Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 12-19-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

ETA: And because the fact that Paul was a visionary or mystic says precisely zip about whether or not he also received human traditions.

I never said it did - I think he did learn about Joshua Messiah from other people at first.

But in this instance, if you have a word that's usually used in one way, but may (as you admit) be read in another, then given that he was a visionary, why not use the alternative reading? (i.e. that he was plainly saying he received the information about the last supper from the Lord himself?)

You've already admitted that the semantic argument isn't a clincher for the "oral tradition" view. Well, what objection is there to understanding the meaning in this way?

Ben C Smith · 12-19-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But in this instance, if you have a word that's usually used in one way, but may (as you admit) be read in another, then given that he was a visionary, why not use the alternative reading? (i.e. that he was plainly saying he received the information about the last supper from the Lord himself?)

You've already admitted that the semantic argument isn't a clincher for the "oral tradition" view. Well, what objection is there to understanding the meaning in this way?

Did you miss part of my post? I said that the language of receiving and delivering is quasi-technical language for handing down traditions.

Ben.

gurugeorge · 12-19-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But in this instance, if you have a word that's usually used in one way, but may (as you admit) be read in another, then given that he was a visionary, why not use the alternative reading? (i.e. that he was plainly saying he received the information about the last supper from the Lord himself?)

You've already admitted that the semantic argument isn't a clincher for the "oral tradition" view. Well, what objection is there to understanding the meaning in this way?

Did you miss part of my post? I said that the language of receiving and delivering is quasi-technical language for handing down traditions.

Ben.

You earlier said (my emphasis):

Quote:

It is here that a knowledge of Greek literary conventions might come in handy. The word for from in this case is not the usual word one would use if one got the information directly from the source. Instead, what is used is a word that frequently signals transmission through intermediaries (ultimately from the Lord, but through others before it got to Paul).

Now, this word choice has been waved about as proof that Paul got this story from (human) intermediaries, and I resist such a firm conclusion on the grounds that exceptions can be mustered. However, the word choice is certainly compatible with intermediaries (human tradents).

If there are exceptions, why can't this be an exception? In view of the context of Paul being a visionary, and being feasibly likely to say that he received something directly from the Lord, why can't he just be using this jargon term in a non-usual way, in this instance?

Ben C Smith · 12-19-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

If there are exceptions, why can't this be an exception? In view of the context of Paul being a visionary, and being feasibly likely to say that he received something directly from the Lord, why can't he just be using this jargon term in a non-usual way, in this instance?

You are confusing two separate issues.

The first issue that I addressed was the preposition from. I stated that the Greek one used here commonly indicates a chain of transmission, but also stated that there are exceptions (in which the chain is bypassed). I dealt with this issue only because you seemed to think that from the Lord had to be direct, as in a revelation.

The second issue that I addressed was the language of receiving and delivering. This is not the same as the issue of the preposition. Toto offered a quote from Price, and I never spoke of exceptions on this issue.

If your position is true, then we actually have two exceptions, as it were, since Paul (A) used a preposition associated with intermediaries and (B) used the typical verbs of tradition transmission via intermediaries, to wit, receive and deliver. (I might add that, if your position is true, someone ought to notify Robert Price that his thesis never gets off the ground, since most of his case for an interpolation in 1 Corinthians 15 hinges on pseudo-Paul claiming to have received the appearance list from human intermediaries.)

Ben.

youngalexander · 12-20-2007, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Importance of the Oral Tradition: It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers.

Why oral?
A major part of the 'answer' may be that the recipients were illiterate!

Of what did this 'Oral Tradition' consist?
Evidence? Come, demonstrate, of what did this oral {verbiage} consist?

Supply evidence of 'oral' --- , in 1st CE, 2nd CE, 3rd CE - arrrh, I shall do that!

youngalexander · 12-20-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Religion has to be understood sociologically, neurologically, psychologically, anthropologically, cognitively, etc., etc., all at the same time, for religious texts to be really understood.

Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun

Crickey, dot mosus - "a new interpretation of Mithraism;
pg 11
A description of the Mithraic mysteries

A1. The mysteries give symbolic expression to ...

1. DEUS SOL INVICTUS MITHRAS
2. Harmony of tension in opposition.'
.
.
C1. Axioms and themes ....
.
.
3. the sublunery world

D1. The complexes of symbols conveying the axioms ...
.
.

Chapter 5 discusses Mithraism as a symbol in the manner of the symbolist anthropologists, ...

In Ch 6 Beck introduces methods of the new cognitive science of religion to explore ...

blah, blah

The final two chapters are devoted to Mithraism's rich astral symbolism ...

Jeffrey - this was recommended at SBL, and it arrived on my desk along with your suggested "The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Eddy & Boyd. Naturally, I took the more serious work foist!

Clivedurdle · 12-20-2007, 07:52 AM

There is a comment in the introductory pages of Beck about him using an anthropological approach called symbolism with the Mysteries of Mithras. I strongly recommend such an approach to xianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_interactionism

Quote:

Herbert Blumer(1969), who coined the term "symbolic interactionism," set out three basic premises of the perspective:

1. "Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things"
2. "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Blumer, following Mead, claimed that people interact with each other by "interpret[ing] or 'defin[ing]' each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their 'response' is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions" (Blumer 1962). Blumer contrasted this process, which he called "symbolic interaction," with behaviorist explanations of human behavior, which don't allow for interpretation between stimulus and response.

Symbolic interactionism is a social constructionist approach to understanding social life that focuses on how reality is constructed by active and creative actors through their interactions with others.

I suppose I have not consciously put forward my long experience of this way of thinking into a historical context of a religion that claims a symbolic interaction between God and Man in the form of Jesus Christ, and I have concluded, hold on, this does seem similar to myth and story.

Methinks we do have the beginnings of a scientific approach to explaining this fascinating social institution - xianity - and its roots are definitely not related to a living breathing Jesus but to interpretations and iterations of holy words, religious ideas, visions, yearnings - typical human stuff!

http://www.glasgowmuseums.com/venue/...id=4&itemid=68

James Madison · 12-20-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

I am not really arguing whether or not an actual historical Jesus existed, merely that there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the existence of oral stories preceding the Gospels, and these oral stories, at least some of them, claimed a historical Jesus and were not relying upon platonic philosophy.

I think you're making an unwarranted leap from the "received" to "oral stories somewhat like those about Jesus".

Sure, he got a teaching of some sort from the Jerusalem people, and that teaching obviously included the teaching that Joshua Messiah died, buried and resurrected (though it did not include the last supper, which came from the Lord himself), but to say that that teaching must have been part of some sort of oral tradition of stories about the life of a human being Jesus that must have been somewhat gospel-like seems to me to go beyond what the texts actually say or even imply.

IOW the texts are circumstantial evidence for an oral tradition about a historical Jesus only if you otherwise have good reasons to believe in a historical Jesus; but there's no really convincing evidence in Paul that what Paul received was oral traditions about a historical Jesus (i.e. somewhat gospel-like stories), that you could then go on to use to plausibilify the idea there was a historical Jesus (in the way that White wants to do).

What White wants to do is not the issue between you and I. White has his own agenda and I am not remotely attempting to defend it.

If you recall, you and I had a specific issue we were conversing about and it certainly was not White's position. We were discussing whether or not the thoughts you presented in the OP made Doherty's proposition more plausible. I contended it did not for specific reasons and for the sake of brevity, and the fact I am really tired right now, I will simply refer to my posts on page one in regards to this point.

Quote:

but to say that that teaching must have been part of some sort of oral tradition of stories about the life of a human being Jesus that must have been somewhat gospel-like seems to me to go beyond what the texts actually say or even imply.

Huh??? Well, if the oral stories/teachings, it really does not matter what you call them, Paul received included the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah, and the Gospel also tells us the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah, then these similarities have the Messiah in the oral traditions "somewhat Gospel like," at least in regards to the death, burial, and resurrection.

James Madison · 12-20-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

After all, Paul says he persecuted the "Church of God" and what possibly could the "Church of God" been relying upon other than oral stories at this point? Certainly it was not the Gospels.

Why must they be "oral stories" - why aren't they simply a teaching about the Messiah, the very teaching Paul mentions (died, buried, resurrected)? No doubt there was more to it than that (which you can see perhaps in Hebrews), but there's nothing in any of those texts that really give any solid impression that the Joshua Messiah they're talking about looks anything like the Joshua Messiah of the gospels (e.g. carpenter's son, local lad made good, etc.). Everything actually said about him at that earliest point, seems to describe an entity that's basically spiritual (met and communicated with in visionary experience), with some "historical", "fleshly" aspects - your average generic mythical entity.

Quote:

Why must they be "oral stories" - why aren't they simply a teaching about the Messiah, the very teaching Paul mentions (died, buried, resurrected)?

Does it really matter? No. Whether they are "oral stories" or "teachings," the fact is the transmission of the context, of the subject material, was originally "oral."

Quote:

but there's nothing in any of those texts that really give any solid impression that the Joshua Messiah they're talking about looks anything like the Joshua Messiah of the gospels

Yeah, so long as we ignore the death, burial, and resurrection similarities, along with the Gospels' proclamation the Messiah's death and resurrection cleanses us of our sins, a similar if not identical claim made by Paul in his various epistles. If we ignore these similarities, then yes there is nothing else but there is no point in ignoring these commonalities. These commonalities are particularly relevant in making a link between the oral stories Paul is relying upon in regards to the Messiah and the Messiah discussed in the Gospels.

Another pivotal fact to linking the two would be Paul's use of the phrase "Church of God." He persecuted the "Church of God." Was this "Church of God" based upon a Messiah different from the one in the Gospels?

It is your burden to prove Paul was talking about a different Messiah than the one discussed in the bible. Merely assuming this as true for the point of criticizing my argument does not get us anywhere.

Quote:

Everything actually said about him at that earliest point

Really? What are you basing this on?

JoeWallack · 12-22-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

but there's nothing in any of those texts that really give any solid impression that the Joshua Messiah they're talking about looks anything like the Joshua Messiah of the gospels

Yeah, so long as we ignore the death, burial, and resurrection similarities, along with the Gospels' proclamation the Messiah's death and resurrection cleanses us of our sins, a similar if not identical claim made by Paul in his various epistles. If we ignore these similarities, then yes there is nothing else but there is no point in ignoring these commonalities. These commonalities are particularly relevant in making a link between the oral stories Paul is relying upon in regards to the Messiah and the Messiah discussed in the Gospels.

JW:
Hmmm:

1) Death - Doesn't really help much in the context of HJ/MJ does it? Plus my understanding is that it is the main requirement for a resurrection.

2) Burial - Usually follows from 1), except with crucifixion. Does that support HJ or MJ?

3) Resurrection - Finally, something we can be absolutely certain is MJ. So we can be certain that oral stories can transmit Fiction.

4) Proclamation the Messiah's death and resurrection cleanses us of our sins - To the extent "Mark" meant this, according to the original Gospel this was not a Historical observation. It was Revealed by "Mark". So more oral story not based on History.

The Differences in the Gospellers also guarantee that these Christian oral stories transmitted Fiction. In contrast, we have no guarantee that these oral stories transmitted History.

Putting the above all together we would have oral stories that tell little or nothing useful about HJ and no oral stories with quality HJ evidence.

Joseph

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.