Didymus

Thank you for your penetrating insight into Doherty's work and your incisive analysis of its many fallacies.

(ellipses added)

(I'm quite certain this is a typo, and you meant to say "Doherty's idea that there was no historical Jesus...")

There is no contradiction. Merely attributing sayings to an undefined Jesus figure does not give us a historical point of reference or transform a legendary figure into a historical one. Legendary figures are given names because they are thought of as real.

You don't seem to misunderstand what's required for "historicity." Q is considered to be ahistorical because it doesn't present biographical material about Jesus and it doesn't place him in a historical context.

(ellipses added)

You're picking nits, possibly because you haven't yet fully grasped Doherty's hypothesis. He's merely reiterating a point made by some Q scholars who believe that the Q sayings source may have evolved over time, with only the later layers quoting a "Jesus." That's a disputed minor point that only hints at the possibility of early non-belief in a historical Jesus. It doesn't constitute an important argument for MJ theory, which does not live or die on whether Q quoted Jesus by name in its early stages. Or, for that matter, on Q period!

From an MJ perspective, the important aspect of Q is that it contained nothing about the most critical events in Jesus' life - the trial, crucifixion and resurrection - that are clearly described in the Gospels as taking place in a known historical context with externally evidenced figures like Caiaphas and Pilate. If Q was really about the Jesus described by MMLJ, how and why could such pivotal elements have been completely ignored? Do you really think the Q authors wouldn't have been "concerned" about such matters?

Has failed to be seen as such by whom? You? No worries.

Didymus

Didymus

What do you mean? Irreconcilable with what? It is impossible to comment on such an undefined and sweeping charge.

"Mythological" and "fabricated" are not mutually exclusive. "Mythological" implies fabrication over time. Fabricated by whom? To deceive whom? Keep in mind that the dreaded "CHURCH" was just a collection of home churches and travelling preachers until the mid-2nd century. It had many rivals and was in no position to conspire to do anything until Constantine.

(If there's one term that conspiracy theorists ought to be able to spell right, it's "deceive.")

Didymus

Doug Shaver

OK, I was shooting from the hip. Sorry.

Here is your entire statement that got me started on this. No additives, no preservatives.

And here is Paul's statement that we're discussing, in context (emphasis added).

I agree that on the face of it, Paul could have meant that he had received this teaching from the Lord by way of whoever explained to him the origin of the Lord's Supper. However, Paul nowhere attributes any of his teachings to any human mentor, and on at least one occasion he explicitly denies having learned anything from a human mentor. To suppose that on this or any other occasion he implies an intermediary between him and God is to assume that he learned at least some things about Jesus from people who had known the man, which is to assume the conclusion that there was such a man. This passage therefore cannot be counted as evidence for Jesus' historicity.

I will grant that without an explicit denial of a human intermediary of the sort we find in Galatians, neither does it count as strong evidence against historicity. But I would argue that it does add to the case against historicity while doing nothing to undermine it.

It looks to me like he is expounding concepts in verses 26-29.

Rick Sumner

Stop. Right there. That was, and is, the entire point I was making regarding Clivedurdle's statement. I haven't argued for or against historicity, I've said that without the word "directly" it doesn't necessarily say what Clivedurdle thinks it does. If you've agreed that Clivedurdle overstated his evidence by adding the word "directly," (as you do implicitly here), then you have no quarrel with what I've said regarding this passage, only one with what you're reading into my words.

Your suggestions about what counts as "strong evidence for historicity" are irrelevant to anything I've said. The only person bringing that argument up is you. And what a fine strawman it is.

His gospel isn't just any arbitrary concept, it's a specific concept. I provided the basic description as a means of showing just how different the Lord's Supper and Paul's gospel are, not as a criteria by which we may compare. One can find dozens of concepts in the Pauline epistles--that doesn't mean they're all analogous to his gospel.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

J-D

I intrude into this discussion knowing that I haven’t read either as extensively or as intensively on this subject as other people here. Nor do I intend to, because I don’t care enough. But there is one point that I always stick on that I haven’t seen anybody refer to explicitly on this thread, so I thought I’d mention it, and if other people can offer the sort of exhaustive analysis of it that I’ve never done myself and probably wouldn’t, I shall be most interested.

The point I stick on is the origin and earliest growth of Christianity, not Christianity-the-idea, but Christianity-the-organisation. How do organised religious movements get started? I know it has been different historically for different religions, but one common way is as the followers of a founding leader (or teacher, or preacher, or something similar). If that was the way Christianity started then there would have been, right at the very beginning of its history, a leader (or teacher, or preacher, or something similar) around whom a religious following gathered. From that point the religious movement could have been propagated further by members of the initial following of the founder, increasing in numbers and spreading geographically and perhaps socio-demographically as well, but retaining its identity as the same movement (both as perceived by its members and as perceived by outsiders) through the personal links between the individuals involved. If somebody denies the existence of any such ‘Founder of Christianity’ as this model postulates, what I then want to ask for is their alternative explanation of the origin and development of Christianity, meaning by Christianity not a set of beliefs, but an organised movement.

All that this model requires definitely of this hypothetical ‘Founder of Christianity’ is a location in space and time consistent with what is known about the early growth of the organised religious movement. That’s part of the subject on which I’m no expert, but I would guess that it points to a place and time not far off from those conventionally accepted.

There are many assumption that this model does not need. Obviously, it doesn’t need the assumption that there was anything supernatural about the Founder of Christianity. It also doesn’t need the assumption that any part of what has since been believed by Christians about their Founder is true: not even the Founder’s name (that is, it may not have been Jesus). It also doesn’t need any assumptions about how much there is in common, if anything, between the later doctrines of Christianity and whatever doctrines may have been enunciated by the Founder. Traditional accounts of historical figures do become distorted: I don’t know how much distortion or what kinds would probably have affected accounts of a figure of the kind I’m talking about here, but possibly the question would be amenable to comparative historical investigation.

Perhaps some people would say that the hypothetical assertions I’m making about the Founder of Christianity have such minimal content that this model counts as a ‘Mythical Jesus’ one rather than a ‘Historical Jesus’ one. That’s fine with me. I’m interested in the model I’ve described, and its implications, not in which of two categories somebody else want to put it in.

Doug Shaver

Given the context, what you said looked -- to me, and if to me, then probably to others as well -- like an argument for historicity. If you did not intend it as such, all you had to do was say so.

Rick Sumner

I did. My first post, in fact, explicitly stated that I do *not* think the Lord's Supper is historical.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Earlier I noted "Lord" had several meanings in the Bible, one of which is yahweh.

Paul says he has visions himself in various places.

According to Acts (I know not a good source!) Paul never met Jesus.

I cannot see the problem with taking this statement at face value - received in a dream or a vision. Peter in Acts is said to have had a vision about eating any food. Visions and dreams are the accepted way of communicating with god!

No need to introduce rhetoric or the strange device of this meaning oral tradition. If he learned it from Fred in the synagogue last wednesday he would have said!

So "Directly" is a logical conclusion that is far more probable than rhetoric or oral tradition!

In any case Paul uses a heirarchy of how valid the comment is. In other places he says that these are his thoughts, "received from the lord" means this is the real deal! it is reasonable to conclude he thought god was talking to him, in an identical way that many xians claim the same. Modern xians have not yet tried to compile their words from the lord into a new new testament!

Rick Sumner

[QUOTE=Clivedurdle]

Paul says he has visions himself in various places.

If you think meeting Jesus is relevant to what I've suggested to be a valid reading, then you're missing the point.

I can. It doesn't say that at face value. Nothing about dreams. Nothing about visions. Most of all, nothing about "directly," which was the word you added.

What is said in Acts really isn't relevant to understanding what Paul has to say. If you want to understand Paul, you read Paul. He did, after all, leave us a relative wealth of literature.

Paul is every bit a rhetor. To attempt to read him without introducing rhetoric is to waste your time.

I provided a reason he wouldn't have said so--he wants to establish his own authority. You aren't addressing that reasoning, you're simply offering your own declaration.

You've given no reason to favor it over a rhetorical method. Again, if Paul received it from another in the early Christian movement, he would still want to establish its authority as coming from the Lord. It's exactly the way we should expect him to handle it. You've given nothing to negate that expectation, only your own unsubstantiated announcement about what Paul would have said. To be sure, you could be right, and Paul could be referring to a revelation of some sort. But that's not a necessary reading, because "directly" doesn't appear.

Perhaps you could show me some of these points where he says these are his "thoughts", received from the Lord. Certainly he says that of his gospel--that's sourced by scripture; to the antiquitous Jew, that *is* the Lord. But his "thoughts"?

Nobody said it was unreasonable. What was said is that it's not a necessary reading. And, without the word "directly," it's not.

You stated, unequivocally, that Paul says he received it "DIRECTLY FROM THE LORD"[sic]. He does not say this. That is a fact. An easily ascertainable fact. I cheerily invite anyone who would like to question this to look up the relevant passage and see if the word "directly" appears there.

This analogy is so poor as to defy further comment.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Didymus

Yes, reading is such a bother!

An "exhaustive analysis"? Is that all you want? Comin' right up, boss - in your dreams.

Despite your "serve it to me on a platter" attitude, and notwithstanding my inclination to tell you to take a flying leap at a spinning pastry, I'll recommend that you read the work of Rodney Stark.

Didymus