gurugeorge

That's a good stab at it! I especially like the last - I do think the Ebionites are rather different from the early Jewish Christians. They're like Jewish Christians who "bought into" the proto-orthodox firmed-up biography so much that they went totally the other way (further than the proto-orthodox found it necessary to go) and retroactively made a mere prophet out of the supposed man behind the myth. (The proto-orthodox only needed as much historicity as necessary to establish their "apostolic succession".)

youngalexander

Yes, but we do not accept their historicity now!

Zeichman

You didn't really address my point: Why don't we find evidence of polemic against this or any traces of familiarity with it in Q, Didache and Thomas? For example, Thomas' lack of apocalypticism is not because it predates apocalyptic traditions, because its protology presumes the prominence of an apocalyptic tradition of Jesus' teaching (whether authentic or not). Otherwise, you're just conjecturing or using circular logic There's isn't a good basis for placing Q after the fall of the Temple and there is good reason to place Mark after it, which creates other problems.

Ben C Smith

I agree. I think that the future of mythicism lies with the Deterings and others who are willing to argue that many or even most of what we think are texts from century I are actually from century II.

About 30-40 years if we accept 1 Clement, 50-60 years if we accept the middle recension of Ignatius, roughly the same if we accept fragment 24 (Holmes) of Papias as genuine; and it is still less than a century if we reject all these and accept only Polycarp to the Philippians, or if we date 2 Peter to the earlier portion of its usual range.

Yes. They were contemporaries of the first heresiologists (for example, Theophilus was a contemporary of Irenaeus). Why did the heresiologists not attack them? Or did they, and I have just not noticed it yet?

I think I am pretty sober about the argument from silence. At least I try to use it very judiciously, and almost always in combination with other, stronger arguments.

Why is that obvious?

Ben.

Gamera

I have to reach the opposite conclusion. Paul's Jesus was nothing if not crucified. But crucifixion, besides being an historical form of execution, with a history to it, was more importantly a sentenced meted out to criminals. This implies that Jesus had a relationship with a particular society in which he was deemed a criminal, through some judicial process, and the sentence carried out.

It makes no sense as a mythicist trope.

gurugeorge

It does if the point of the manner of death was shamefulness, ignominy, etc. - as I said, a "revaluation of values" of the concept of the Anointed One from an apparent victor to an apparent utter failure, dying a criminal's death (but actually, secretly therefore a victor, having thereby snuck by the Archons - who were expecting an earthly victor).

Doug Shaver

Obviously. But where, and by whom?

EarlDoherty

My statement is not unsupported. You simply have to read my "Second Century Apologists" article on my website. My long debate a year or so ago with Don was precisely a discussion of his critique of that article. I have no intention of getting into another free-for-all on it.

What I don't have an obligation to do is to answer every challenge brought up by a slew of dissenters here. I only have so much time. I have the right to remain silent, particularly if the subject has been debated before.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I intend to make this response my last one to Rick, but rather than address him directly, I will address the others on this board, which perhaps will moderate both of our tones. Actually, I have no interest in trying to convince him of anything. I’ll leave it to the audience as to which of us has made better sense.

So the “mystery” is the gentiles? That the gentiles are mysterious? That they have been hidden for long ages and only now are being revealed through scripture? I really fail to see Rick’s distinction.

In Ephesians 3:4-6, pseudo-Paul claims that he/Paul has an “understanding of the mystery of Christ”. Does this mean the mystery of Christ is the gentiles, rather than something which ‘relates’ to them? Verse 6 defines the “mystery” as the fact that the gentiles are heirs together with Israel and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus. Is there anyone who reads this to say that the “mystery” is the gentiles themselves as opposed to a benefit that is given to them? The mystery is the “sharing,” the status conferred on them as “heirs”. In other words, something that relates to the gentiles. The ‘mystery’ is the fact that the gentiles have been accorded this privilege. Rick’s distinction is not even a coherent semantic argument.

Note that in verse 4 ‘Paul’ is speaking of “the mystery of Christ,” not the mystery of the gentiles. Paul’s general category is the mystery of Christ. Under that umbrella there are a number of facets to the mystery, as I described in my last post. One of these facets, or components, is that the gentiles share in the promise, they are united with the Jews. This mystery must be multi-faceted, because only in Ephesians are the gentiles even mentioned in connection with the “mystery”. They are not the sole and sum total of what constitutes Paul’s mystery, let alone his “gospel”.

I never said that “gospel” and “mystery” are interchangeable. In 1 Cor. 15:3-4 he defines his “gospel” in terms of Christ dying for sin, being buried, and rising. I can’t recall him ever linking any of these elements with the term “mystery”, except that they are features of Christ, and Christ himself is the mystery. Naturally, the mystery is part of the gospel, part of what he preaches, but this only tells us that there are different components to that gospel, and to that mystery. The gentiles are mentioned in Ephesians, but not in Colossians 1:26, where the mystery is defined as “Christ in you.” This quality is hardly restricted to the gentiles, therefore the mystery is likewise not restricted to the gentiles. In fact, Paul’s major point is that the boundary between Jew and Greek has been erased. We’re all one big happy family now. So the mystery is not THE gentiles, as Rick claims, but various things in which the gentiles share, things to which the gentiles have a relationship.

Similarly, in Romans 16:25, the “mystery” is in no way defined as the gentiles, or even their sharing in the promise. Not only has Rick misread the significance of Eph. 3:4-6, he is now trying to impose that misreading onto a completely different passage where the Ephesians element is not present, Romans 16:25-7:

“Now to the one being able to establish you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was hidden for long ages, but now revealed through scripture…”

Gospel and mystery are not identical. The gospel is based on the mystery. The mystery is a part of the gospel, the gospel has been formed “according to” the revelation of that mystery, and that mystery is multi-faceted, as we’ve seen. In Colossians 1:26, it’s Christ in you; in Ephesians it’s the gentiles are sharers in Christ and the Jewish promise. In Romans 16:25-7, neither of these latter elements are presented. What is presented is “Jesus Christ”. The proclamation of that figure by Paul is “according to” the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages. It would seem that the plain meaning here (certainly ‘plainer’ than that this passage and mystery is about the gentiles who are not mentioned except toward the end in having the gospel preached to "all nations", not as part of the mystery) is that the mystery which has been revealed is “Jesus Christ.”

This is supported by another of the passages I referred to as speaking of the “mystery”, Colossians 2:2:

Here’s the NIV: “…in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Here’s the NASB: “…the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Nothing about the gentiles here. In fact the “mystery” is defined about as clearly as it gets. The “mystery” is “Christ Himself,” and that mystery, in Romans, is said to have been hidden for long ages and revealed through scripture. How much more of a “plain meaning” can one ask for? And note that the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are part of that “mystery of Christ” which has been long hidden and now revealed in scripture. Could anyone say this and allot no source of wisdom and knowledge to a human Jesus who had lived and preached on earth?

In other places, such as 1 Cor. 15, the “gospel” relates to things Christ has done, aspects of Christ and his activities, which Paul has learned kata tas graphas. Not in ‘fulfillment’ of the scriptures, which is a subject Paul never discusses, never gives us a “scripture equals history” example of, but in the sense of “according to the history books, Caesar crossed the Rubicon.” Nor can 1 Cor. 15 be “according to historical tradition” since this stands in direct contradiction to Galatians 1:11-12 where he declares he got his gospel (his information about Christ) from revelation: and we can be quite sure this is perceived revelation while interpreting scripture.

So both his “gospel” and the “mystery” are the product of scripture, as is stated in Romans 16:25f.

Rick is trying to impose this one “headline” on the entire epistle. He can’t do that. First of all, it is generally agreed that the doxology of 16:25-27 is probably not by Paul. It has a later pseudo-Paul ring to it. So if “Gentiles Saved” is not present in it, we cannot assume that the author of this appendage simply has in mind the content of the epistle.

Moreover, the content of that epistle is hardly uniform in regard to the promise/mystery/gospel. In 1:2-6 “the gospel of God” is “about Jesus Christ our Lord”, about him being “of David’s stock” and being “declared Son of God on account of his rising from the dead.” Different headline. Here it is not about the gentiles or anything to do with them.

Even more telling is 3:21-26. Even though he doesn’t use the word “gospel” Paul is clearly stating the essence of that gospel. And it’s another different headline. “God’s justice has been brought to light, witnessed by the Law and the Prophets…” Yet another statement that what has brought all to light, what has been “manifested/revealed” is through scripture. “This justice from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” If gospel and mystery overlap, which they do (the gospel is partly about the mystery), then the mystery also entails salvation through faith, not restricted to gentiles. It is this that has been revealed after being hidden for long ages, extracted today from scripture by inspired apostles like Paul. Yet another element which is distinct from “Christ in you” and “the gentiles are included”.

Paul goes on to say “to all, without distinction….Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles too?” The gentiles are hardly given pride of place here, with the Jews only following in their dust. In fact, throughout this chapter, it’s pretty well the other way around. Fourth headline.

Chapters 5 and 6 are about Christ dying for sin, God’s act of grace and “life for allmen. No focus on gentiles here. Chapter 6 is about the effects of baptism and the very mystical ideas of “dying with Christ” and rising with him in future. Another headline, quite separate from any involvement of gentiles. These several chapters are also about the Jewish law and its role. That role, and its suspension (as in 6:14, another headline), applies to both Jew and gentile.

Rick is anxious to quote Romans 1:16:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God (to give) salvation to everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the gentile.” This is hardly in conformity to Rick’s headline, let alone for the “mystery” as something entirely focused on bringing in the gentiles.

It is only with chapter 9 that the epistle’s focus falls on the gentile, and how they can be included under the banner of “Israel”. The Jews who failed to respond to apostles like Paul (no mention of their failure to respond to Jesus himself, but then, I guess Jesus didn’t actually preach anything, since Paul had to get it all from scripture and never gives him credit for anything whatsoever), do have a chance, as Paul here is not willing to consign them to outer darkness. Here alone is Rick’s preferred “headline”.

The rest of Romans is a homily on ethics, again with not the slightest mention of Jesus as the source of any of it, or held up as an example. Of course, there are those, quite sensibly, who regard Romans as a pastiche, that it is not a unity, though what parts of it might actually be Paul’s product is less easy to determine.

Here, Rick does seem to be entirely restricting himself to “Jesus did not preach about the gentiles sharing in salvation” and Paul had to fill in that gap. But as I have shown, that narrowness simply cannot be supported from the texts as a whole, and from many individual texts that refer to the “mystery”. There are several headlines that make up the newspaper carrying Paul’s gospel. And if an HJ had existed, it is impossible to think that Paul could have completely ignored Jesus as having a role in preaching any of it.

But does he contradict himself right within that above quote? He asks does the evidence indicate that an HJ would be the source for the Pauline message of salvation? If he means ‘salvation for the gentile’ perhaps not (though this in itself has problems), but that is not the sum of Paul’s message. Paul’s message involves a lot of things not specific to salvation for the gentile. On the other hand, if Rick is referring to “salvation” in general, then it is indeed ridiculous to maintain that Paul would not have associated some of that with a preaching Jesus, especially a Jesus who was preaching himself, which in Paul’s mind he would have to be.

Rick more than once calls attention to Romans 1:16, the verse quoted earlier:

Well, I can’t follow the reasoning in this, or the distinction. “The power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” is indeed the essence of Paul’s gospel of salvation, but it is hardly a sole focus on the inclusion of the gentiles. Taking all the passages we’ve mentioned (and others we haven’t), including the very one Rick quotes, the gospel, and the “mystery” it appeals to, is “salvation for everyone through faith, “faith that Jesus died and rose again” (1 Thess. 4:14, which says that both the death and resurrection are matters of faith, not historical witness.)

What it boils down to is that Rick is maintaining that the sum of Paul’s gospel, and the mystery it entails, is the preaching to the gentile. Well, the texts simply do not say that, and all the argument in the world is not going to impose that on them. Paul cannot simply stand before a gentile audience and say: here is my message: You are included in the salvation offered to the Jews through Christ. He has to say what Christ did to confer that salvation. He has to say who Christ was. He has to convince them first of all that Jesus of Nazareth, a human man who walked Galilee and Judea, was this cosmic Christ, that he is justified in elevating him to pre-existence and creation of the universe. That has to be a part of his gospel. If none of the gospel and mystery about salvation proceeded from Jesus himself on earth, what in heaven’s name did Paul think Jesus did teach? Nothing? Can Paul possibly talk a message about “salvation” and leave Jesus completely out of it, as though he didn’t exist for him? If his sole point or emphasis were that salvation is now available to the gentile through his preaching, he would surely have to address the point that Jesus, though undeniably teaching about “salvation” (how could Paul possibly deny such a thing?) neglected to include the gentile in that message, so Paul is now doing so.


PAUL: I am offering God’s salvation to you gentiles through faith in Christ, which I have learned about from scripture and revelation by the Spirit.

GENTILE: You mean Jesus offered salvation only to Jews?

PAUL: Well, not exactly. He just didn’t mention you. I’m taking up the slack.

GENTILE: If you don’t mind me asking, if God were willing to reveal our inclusion in Christ’s redemptive acts to you, why didn’t he reveal it to Jesus so that Jesus could have told us directly?

PAUL: I don’t know. Maybe he didn’t think of it at the time.

GENTILE: So we’re just an afterthought?

PAUL: A very important afterthought. After all, God wanted me to be Apostle to the Gentiles, so he had to leave something for me to do.

GENTILE: I’ve heard Jesus’ disciples don’t agree with your message. How come you think you know what God wants for us when Jesus’ own followers took it the other way around?

PAUL: They’re just a bunch of fishermen. What do they know about scripture?

GENTILE: Jesus must have preached about salvation. Why don’t you tell us what he said so we can get it from the horse’s mouth?

PAUL: I have no interest in what he said.

GENTILE: Demetrius, grab that stone for me, will you?


There's not much point in addressing the rest of Rick's long post, which is more of the same. But there's this:

Obviously, my “Who would think that?” is in the presumed context of an historical Jesus, who could not fail to have been known for preaching salvation in general. My point was, and I think I’ve illustrated it here, this indeed would be silly. In the context of no historical Jesus, the mystery hidden for long ages and revealed to Paul through scripture and revelation would be anything but. That would have been the only avenue to someone who desperately wanted to be an apostle and couldn’t attach himself to the comet-tail of a recent historical man.

Earl Doherty

spamandham

Can you state succinctly what you think the problem is in regard to each of these individually, rather than as a group?