Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EmmaZunz · 04-10-2012, 03:22 AM

Cos Romans doesn't seem to have any HJ to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I suppose there is so much un-HJ stuff in Paul, and so much silence, that I prefer to look for non-HJ interpretations even of the prima facie HJ-looking details.

But for my point I am assuming an MJ-origin for Christianity. What I am saying is: If eBarnabas is an example of a Christian who believes in some kind of HJ but is silent on Gospel details, then why isn't Romans such an example? You can't say "it is the silence", because that is what it is expected, given Doherty's analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

"Kata sarka" is obviously a highly contested phrase. Whenever Paul says "kata sarka" about Jesus, just imagine what he doesn't say: e.g. "when Jesus was at Bethsaida", "with the disciples in Galilee", "at his birth in Bethlehem".

Do you see why this is not relevant to what I am arguing above? I am assuming that Christianity started with an MJ, so we wouldn't expect such details. Instead, according to Doherty's "transitional" form of MJ-to-HJ, we get writings like the Epistle to Barnabas. So why can't Romans be such an example?

ph2ter · 04-10-2012, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him.

It is not about some recent event. Look what Barnabas says:

And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus [at length] abandoned.

Israel was abandoned already when Moses has broken the two tablets:

For the Scripture saith, "And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord " but turning away to idols, they lost it. For the Lord speaks thus to Moses: "Moses go down quickly; for the people whom thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt have transgressed." And Moses understood [the meaning of God], and cast the two tables out of his hands; and their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope which flows from believing in Him.

Miracles, wonders and signs of which he speaks, have been described in the books called Genesis and Exodus. Barnabas is not aware of the Gospels.
I even believe that he writes before Mark.

EmmaZunz · 04-10-2012, 04:47 AM

Seems to me you are right that that chapter (IV) refers to the distant Mosaic past, but it doesn't look like chapter V, about the Son of God, is referring to the same time-frame.

I think the author is saying, don't be like the ancient Israelites, who saw wonders then drifted into disbelief: believe in the Son of God and stay the course!

He's using an analogy from the distant past, not setting the Son of God in that past.

Also, chap. IV has another of those Gospel sayings, but not applied in the same way: 'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen."' The saying appears at Matt. 22:14, in the parable of the wedding feast.

Did these sayings which are EB-Gospel overlaps get into EB thru dependence on Gospels or independently? Is this saying attested outside and before the Gospels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him.

It is not about some recent event. Look what Barnabas says:

And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus [at length] abandoned.

Israel was abandoned already when Moses has broken the two tablets:

For the Scripture saith, "And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord " but turning away to idols, they lost it. For the Lord speaks thus to Moses: "Moses go down quickly; for the people whom thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt have transgressed." And Moses understood [the meaning of God], and cast the two tables out of his hands; and their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope which flows from believing in Him.

Miracles, wonders and signs of which he speaks, have been described in the books called Genesis and Exodus. Barnabas is not aware of the Gospels.
I even believe that he writes before Mark.

Duvduv · 04-10-2012, 05:05 AM

If Seed of David is not a later interpolation, then how is it that the author of Romans forgot that the Davidic messiah is to have a precursor of Elijah according to Scriptures which at least the gospel writers remembered? Even if the Jesus of Romans was a celestial being he should include an allegorized Elijah.
I would vote for it being a later interpolation after the gospels were joined in with the Baptist.
The epistles of course know nothing of the Baptist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Davidic descent could likewise be interpolated; or I think more likely it could have some mystical interpretation that we can't grasp, just like I can't understand how Jesus could be called the "root" of David in Rev. 5:5, 22:16.

I think that once you start preferring a meayning that we don't understand to one that we do understand, debate starts to become less meaningful.

Let me put it this way: What I am proposing is that Doherty's idea of "limited" historical writers like eBarnabas opens the door to viewing others in the same way. Paul provides similar clues, like:

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)"

and

Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

I know you suggest that "seed of David according to the flesh" might have some mystical meaning that isn't clear, but we have at least the plain meaning available to us.

If I proposed that Romans was written by someone like the eBarnabas author, in that he shows a limited awareness of a HJ, but doesn't include Gospel details because, like eBarnabas, he doesn't know any (since the origins of Christianity was in an MJ and Paul had recently attached a HJ to his previous beliefs), would that explain everything we see in Romans? Is there a reason why it COULDN'T be the case?

(Edited To Add: Note that I'm not looking at some definite conclusion or "QED" moment here, just trying to analyse the early literature along the lines proposed by mythicists to see how their analysis stands up.)

ph2ter · 04-10-2012, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Also, chap. IV has another of those Gospel sayings, but not applied in the same way: 'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen."' The saying appears at Matt. 22:14, in the parable of the wedding feast.

Did these sayings which are EB-Gospel overlaps get into EB thru dependence on Gospels or independently? Is this saying attested outside and before the Gospels?

The sentence "Many are called, but few are chosen." has proverbial character and probably stems from some common source. It is unbelievable that Barnabas would cite Gospel as Scripture. I would say that some lost apocryphal book is quoted as Scripture here.

EmmaZunz · 04-10-2012, 06:19 AM

Interesting point. Also I suppose he would be less likely to say, "It is written", if he knew it only verbally.

Apparently this line is not in all the Matthew manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._New_Testament

So we're thinking independent convergence from possibly a source common to both Matthew and Barnabas.

What's your explanation for the HJ elements of EBarnabas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Also, chap. IV has another of those Gospel sayings, but not applied in the same way: 'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen."' The saying appears at Matt. 22:14, in the parable of the wedding feast.

Did these sayings which are EB-Gospel overlaps get into EB thru dependence on Gospels or independently? Is this saying attested outside and before the Gospels?

The sentence "Many are called, but few are chosen." has proverbial character and probably stems from some common source. It is unbelievable that Barnabas would cite Gospel as Scripture. I would say that some lost apocryphal book is quoted as Scripture here.

Duvduv · 04-10-2012, 06:30 AM

It is still ironic that the author of Romans mentions Elijah in chapter 11 and quotes from Malachi 1 in chapter 9. Yet he makes no reference to Elijah coming before the messiah in Malachi 4. Perhaps within the context of Romans the seed of David would still fit, although one would expect the author or interpolation to identify some Elijah figure or to identify Elijah explicitly as coming before the eschaton.
Any thoughts about this?

EmmaZunz · 04-10-2012, 06:34 AM

Yes it's an interesting point you make - where is Paul's Elijah?

I don't have an answer, it's a good spot.

(Unless, dare I say it... Paul is Elijah???)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It is still ironic that the author of Romans mentions Elijah in chapter 11 and quotes from Malachi 1 in chapter 9. Yet he makes no reference to Elijah coming before the messiah in Malachi 4. Perhaps within the context of Romans the seed of David would still fit, although one would expect the author or interpolation to identify some Elijah figure or to identify Elijah explicitly as coming before the eschaton.
Any thoughts about this?

Grog · 04-10-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Where did Barnabas get the Markan line about coming "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"?

Was that dependent on Mark? Pauline? Cynic or common saying? Scriptural?

Or Lukan? The EB line is a direct quote of Lk. 5:32 it seems.

That's right. These are the implications of Doherty's theories. Was Barnabas aware of the Gospels, but not interested in providing details from it? That's the question.

I doubt it.

Good question. Does that mean he/she has a source independent of the Gospels?

I think that is inevitable, and we have the early writers themselves explaining why. As G.A. Wells (himself a 'Christ Myth' proponent) notes (references below can be found on my website here:

"It is of course true that the source of statements such as 'descended from David' is scripture, not historical tradition. But this does not mean, as Doherty supposes, that the life and the death were not believed to have occurred on Earth. The evangelists inferred much of what they took for Jesus life-history from scripture, but nevertheless set this life in a quite specific historical situation."

To prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah, the early Christian writers had to 'find Christ' in the Hebrew Bible. The Christian writers throughout the Second Century nearly all place heavy emphasis that the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures proclaimed him. And they tell us why. This is Ignatius:

And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved.

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, speaks similarly:

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man

We also see it in Acts:

Acts.17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed...
...
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed
...
Acts 18.24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus...
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Note WHY many believed. It wasn't hearing about Jesus, his miracles and his wonderful sayings. People were convinced because they 'found Christ' in the Scriptures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

My suggestion is that Barnabas has heard bits of Gospel tradition spreading orally, but he had not read the Gospels himself. Hence he repeats a bit of Gospel lore, and fills in a bit of scriptural extrapolation. What goes back to the Gospels, and what are independent ideas, are hard to separate.

Okay. But wouldn't you have expected the author to look for that information? Earlier you wrote:

You think people were being converted to Xianity, believing in a HJ, yet showing no interest in him or in finding more info? The info wasn't being passed along as one of the main elements of the faith?

That is not plausible to me.

But that information WAS there, in the Gospels. So are you saying that Barnabas, having converted to Xianity, believing in a HJ, yet showed no interest in him or in finding more information? The information wasn't being passed along as one of the main elements of the faith?

You seem to have forgotten this:

Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus.

That was Toto's quote. So where you say "believing in a HJ," you mean a "spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on hebrew prophecy?" You already accepted that proposition.

It seems also that you get confused on how texts in the ancient world were used. Emma has brought up the fact that Gbarn author relied on a distant knowledge of text. That would be common for the times when oral transmission was much more common than textual. So GMark could stand behind an oral tradition as an authority, but it could be that the author of GBarn never even read GMark, but only knew of it and bits and pieces of what it said. So which bits and pieces? Whichever ones (and not necessarily even accurately) were important within GBarn's community. We know nothing about GBarn's community, or who the author of GBarn was. We only know what we have from the writing itself.

Toto's definition of GBarn's Jesus is, in my opinion, the same as Paul's: a spiritual being who manifested himself on earth according to the scriptures.

I don't think we need to talk about 7 heavens or heavens closer to the sarkic world or anything like that. Paul believes in the misty mythical past, possibly at the beginning of time, Jesus manifested on earth was crucified by evil spirits. Paul believes these are facts and that these facts are only now in the present age coming to be known through revelation from the holy spirit.

That GBarn's Jesus, even though GBarn is closer to the belief in an actual historical Jesus, but that GBarn still talks about a "spiritual being who manifested on Earth" fits perfectly into the belief that the Jesus myth evolved over time from a core believe in a heavenly spiritual being known only through revelation.

Duvduv · 04-10-2012, 06:41 AM

Even if Romans was written by a different author than Corinthians and Galatians for example, and even if the seed of David is an interpolation, why does the author ignore Malachi 4 despite mentioning Malachi 1 and Elijah from Kings?

One solution would be simply that the original letter did not address any messianic issue at all, and was later integrated with Christ texts and left as is. Thus no reference was made to Malachi 4 because the letter did not originally address Elijah's precursor role with the messiah at all.

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

04-10-2012, 06:30 AM	#37
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It is still ironic that the author of Romans mentions Elijah in chapter 11 and quotes from Malachi 1 in chapter 9. Yet he makes no reference to Elijah coming before the messiah in Malachi 4. Perhaps within the context of Romans the seed of David would still fit, although one would expect the author or interpolation to identify some Elijah figure or to identify Elijah explicitly as coming before the eschaton. Any thoughts about this?

04-10-2012, 06:41 AM	#40
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Even if Romans was written by a different author than Corinthians and Galatians for example, and even if the seed of David is an interpolation, why does the author ignore Malachi 4 despite mentioning Malachi 1 and Elijah from Kings? One solution would be simply that the original letter did not address any messianic issue at all, and was later integrated with Christ texts and left as is. Thus no reference was made to Malachi 4 because the letter did not originally address Elijah's precursor role with the messiah at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.