gnosis92

There are many passages in Paul that seem to suggest that Paul thought of Jesus as a human being. A list includes Paul referring to Jesus as 1) descent from Abraham, 2) direct descent from David, 3) 'born of a woman', 4) lived in poverty, 5) born and lived under the law, 6) had a brother called James, 7) led a humble life style, 8) ministered primarily to Jews "words of the Lord", Jesus had a human nature, etc.

Doherty tries to explain this by appeal to a fleshy sublunar realm he claims was common in antiquity. Possible sure. But is this more historically probable than that these statements should be taken at face value -- Paul had in mind a historical Jesus?

Doherty claims we have a hard time imagining this to be true b/c we do not have the mindset and worldview of the ancients. True. I agree with Doherty that reading this in the modern world, it sounds like Paul is speaking of a real human being and not some purely spiritual figure. I allow for the possibility that Doherty is right, in that I did not grow up with a mystery religion that saw deeds occuring in a purely spiritual sphere, with no connection to history, as some in the ancients may have done.

So those familiar with the writings of Philo and Josepheus, two Jews nearly contemporaneous to Jesus whose writings survived, perhaps Tacitus could be added, were to read statements like 'his human nature (in Romans) or "Jesus on the night he was betrayed" would they have understood this as occurring in a mythic, mystical sacred past, where Attis sacrificed the bull, or as occurring in human history?

How would Paul's immediate audience have understood Paul, and would they have found the ambiguity confusing (Paul, do you mean James, a brother In the Lord or brother of the Lord) and would they have asked Paul to clarify (Paul when you say Jesus had a human nature as you do in Romans, do you mean a human nature in a purely spiritual fleshy sublunar realm, or human nature as in like us)?

Reading Paul's letters obviously the debate about how much observance of Jewish law such as food and circumcision was an issue, but if there were confusion over what Paul meant, about Jesus human nature, wouldn't this have been raise?

Is there any evidence there was confusion over which interpretation Paul meant in the early Christian patristic and heretic writers?

I don't deny it's intellectually possible that when Paul spoke of Jesus as having been born of a woman, crucified, having a brother, having a human nature, that he was speaking figuratively, not literally, as Doherty argued in his website.

What I wondered though is whether there is either direct evidence, or whether it is plausible (given what we know of extant first century Jewish writers like Josepheus or Philo) that they would have interpreted these statements at face value or metaphorically.

Did first century Jewish (or Greek or Roman) writers like Josepheus or Philo use the same language in the same way as Doherty alleged Paul did? For example, did Josephus or Philo ever speak of individuals as having a human nature or being born of a woman, but clearly meant something purely spiritual, in a fleshy sublunar realm?

Toto

All of the letters of Paul have been disputed by someone. And particular phrases within the letters have been disputed as being original to Paul, including some of the language under consideration here.

I don't know why you pick Josephus and Philo, or how you would know what they understood. Paul was writing to Christians or diaspora Jews in the eastern part of the Roman empire. He might have had a private code, for all we know. Marcion read him and understood Jesus to not be born of a woman, but to have descended from heaven as a wraith appearing to be a 30 year old man.

Roland

Since Josephus was not himself an adherent to a mystery religion, chances are he would have taken the comments literally, but that doesn't mean much if Paul really WAS in a mystery religion, as Doherty suggest. Then, Paul would be addressing a particular audience who would have understood more fully than Josephus what he was talking about. Perhaps the better question might be how would a GREEK writer who was himself a part of a mystery religion interpret Paul?

To your knowledge, did either Josephus or Philo ever address the issue of mystery religions and, if so, what did they say?

DCHindley

Philo and Josephus, while both Jews faithful to their ancestral beliefs, couldn't have been more different from one another. Josephus was more of a traditionalist, understanding passages from Jewish sacred literature literally or figuratively as it suited him, but mostly literally. Philo wanted to harmonize Jewish belief with Greek Platonism and took much from Jewish scriptures figuratively. I do not think either author wrote about Greek style mystery religions specifically, but from what I understand of them neither would have thought it suitable for Jews to conform their beliefs to such a model.

Paul seems to have come from the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora, as did Philo. So perhaps Philo might have been a little more comfy with some of Paul's ideas but certainly not the picture of Jesus as a reformed apocalyptic divine redeemer called "Christ". I doubt he would have even looked favorably on Jesus as some sort of national Jewish messiah, much less one expanded into a world-savior, especially in the way it is expressed in the letters as they have been preserved.

Josephus would have rejected Jesus as any sort of messiah (christ) on account of his patrons, the Flavian family, as he had stated quite publicly that Vespasian (and perhaps also Titus) were the world ruler(s) predicted by Jewish scriptures. He avoids the word Christ as a technical term for anointed priests or kings (except Ant 18:63-64 = the Testimonium Flavianum and 20.200 = the James affair). The only other place he uses the word is Ant 8:137 where it refers indirectly to the stucco on the roof of Solomon's temple (the roof was anointed with an unstated substance, probably plaster).

DCH

John Kesler

Philo speaks unfavorably about them.


However, he used the language of the mysteries, calling Moses a "hierophant of mysteries and a teacher of divine things":

jules?

From my limited view point I do not have a problem with the use of language. It seems much of old testament writings portrayed the Jewish nation as either a woman giving birth or a child or a man or a king in waiting and to have very human attributes such as 'poor' [humble in the eyes of god etc] . you can probably find references to the land being = [1) descent from Abraham, 2) direct descent from David, 3) 'born of a woman', 4) lived in poverty, 5) born and lived under the law, 6) had a brother called James, 7) led a humble life style, 8) ministered primarily to Jews "words of the Lord", Jesus had a human nature,]


These themes are common in global myth and we would have no problem with Britannia being embodied in the British nation/ navy/ monarchy/ sovereignty etc whilst also be portrayed in song, art, literature as a real person. The Sublunar Jesus then becomes an evolved spiritual aspect of the sovereignty of the Jewish Kingdom. with the complete destruction of that physical homeland it then seems logical for the icon of sovereignty to change. Add the 'vision' theme much loved by Jewish writers of the previous 600 years and real/prophetic dream vision narrative will naturally cause confusions to an audience brought up on the mythical/historical Greek narrative.

gnosis92

The evidence both from Paul's own letters, Acts, and early Christian movement, was that Paul preached to Jews and gentiles, many of whom were not a part of a mystery religion. Obviously statistics and demographics of the time are not now possible, but those in Paul's audience such as fisherman and farmers and slaves and women, who were illiterate (I've heard it claim more than 90% illiterate) and who were not originally part of a mystery religion, who were converted to Pauline Christianity based on Paul's preachings, how would they interpret the terms in contention?

What is more historically probable, that the vast majority of individuals who did convert directly as a result of Paul's preachings, people from all walks of life, but probably mostly poor, they believed born of a woman, Jesus and his human nature, Christ crucified, interpreted as a real flesh and blood person who lived and died, or some sublunar mystery plane of existence?

spamandham

We can not simply take a few phrases from the epistles - not even the 'authentic' epistles - and make much out of them. The epistles have been so heavily redacted, they are no longer even coherent in many places.