GakuseiDon

I think that is the most reasonable reading. If you could give me your alternative reading, then we can compare against the ideas in the literature of the day to see which is the most likely.

Yes, and as I pointed out, a "heavenly Jerusalem" doesn't make much sense in the context of that Romans passage and what Paul says elsewhere.

Didn't gnostics believe that Jesus walked the earth? I think that a gnostic would have believed that "Zion" referred to the earthly Jerusalem, since a gnostic wouldn't have believed that Jesus could have been crucified in a Heavenly Jerusalem. But I'd need your reading to compare.

Well, Paul had to have meant something. If you can provide your own reading that makes sense within the framework of how people thought of the time, then please present it. That is the very thing that needs to be discussed. Otherwise you are indeed just handwaving away the evidence, as Chris says.

How do you that Paul isn't using scriptures to explain current events? He certainly does in other sections (e.g. Rom 11:8) He persecuted Christians before converting -- did the early Christians not know that Christ was crucified, etc?

So, another interpolation? Fair enough, but then that means it has to be another piece of evidence for those who don't think it is an interpolation. Saying "maybe it's an interpolation" or "maybe Paul thought x" begins to sound adhoc. The best explanation is the one that explains all the evidence the best.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Paul believes that "Zion" there refers to the Heavenly Jerusalem? So what then is the stumbling block that is laid in Zion?

More on Paul seeming to believe in an earthly Jesus:

In Rom 11:1, Paul describes himself as "the seed of Abraham". He also calls Jesus the seed of Abraham in Gal 3:16. He doesn't even seem to get it from scriptures AFAICS. I think that the most likely explanation is that Paul regarded Jesus as being a Jewish man like himself. What is your reading?

Roger Pearse

This seems to ignore the point, however.

Dug up in the sand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

Why is it more reasonable? AoI talks of Satan and his angels warring in one of the heavens - where was it? what was its location? Even Paul spoke of going to the third (?) heaven - where is that third heaven? Jesus allegedly sits on the right hand of God - what is the location of God's throne? Jesus ascended - bodily into heaven - where is Jesus' body precisely located right now? Elisha(Elija?) ascended into heaven on a chariot of fire - where is the chariot now? what do those horses eat? What is the precise location of Elija/Elisha and Moses right now? Genesis says that the sons of god watched our sexy women from heaven and upon getting horny, came down and seduced them to bring forth giants. Where exactly were these sons of god leering from? What is its precise location and can we go there too?

If you cannot answer these questions, why do you keep asking inane questions about the location of the sublunar realm where Jesus was killed by archons? - just for nuisance value?

Why should mythicists bother with the precise location of that realm yet the idea that there is a heaven and an upper realm has been taken for granted all these years? Why is it our job to structure and polish the mangled and imprecise cesspool of ideas that is religious thought?
Doherty's reading is the reading he favours - why do you keep asking for what has already been offered? Still for nuisance value?

GakuseiDon

Heh? :huh: Where have I asked for the location of the sublunar realm??? WHY would I ask? By definition, it is the area between the earth and the moon.

Actually, Dog-on DOESN'T favour Doherty's reading AFAIK. He said earlier in this thread that he isn't clear on Doherty's sublunar realm theory, so he can't really say much about it one way or another. Thus my question :huh:

gurugeorge

Without the "Christian apologetics", would the idea have ever occurred to any historian that there had ever been a (e.g.) revolutionary zealot called Jesus Christ tossing around in Palestine at that time causing a stir?

We can certainly say that without those texts there would never have been the idea of a God-man called Jesus Christ tossing around in Palestine at that time, because those cultic documents are the only real source for the idea.

However, can we also say that without those texts, anyone would ever have had the idea of an obscure preacher/revolutionary zealot/psychedelic mushroom eating savant, tossing around in Palestine at that time?

(We might possibly have had the idea, from Josephus, that there was somebody of that name, whose appearance, for one reason or another that's not clear from the apparently laudatory text, is implied by the flow of the surrounding text to have been one of several catastrophes that befell the Jews at a certain time in history, but I'm sure that reference, and the other reference to someone "called Christ" elsewhere in Josephus, would be considered rather odd by scholars, and highly dubious. It's not as if those references would independently and naturally suggest someone who was a candidate for mythologisation in other quarters!)

dog-on

Ok, just to make this clear. Where does Paul write that Jesus was crucified in Jeruslem? He doesn't, does he. Regardless of what you consider a "reasonable reading", which I take it means a reasonable reading to you, there are no specifics regarding the location of the crucifixion given by Paul.

I suppose my preference is to read what is written, take into consideration the possibility of substantial alterations, and leave it at that.


That is only if you choose to read Zion in as the location of the crucifixion. I do not.

The only confirmed gnostic writings we have are, admittedly, late. I have no idea what early gnostics (if there were such a group) may have thought on this matter.

I'm sorry to be redundant here, but why do you insist that such information (the specific location of the crucifixion), was necessary to the beliefs of the writer? What evidence leads you to such a conclusion?

People seemed to have readily believed in magic and things like demonic possesion. Any framework they were working from would probably be quite alien to me. This "handwaving" accusation is quite funny, as I simply asked for the best evidence for an HJ. When the evidence that was presented was, at best, highly controversial, Chris seemed to get annoyed that my response was simply, "Is that it?"...

Paul's use of scripture to preach the day's message was not what I had in mind.

I do not discount the evidence, nor do I view my position as "adhoc". I simply understand that, as with any politically powerful organization, sometimes it pays to be somewhat sceptical in regards to the explanations put forward by that same organization. The best evidence we have, in my opinion, comes from the likes of Justin, Iraneaus, Tertullian, etc... I just happen to view them as hostile witnesses and consider their evidence in that sort of light.

I do not have the time to get into this, suffice it to say that; the stumbling block is the Law. This discussion itself gets very off-topic and has nothing to do with evidence for a historical Jesus.

Be careful of using Galatians...I do not think that the passage you refered to is original to the author. Please refer
to http://www.radikalkritik.de/DetGalExpl.pdf, as Detering does a much better job of making the critical arguement than I ever could hope to do...

dog-on

Don is correct, though I should add the following caveat.

All in all, Mr. Doherty has provided one of the most compelling and complete cases for JM. My departure is more of a question of degree regarding the reliability of the Paulines and the gymnastics Mr. Doherty must perform to in order to keep those texts intact. I am more inclined to agree with the radicals regarding interpolation/gloss in the texts we now have.

Mr. Doherty's decision to argue the case, based on the assumption of the originality of the texts was, shall I say, heroic, though in my view at least, unnecessary.

Gamera

In a court in California, what constitutes admissible evidence is determined by the California Rules of Evidence, not "Whatever the Judge Says," as applied by case law in particular fact situations.


But regardless, the rules of evidence in court cases has nothing to do with what constitutes historical, scientific or archeological evidence.

GakuseiDon

But "leaving it at that" is precisely the issue. As I said earlier, Paul must have meant something. You can say that it is an interpolation, or you can say that Paul meant something else, but just "leaving it at that" is the hand-waving that Chris Weimer (though rather more colorfully) referred to. I can explain what I think is happening from a historicist framework. What we need to do is compare against other frameworks, to see how they compare.

That Paul is basically saying that he believes Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem is defendable, I believe. As I wrote a few pages back, Christ is the "end of the law for righteousness", and "Christ crucified" is a stumbling stone for the Jews. Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone set in "Zion", which deals with the law of righteousness. Yes, it deals with the law, but what did the Jews stumble on if not the stumbling stone of "Christ crucified" and its significance with regards to the law? :huh:

The "stumbling stone" is either "Christ crucified" or it isn't. If it isn't, then the Jews must have faced TWO stumbling stones. Agreed?

That's fine, if you have a reading that makes better sense.

I'm not saying that it was necessary, only that Paul arguably gives this information.

Yes, I have no problem with that, and I think that is reasonable. (BTW I also think the anti-heresiologist writers are the best witnesses against mythicism) Still, a position starts to appear as "adhoc" if you start dismissing passages as interpolations or "we can't understand their thinking" or "they could have believed anything therefore they believed this" or "it happened in a fleshly sublunar realm" (which I know is Doherty's not yours), without something to support that.

I'm interested to hear your ideas on this since I do believe that Paul is arguably telling us about the historical Jesus here, but will defer until you are ready.

Isn't Detering's position that all the letters of Paul were forged? So it doesn't matter what passage I choose, you can point to Detering and say that it isn't original to Paul?

dog-on

Just a quick response to your last point...

Detering has put forth the hypothesis that the writer of the Paulines was, possibly, the person referred to as Simon Magus. Regardless of whether this is the case, or if there truley was an actual Paul, the position that there seems to have been, based on all the evidence, substantial changes made to the original texts of the "actual" Pauline letters seems more likely than not.