gurugeorge

And here we see the real basis of Chris' position: at the end of the day, to him it's just obvious that there was a historical Jesus, in the same way it's just obvious that people aren't Jedis and Prince Phillip isn't the Messiah. And anybody who disagrees is just as obviously an idiot who goes by "feel".

Even though other respected scholars have plumped for several different "historical Jesi", because the great Chris Weimer, in his infinite wisdom, has plumped for a revolutionary zealot, then it's just obvious that he was a revolutionary zealot, and of course there's no ambiguity in the record at all, no disagreement amongst other equally respectable scholars, such that anybody could possibly conclude anything else, or even find room for the idea that there was no HJ at all.

dog-on

Chris is in a little boat with a big leak. Try as he may, his teaspoon just isn't cutting it.

GakuseiDon

No, I don't, but it sounds interesting. Can you expand on this, please?

He does appear to place the crucifixion in Jerusalem from the quotes I gave above (the "recently" part I think can be shown from other passages, which I will go to later).

True, but from the quotes I gave, Paul certainly appears to be placing Jesus's crucifixion in Jerusalem, or at least the face reading supports that. Where is the ambiguity? What else could Paul be saying in those verses?

I'm not sure how the rest of your comments relate to Paul placing the crucifixion in Jerusalem or not, I'm afraid.

So, for someone who doesn't believe it is an interpolation, would it be reasonable for them to believe that this is evidence for historicity?

dog-on

Short and sweet version!

The OT god, is the demiurge, the creator god (actually created the world, law giver extrordinaire). This creator god is under the, albeit mistaken, impression that he is supreme. Unknown to him however, a secret supreme god, the good god or stranger god, exists (the mystery that was hidden in the scriptures).

JC is the son of the stranger god. He makes his way down to ransom the mortals from the demiurge's law. Since the demiurge doesn't know who JC is, he allows JC to be wacked by the archons(?), thereby putting him in a little bit of a bind with the stranger god and forcing him to to take the ransom. The mortals are now able to be redeemed from the law through JC (cosmic intermediary).

It's been a while, but that is basically the story.

You want to assume that that's what Paul meant. As I said, you may or may not be correct in that assumption. I take "Zion" to be somewhat more of a mystical place then dusty ole Jerusalem on the hilltop.

The last bit, in my opinion, is pretty clear. Paul got his story from scripture and revelations, not from any story of a recently executed Jew. The only way to see it your way would be to read the gospel story into Paul.

gurugeorge

What we have is a set of texts that purport to be eyewitness testimony of a God-man. That was shown to be bunk ages ago. Fine. (Anybody who chooses to carry on believing in the God-man has to go purely on faith, because the evidence has turned out not to be evidence. And, oops, btw, that means Christianity as most people believe in it, is a walking corpse, but that's by the by.)

Now all that's left is to see whether the God-man story is purely myth, or whether there's some living person at the root of it.

But there's a curious sort of cognitive illusion at work here. Because the God-man, had he existed, would have been a historical figure, and because the scholarly tradition that looked into the texts initially went on the premise that He was a historical figure (they were believing Christians), there's a sort of hangover in that tradition, of looking for a historical figure in the texts as a sort of primary reflex.

But it seems to me that if any other religion were under scrutiny as part of the modern day study of ancient history and religions, given a set of texts purporting to be about some miracle-working God-man, the primary reflex would be to simply analyse the myths, and then maybe (e.g. if there was some hint from external evidence that there might be a historical kernel) to show that and how the myth might have been constructed round that possible historical kernel. There would be no suggestion that you could prove the existence and nature of a historical kernel from the texts themselves - that would be immediately understood to be a ludicrous idea. The most you could do would be to connect the myth and the (independently attested) man. Nor would people who took the view that there was no historical kernel, or that even if there were such he was probably irrelevant to the myth as it developed, be viewed with such scorn.

IOW, the historical-proof-ness (so to speak) of the texts was exhausted in their purporting to be historical proof of a God-man, and found wanting in that regard. Now, all they are is myth texts that may or may not have a man at the root of them - they are no longer proof of anything, they no longer have any proof-nature about them at all. Their purport as evidence, and what they purported to be evidence of, was bunk; now if they are any evidence of anything at all, they can only be so indirectly, through scholarly study.

It seems to me that this situation, in which the primary reflex of biblical scholars is to believe the texts to be, in themselves, historical proof of something, in effect turns biblical scholarship into what amounts to a crank sub-field within the (conceptually, if not numerically) larger field of the scholarly study of ancient religions and history.

dog-on

Sure, I guess, if you want to take that as original and meant in the way you are interpreting it. Only problem would be this; Who, exactly is the historical person being referred to? The actual reference, if authentic, would seem to be a Hercules type character and not a normal human. Since I am pretty sure that no person has ever been born with God as their father, I would say that even with the "born of a woman" qualifier, this guy is still a myth.

Gooch's dad

But Paul doesn't ever say that this "character" is "God's only begotten son". He said that Jesus is a son of God. You are, once again, conflating the historical Jesus with Jesus Christ.

It appears you are at least willing to admit that Paul talks about a historical person, Jesus. And once again, it is NOT an extraordinary claim to say that a man existed, and some myths were later told about this man.

It doesn't require extraordinary evidence. Paul's references alone are sufficient to say that the man Jesus existed.

dog-on

The being that is described in the epistles is mythical. If you want to make-up a different character, be my guest, but that guy is not in the text.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that.

It isn't just an assumption, it is what the text says. Whatever "Zion" represents, Paul seems to believe that Jesus was crucified there. "Zion" was used to refer to Jerusalem. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the face reading would have to be the most likely AFAICS. If you can support an alternative reading, then I'd certainly be interested to hear it.

Where did Paul believe that the demiurge and the minions crucified Jesus, IYO?

Since it appears to be in the original, and there appears to be no reason to interpret it in a way different to how it appears, then it appears to be reasonable for someone to believe that Paul regarded as Jesus being historical.

Why do you believe that it may be an interpolation? Why did the interpolator (Irenaeus or other) want to include that statement?

How then do you treat Paul's comments about Jesus being a descendent of David and Abraham? Don't those comments show that Paul is treating Jesus as a historical person?

Roger Pearse

Interesting to see reiteration deployed as a form of argument so extensively.

All the best,

Roger Pearse