No Robots

Try this.

Toto

In other words, what if Doherty had argued that every mention of kata sarka is an anti-Marcionite interpolation?

dog-on

Of course there is an equally likely argument to be made regarding kata sarka.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/vmanrom.html

As is apparent in the other epistles, a significant effort was made to conform Paul to the Orthodoxy. Doherty makes a valiant effort to keep the epistles as intact as possible (especially in the case of kata sarka...almost as if he really enjoyed the challenge), but in the end, the most likely answer to this question is a simple case of interpolation.

dog-on

Toto, you beat me to the punch...

Toto

great minds, as they say. . .

Doherty is actually very mainstream in his treatment of most NT sources.

dog-on

If Doherty can make his case using the standard texts, his argument becomes that much stronger. In the kata sarka instance, I do believe that Doherty makes a good argument based on what Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles) likely believed.

The case for a non-physical/mythical Christ just makes too much sense, especially if you bring in Marcion and the Gnostics. The humanization(?) of Christ fits well into the later, "Pop", version of Christianity developed by the church, probably due to the esoteric nature of the (possibly earlier) Marcion/Gnostic belief system. Of course, interpolation/redaction and all sorts of shenanigans by the church would have been a good (and obvious) way to accomplish this.

jgibson000

Equally likely??

On what grounds? Lingustically, stylistically? Thematically? Text critically?

Anything other than what is appealed to in your source for saying so, namely, an apriori that Paul didn't know or ever speak of an HJ?

And has anyone here ever taken into account the longstanding scholarly position that what Paul is reciting at Rom. 1:3 is a pre-Pauline creed that Roman Christians gave voive to and accepted before Paul ever tried to contact them?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Not if he's misunderstood/misconstrued those texts.

Why do you think his argument is a good one, especially in the light of the linguistic and lexicographical evidence that shows it's nonsense and unsustainable? And what is your criterion for, and means of, knowing what was likely or not for Paul to have believed?

May I ask what the nature and extent of your grounding is in the literature, both primary and secondary, on/by Marcion and the Gnostics as well as in the history of the church?

Jeffrey Gibson

dog-on

Dr. Gibson,
as you are no doubt aware, this is not really a new idea. There is a significant amount of scholarship concerning the entire Pauline corpus and the question of its veracity, at least on this side of the pond.

I would rather try to understand, in light of the theology contained in the majority of Paul's writings (which could just as well be Gnostic), why he felt the need to insert the reference to the seed of David according to the flesh?

That is what seems out of place. So, I guess that a theological issue would be the main reason to call the "I" word. Paul most likely believed in a "historical" Christ, just not, in my mind, a "physical/human" one.

As far a pre-Pauline Roman creed is concerned, I don't buy it. Not unless you want to push Paul into the next century. I am, however, open to any evidence that you could provide to support such a possibility.

dog-on

I did use the word "if" in my statement, concerning making his case stronger.


I do not see his argument as nonsense. Could you point me to somewhere where this has been shown to be the case? I do not recall Richard Carrier calling it nonsense. As a matter of fact Richard Carrier writes:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#Sublunar

My main reason for agreeing that Doherty's hypothesis, regarding the sublunar incarnation, could be likely is that I believe Paul (or however originally wrote as Paul) was a Gnostic (see Tertullian's - Adversus Marcionem, Hermann Detering's - The Falsified Paul, Robert Price's - The Evolution of the Pauline Canon) and if "the seed of David, kata sarka" must remain in Romans, this explanation would make more sense than a human incarnation. Of course, this is simply my opinion.



I am an interested observer. I read much as I can find regarding Paul and early Christianity. Do you have any suggestions, maybe from a less radical perspective?