Amaleq13

More of a different opinion than a correction, I would say.

I think Phil 2:9-10 suggests otherwise and I question whether we can reject, with any reliability, the clear possibility that Paul is simply "retrojecting" his current beliefs into an earlier reference. IOW, even assuming I am correct, I fully expect Paul to consistently refer to the Son as he considered him than as he would have been properly referenced at the time. I had this same discussion earlier with TedM and I compared it to a devoted Catholic who had known John Paul II as a boy but, in retelling childhood stories about him, referred to him as "His Holiness" (ie one time, when His Holiness and I were in a snowball fight... ).

jjramsey

This is what Phil. 2:9-10 reads:

It says that God "gave him the name that is above every name." It does not quite follow that the name in question is "Jesus," although that is one possibility, but the text is ambiguous here. "Lord" perhaps might be what Paul had in mind, especially since "Jesus" was a common name, while "Lord" is obviously grander. It's hard to tell. Also, if he only got the name "Jesus" after his resurrection, that would suggest either that he was nameless while taking human likeness (!) or that he had another name which is nowhere mentioned in the NT, unless you want to count "Immanuel," but I think we're all agreed that particular name is a late development. I think you are hinging way too much on an unclear verse.

Julian

The name referred to could be 'Christ,' compare with 2:1 where Christ is used in isolation.

Julian

krosero

It's an interesting project to try to list pieces of positive evidence. IMO, you've got two different kinds. You have merely the pieces that mythicists do present as positive evidence, before we get into the question of whether the evidence is actually positive (for instance, a mythicist might invoke the unreliability of the positive evidence for the HJ as positive evidence for the MJ). You might call that a raw list. But then you'd have to judge the pieces to see if, within reason, they're really positive.

This comes to mind because Justin's evidence is used, at least on one website I've seen, as if it was saying that Jesus never existed. But I think it's clear that Trypho is referring to his opinion of whether the promised Messiah lives in his own time -- so clear that I really wonder whether this should be included in anything but a "raw" list. Doherty mentions it on p. 285 of TJP, but apparently he avoids the common error that Trypho is speaking of Jesus; he uses it as negative evidence. He says it's part of a "common opinion of the time," which seems to mean the opinion that Christians have a false Messiah, or else the opinion that Christians "are mad to give a crucified man second place to God."

All this is found in Doherty's chapter on the second-century apologists, as part of the thesis that these men tell us of their faith in ways that do not include a historical Christ -- which in turn implies that they either did not know of a historical Christ (which is still negative evidence) or that they worshipped God alone and rejected the worship of a crucified victim. Doherty says with certainty that Paul did not of a historical Christ because he had not yet been invented; he allows that the HJ was known in the second century and could have been known by the apologists.

Doherty uses Felix's statement to say that Felix did not worship an HJ, not that he did not know of an HJ. And that seems to be, IMO, the only reasonable way to read what Felix says; he is saying things about proper worship, but nothing about whether Christ existed (not even anything like what Trypho says about the expected Messiah/Christ).

In any case, evidence that an individual did NOT know, or did NOT worship, an HJ, is all still negative evidence. This type of evidence makes no positive claims about Jesus not existing.

Doherty uses Hebrews 8:4 in a way that can be called positive evidence. ("If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are those who offer gifts according to the law"). And since, as he tells us, it can grammatically be interpreted as saying that Christ was not on earth in the past tense, I think it should be included as positive evidence. Justin and Felix seem like negative evidence to me.

Amaleq13

Well, the name that literally follows is "Jesus" though I certainly agree that Paul (or the hymn he allegedly repeats) does not clearly identify what name was bestowed.

It could be and that would appear to conflict with Chris' description that the historical Jesus was a "messianic contender" though it would match up with Mark's "Messianic Secret" theme.

I don't understand your use of an exclamation mark here since the notion of a nameless Incarnation is entirely consistent with Paul's views expressed elsewhere that the True Identity of the Son was not known by his executioners. Personally, as I've stated elsewhere, I think the idea of an Unknown Incarnation does a good job of explaining Paul's "silence" as well as the rather generic assertions he does make about the Incarnated Form.

I'm not the one drawing an apparently firm conclusion from it so I don't see how this applies to me. I simply refrained from assuming that Paul identified the Incarnated Form as "Jesus" when I rewrote Ben's summary statement.

jjramsey

I have a feeling that you are eliding over the difference between the crucifiers of Jesus supposedly not knowing his true nature (the "True Identity" of which you speak) and not knowing the name of the person being crucified.

One of those generic assertions was that he was a descendent of David according to the flesh. It would be rather odd for the parents of such a descendent to not name their kid.

Amaleq13

That assumes a difference that has not been established. There is no difference to elide if "God's Salvation" is a title obtained after accomplishing the goal the name describes.

An Unknown Incarnation does not require the lack of a name, just a lack of knowledge of the name by which the Incarnation was called. I see nothing in Paul to suggest that he would care one bit what name the Incarnation was called because he knew the Sacred Name and that is all that matters. In addition, that Paul simply asserts Davidic lineage without any attempt to support it by identifying the parents hardly suggests such a technical detail would have bothered him.

jjramsey

A lot of Jews were named "God's Salvation," a.k.a. Jesus or Joshua. That makes it an unlikely title.

TedM

This is a bit off the subject, but would you agree that Paul never gives a reason for those who crucified the incarnation to have done so? Or, have I overlooked something? One might think that a reason would have been given..

ted

Amaleq13

By what logic does that follow? It is the literal meaning that makes it an appropriate title not the number of men with the name.

ETA: Would the title "God's Salvation" have been written differently?

No, he doesn't and I've made that same observation in the past. It is certainly a question I would have asked him had I heard him preach.