ichabod crane

Toto: Why is there no surviving text critical evidence of variant readings?

Ichabod: This is an astoundingly incorrect statement. There are numerous variant readings. Let's see, let's take Romans as an example. Chapter 1. There are variant readings in verse 1, 7, 13, 15, 29 and 31 in the UBS Greek text. And so forth. And these are only the major variants which the editors considered significant enough to include.

Toto: Why are there no early texts of any Pauline letters?

Ichabod: Because papyri are fragile, and it took time for enough copies to be made that there is some chance of them being preserved. 2nd century manuscripts of any of the New Testament are rare; there is only P52, a fragment of John from Egypt, and P90, maybe P77. There are, however, two papyri dated at 200 AD which contain Pauline epistles (P32 and P46). There are numerous papyri from the 3rd century with the Pauline epistles.

Toto: although 2 Cor is widely regarded as composite

Ichabod: Yes, of course it is. But the concensus is an early composite, not as late as you are claiming.

Toto: Walker lists two possibilities: the final edited version of the letters made all earlier versions obsolete, or Christians suppressed all earlier versions.

Ichabod: Seems to overlook the more obvious explanation above.

Toto: The capacity of Christians to suppress manuscripts is shown by the example of Tatian's Diatesseron, which the Syrian episcopate made a determined effort to put an end to, so that no copy has survived except for a single leaf of
vellum.

Ichabod: (a) As we can see, a manuscript survived and (b) the Syrian episcopate is vastly smaller geographical area then the entire Roman empire, and was under the control of one man. It stretches credulity to the limit to believe that the Christians travelled all over the empire, even into rival episcopates (between whom considerable hostility sometimes existed), and editted the texts. If Antioch suggested editting texts, Alexandria would be sure to object and use it as evidence against them, and vice versa. Why would the Christians in another area just accept someone coming along to edit copies of their manuscripts? And why don't we have any evidence that this occurred? Marcion accused his opponents of interpolating texts, true, but the problem is that many of the manuscripts come from areas where his opponents had no influence.

Toto: An additional factor supporting the possibility that orthodox Christians successfully eliminated any variant copies of Paul's letters is that the church of 180 was more centralized and united that it had been before or after, so the emerging orthodox leadership was in a position to standardize texts.

Ichabod: Huh? It was in no position to standardize it at all. In reality, Christians in different sections of the empire had very little to do with each other and went on their own merry way. There were strong ethnic as well as theological differences. Such differences eventually led to the Donatist schism.

ichabod crane

Amaleq13: Paul's letters are also "absolutely filled" with beliefs, ideas, and language more consistent with pagan Mysteries. Upon what basis do you establish that the Jewish aspects precede the Hellenistic?

Ichabod: The consistency with pagan mystery religions is dubious. I haven't seen any evidence that can't be explained by contemporary Judaism (which was itself influenced in various ways by pagan thought). Can I ask you to give me a specific example, and we'll go from there.

Amaleq13: No, it is powerful evidence of familiarity. How does it establish primacy?

Ichabod: Because why would pagan mystery followers care two hoots about whether their deity had something to do with Judiasm, let alone claim that he was the Messiah? How likely is it that followers of a pagan mystery religion would be so intimately familiar with the Old Testament?

Amaleq13: Actually, there is very little difference between Paul's stated beliefs and the Mysteries.

Ichabod: Um, I don't think so. Can you please show me anything in the mysteries that approaches the following, for example? Paul ties his beliefs closely to Jewish orthodoxy. He even quotes from the famous shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"), the clarion call of Jewish monotheism:

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

That sounds like a former Rabbi to me, not an adherent of mystery religions.

Amaleq13: What I don't see, however, is any clear evidence that this belief should be understood as "originally" Jewish with later Hellenistic influences.

Ichabod: Because the Hellenistic aspects can be readily explained from contemporary Judaism, but the Judaistic elements (which are profound) cannot be explained by Hellenistic influences.

Amaleq13: What do you mean by "mode of interpretation"?

Ichabod: I mean the way he interprets texts.

Amaleq13: I would be interested in your sources. Everything I've read suggests it was written in the mid 2nd century and reflects a community of that time that continued to exist into the next century.

Ichabod: Mid 2nd century is too early for your hypothesis, as I understand it. Presumably the community didn't spring up overnight. But in any case, I was going from memory, I'd have to check the sources.

By the way, what do you make of evidence such as Tacitus' account of the great fire under Nero? This refers to followers of Christ and puts the origin of the sect in Judea? What do you make of the Jewish condemnation of Christianity at Jamnia in AD 90?

ichabod crane

Regarding Acts, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it's generally unreliable historically. Of course it is embellished history told from a particular point of view, but that doesn't make it fictitious. The fact that, say, a Nazi historian would be biased in his history of the Third Riech, doesn't mean that everything he says happened was fabricated. Can you provide evidence?

Regarding Saul and Paul, why couldn't he just have changed his name, as the narrative suggests? This was a not uncommon phenomena in the Old Testament (e.g. Abram -> Abraham, Jacob -> Israel). Also, although Paul does not claim to have changed his name, he does explicitly claim to have persecuted Christians (I Cor. 15:9). So that corroborates the Acts account.

Toto

What evidence is there that it is reliable history? The author appears to have used Josephus as a source, so many details are historically accurate. But there are glaring inconsistencies with Paul's letters. Acts contains some supernatural elements, some elements that appear to have been incorporated from Hellenistic mythology. The portrait that it paints of Paul and Peter working in concert does not fit what we know about splits and divisions in the church from Paul's letters.

I think the burden of proof lies with those who claim that it is historical.

Please pay attention. The narrative does not suggest that Saul changed his name to Paul. That is something that Christians have read into the narrative, but there is no support for it.

Acts 13 states:

1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

. . .

9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him. . .

No change of name there. It says Saul has at least two names (Romans of the time often had three names, so that is not unheard of.)

After that we never hear of "Saul" but "Paul" immediately gives a quick summary of Jewish history, about how King Saul preceeded King David, and King David's descendent Jesus has come to save Israel.

13 From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, . . .

16 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: "Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! 17 The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, 18 he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert, 19 he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance. 20 All this took about 450 years.

21 "After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. 22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'
23 "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.

There's obviously some heavy symbolism and probably numerology going on here. The people of Israel wandered for 40 years in the desert, then were granted the land of Israel. Saul was king for 40 years, then God removed him and installed David. Like his namesake, Paul indicates that he will be followed by the coming kingdom of the descendent of King David.

ichabod crane

Toto: What evidence is there that it is reliable history?

Ichabod: As you note, many historical details are accurate. The story generally fits with what we know of first century Judaism. The epistles of Paul show strong signs of someone coming from Rabbinic Judaism. So they fit.

Toto: Acts contains some supernatural elements,

Ichabod: So do other ancient works which it is generally accepted contain historical elements (e.g. the current craze about Troy). In any case, I'm not inclined to reject a work just because it has supernatural elements. I think there are good other grounds for believing in the existence of some sort of deity or deities and to expect intervention in the course of events. But that's a philosophical issue that lies outside this discussion.

Toto: some elements that appear to have been incorporated from Hellenistic mythology.

Ichabod: OK, tell me what these are, and we'll examine them on their merits.

Toto: I think the burden of proof lies with those who claim that it is historical.

Ichabod: OK, well we just disagree!

Toto: Please pay attention.

Ichabod: I'm all ears!

Toto: The narrative does not suggest that Saul changed his name to Paul. That is something that Christians have read into the narrative, but there is no support for it.

Ichabod: OK, you're right here. The narrative doesn't say one way or the other. That he changed his name is one possible explanation, but as you rightly point out, it doesn't say so, so there's no point arguing about it. It does, however, say that Sha`ul was also known as Paul. So the point really isn't important, whatever the reason for the two names, of which there might be half a dozen possibilities.

Toto: Like his namesake, Paul indicates that he will be followed by the coming kingdom of the descendent of King David.

Ichabod: Hey Toto, wait a minute. You're doing exactly what you castigated Christians for doing. You're reading something into the text that isn't there! In fact the text explicitly rules it out. Verse 23 says "from this man's descendents, according to promise, God HAS BROUGHT (aorist active indicative) to Israel a saviour, Jesus". While the aorist in general terms does not necessarily imply a particular time of action, the aorist *indicative* invariably indicates an action completed at a point in past time. In other words, what he is describing has already happened.

rlogan

Hi Ichabod.

I wanted to respond to the "man-jesus becomes God" hypothesis.

You seem well read, so I imagine you are familiar with Doherty.

If not, the lack of historical jesus details in the Epistles speak to the opposite scenario: A "spiritual realm" Jesus (not God though) that in the second century becomes "real" through the gospel fictions.


As far as Paul goes - obviously someone was writing epistles.

I have a heavy suspicion when the heritage of Christianity rests on a Hebrew bible that fabricated its own history with the Exodus and Moses and all that.

So what Paul was is something I have not yet formulated an opinion on. I do, however, prefer not to think of hom as coming on the heels of a historical Jesus.

You've stimulated some nice discussion.

ichabod crane

Well you're on more solid ground there. Many people would agree with your general thesis (though "fabrication" is a harsh word - would you say that the Greeks "fabricated" their mythology? Let's be a bit kind!). I tend to think that Judaism started off as a sect of worshippers of the Canaanite deity 'El. There's a heap of evidence for that. As time went on, they refined their theology, so by the time you get to the later prophetic writings, monotheism in a more or less traditional sense has developed.

I haven't read Doherty but I'm familiar with the general argument. Paul certainly doesn't seem too concerned with the historical Jesus. But I would put that down to a certain docetic tendency and the fact that he was preoccupied with the "heavenly man" theory.

Basically I think that Jesus was an Jewish apocalyptic preacher who taught some extremely groundbreaking ethics but who believed that the world was about to end. I do think he had profound religious insights; I don't necessarily think that his followers understood them. After his untimely demise, his disciples somehow came to believe in his resurrection (a vision perhaps, whatever). Probably the movement would now be unknown were it not for a particular convert whom we are discussing, Paul, who formulated its theology and, most importantly, opened it up to gentiles.

ichabod crane

Another reason that Paul may not have said anything about the historical Jesus, is that he never knew him, but was a late comer to the sect. He did, however, according to his own testimony, have a series of profound visions of Christ. So his theology was probably shaped by those visions, rather then by the actual Jesus. This in turn probably explains his "heavenly man" focus and docetic tendency. He seems to have consciously refused to make reference to Jesus' historicity "even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer" (II Cor. 5:16). In context, this seems to be an actual command not to speak about Jesus' historicity, but to speak only of the exalted "heavenly man".

Magdlyn

Ichabod says he is "familiar" with Doherty, but has not read him. I suggest he try the Jesus Puzzle website for starters.

http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm

As far as mystery religion aspects of the Jesus myth, the book the Jesus Mysteries is crawliing with parallels. It contains a chapter, was Paul a gnostic?

There were popular dying and rising gods in the Med. area that surely a well read, well traveled man such as Paul would have been familiar with: Mithras, Tammuz/Adonis,
Dionysus, Attis.

The symbolic raising of Lazurus for one (his name means El Osiris. The Hebrew is Eleazar). In this instance, Martha and Mary of Bethany can be seen as Isis and Nepthys, who were sisters of Osiris.

The women (Marys) finding Jesus raised, suggests Osiris, Isis and Nepthys.

3 days in the ground suggests Persephone's 3 months.

Jesus being betrayed by Judas suggests the Osiris/Set (who were brothers) relationship.

Osiris judges in the afterworld, as Jesus is said to do.

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

Paul may have been a Jew. Or, as he was raised in the pagan town of Tarsus (at least Acts said he was) he may have been a pagan God-fearer, enamored of certain aspects of Judaism. It was fashionable then.

Pauls' ideas on pneuma, psyche and sarkis, are they Jewish? No, Greek.

The man was a chimera. He admits it himself. He was a syncretizer. Freke/Gandy suggest he invented this new religion , with a new idea of what a messiah should look like, to encourage Jews, who were so persecuted and losing their homeland (again). Military messiahs just did not stand a chance. But the new idea still did not fly with them.

GakuseiDon

The book the Jesus Mysteries is shocking. I wish someone knowledgeable from the atheist side would actually review it and put it to rest, like Carrier did with Acharya.

Magdlyn, according to the Jesus Mysteries, how did Mithras, Adonis and Attis die? How were resurrected? You'll find they never actually say, though they hint around the subject.

What about Dionysus? A lot of the book is on their idea of "Osiris-Dionysus". Without looking at the book, what is your impression on how they say that god dies and is resurrected? Now, check the book and see what they say about it. (It is tucked away in a paragraph somewhere - you may need to reread the book to find it!) What is the parallel to Jesus?

"Lazarus" (aka "Eleazar") means "God is a helper". It doesn't mean "El Osiris". (Even if the words are close, it is just coincidence, like "Christ" and "Krishna", unless it can be shown otherwise).

Why? IIRC Isis eventually reassembles Osiris after he has gets chopped up by Set, but first she uses his penis to impregnate herself. What's the connection?

Why?

Why?