. I say that, because that's what DCH's hypothesis seems to consist of. It's also reminiscient of gurugeorge's rationale that anything is possible because religions are so flexible. Possible, yes. Probable, if suggesting something very unusual?



I'm not sure GDon or TedM would feel that they had meant 'not much'. I wouldn't even say that myself. It's my impression (unless the text has been enormously redacted/interpolated, and in a certain way to boot, which is a key issue for me since there is a big difference between the two things) that Pauls' text is positively littered from end to end with references to an earthly Jesus, even without the biographical detail, and furthermore that it makes much more sense for him to have conceived of Jesus that way, for reasons I have included in my list at the start of another thread. Bio detail is missing. Earthly references and earthly rationale are not. IMO.

And as I keep saying, that's only considering Paul in isolation.

GakuseiDon

Dog-on, I'm asking for possible prima facie readings of the passage. There's no doubt that the one of the prima facie readings of the Romans 9 passage at the very least infers a human Jesus.

You said a few posts earlier that the passage may have been inserted by a 2nd Century redactor and that you "suppose that 2nd century catholic redactors may have meant it similarly to the way in which the later Catholic church meant it."

Please be clear: how would they have read the passage?

And are there any other prima facie readings possible? (I fully accept that a prima facie reading may not be the correct one, but it's important to at least start with the possible prima facie readings before doing further analysis.)

dog-on

Yes Don, I already posted a reading, supported by Pauline usage, that means something other than what you are trying to portray. Again, your prima facie reading is correct if you assume your conclusion.

archibald

Nothing like regurgitating a strawman. :]

Toto

Wait for Richard Carrier's book. Or sign up for the CFI online course.

This is unwarranted speculation. You would not think this if you had followed the early debates on this board.


Check out these threads:

Archived thread on William O. Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letter

more recent thread on interpolations see the links in post 3

I hope you will find a framework for discussing the issue in a more informed manner, and that you can disabuse yourself of the notion that only mythicists find interpolations, and only where convenient.

archibald

Dare to think it possible Toto. Irrationality and bias are not exclusive to theists. :]

I have been here long enough to see that.


Try to keep up Toto. I believe you are referring to my very first post in the forum.

And Toto, I do not consider it necessary to imply anything about 'better informed'. as I said, were I in a science forum, I would take the point. Here, I see longtime devotees who, despite knowing all the numbers, add them up in very unrational sceptical ways, and I do not need anyone to try to tell me that I can't apply general intelligence in order to see through that. In addition I have asked questions, in a sprit of enquiry, and found some of the answers lacking. One can only deal with the material one encounters.

That sounds very similar to what theists said to Dawkins. He didn't buy it, and nor will I. Sorry.

GakuseiDon

Can you repeat your prima facie reading please? I didn't catch it, I'm afraid.

Also, when you write that "2nd century catholic redactors may have meant it similarly to the way in which the later Catholic church meant it", can you be clear on what that reading what be, please? E.g. "Paul thought that... "

Thanks.

Toto

You haven't been here very long, and there has been a deterioration of sorts. There is a lot of noise on this forum - it's the price of free speech.

:huh:

I am trying to nudge you into realizing that there is more depth to this than a first glance would indicate. Things that a generally intelligent person would think are obviously true turn out to be uncertain.

Toto

"Paul" as redacted thought that Christ was both man and god.

GDon wants the prima facie meaning of "Christ" to be "Jesus" and of "both man and god" to be "Jesus was a human on earth."

That's not the prima facie meaning. That's the meaning you get when you stop believing in god but want to preserve the gospels, so you throw away the supernatural parts and cling to the parts that do not violate the laws of physics.