archibald

Oh, I agree, but that's a big 'if'. We surely can't proceed on the basis that they are. And what do we mean by 'inauthentic'? Totally inauthentic? Toto, for example, guesses that 50% is interpolation, though he doesn't say which 50%, or why, or whether what (he thinks) remains overturns the basis nature of the texts, that of seemingly referring to an earthly Jesus, though without much bio.

Speculation. Logic hardly enters into it, since nothing suggested is logically impossible. 'Not logically impossible', however, is a very poor standard.

When I hear good evidence of interpolations, I accept it, I assure you. I have no strong reason not to opt for myth Jesus, if it is the better case.

Incidentally, Stephan Huller provided what seemed to me like good evidence, for the text discussed on this thread, (for the whole chapter, in fact) which very few seemed to want to pick up on. I am not sure why.

jakejonesiv

How provential!

There is a textual basis for these studies. It is not a search for texts that support a “Historical Jesus” and then tenditiously assign them as interpolations. There have been studies devoted to recreating the text of Marcion’s version from the writings off the church fathers, and Tertullian is one of the sources for this study. Most of the effort has focused on Galatians and Romans, since there is a more thorough discussion of Marcion’s version of these epistles in the Heresiologists. In addition to recreating the Marcionite texts, there are discussions on which text came first, the canonical version or the Marcionite version.

The first thing to note is that Marcion’s text did not include Romans chapters 9-11, (with a couple of small exceptions.) Tertullian calls it an amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae AM 5.14.6
The next question is, did Marcion cut this away, or did catholic redactors add it? We should immediately note the difference of terminology between Romans 9-11 and the preceeding chapters.

Ch. 9-11 always uses "Israel," before that Romans has "Jews." See "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" Robert M. Price, page 412, footnote i. It is in these chapters (9-11) that we find concentrated the greatest number of references to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint. The author may be Jewish, or alternatively may be a Judaizing gentile. The author of the original letter harbors no sympathy for the Scriptures nor for the people of the Old Testament.


For Romans, please see HDetering, _Marcionitische Rezension und katholische Redaktion des Römerbriefs – unterschiedlicher Sprachgebrauch_.
Here Dr. Detering analyses the vocabulary in Romans and comes to the conclusion that there are two sources in Romans, a Marcionite Recension (MR) and a Catholic redaction (KR). Detering, in the sister articles, demonstrates that the layers identified by different linguistic usage correspond to the Marcionite text reconstructed from the church fathers, and finally the different Theological profiles reside firmly in each text layer.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/index.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Vergleich.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/roem_einl.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/RoemSpr.htm


The evidence is then, that we are considering composite works.

Also please ponder this. The audience of the letter/treatise were Pauline Christians, otherwise (as Van Manen observed) they would not understand all the nuances of "faith," "grace," "righteousness," "love," "justification by faith," and "works of the law" just to name a few. Now if this audience were indeed the first century church at Rome, we have a perplexing problem. How could the great church, presumably founded by Pauline Christians and presumably the recipient of one of the "Great Epistles" be found to be in such ignorance of the Apostle before Marcion's appearance with the Apostolicon? It just doesn't make sense. Justin, his student Tatian, Papais and others betray no familiarity with Paul. What had happened to the illustrious epistle and all the friends and supporters of Paul? Had they disappeared and left scarcely a trace in next generations? Had the epistle lain buried in the archives of the Roman church for nearly a century until it emerged
again to the light of day --- in the possession of Marcion!?? Additionally, the evidence points out that the earlier form of Romans ended with chapter 14, The 15th and 16th chapters only became known near the end of the second century/early third century CE around Alexandria and only slowly spread to the West.

The starting point of the theological differences in the Marcionite and Catholic layers, according to Dr. Detering, are two different conceptions of natural revelation in Romans. The earlier, the Marcionite concept is "Natural Law." This natural law (lex naturalis) is revealed in the consciousness. Romans 2:12-16.

The catholic layer contains the "Revelatio generalis", a previous natural God revealed by the creation. Romans 1:19-2:1. This section is gladly cited to this day for the voucher of general revelation. This sermon glorifies the creator (who is blessed forever, 1:25) in contradiction with Marion's dualism. It was missing in the original version of the letter. The textual basis for recreating Marcion's text is Tertullian AM 5.13.3 where the discussion immediately leads on from 1.18 to 2.2

Jake

P.S.

For a discussion of Chapters 15 and 16 as late additions, please see
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...4&postcount=56

and I, Tertius

aa5874

I don't want to hear what you think I WANT ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Once you admit there is NO actual evidence for what you THINK then you don't know what you are talking about and don't make any sense.

There is really no reason for you to be posting because you will ALWAYS claim, "I THINK I AM RIGHT".

Well, regardless of what you think there is WRITTEN evidence that Jesus was described as MYTH and BELIEVED to be three in one, Ghost, a God, and a Man, by people of antiquity.

We have HUNDREDS of texts, like the Extant Codices, and Church writings that are EVIDENCE of antiquity that people BELIEVED that Jesus was NON-HUMAN.

Myth Jesus is the MOST LIKELY explanation based on the ABUNDANCE of evidence found in the EXTANT CODICES and Church writings.

What YOU THINK is irrelevant because you ADMIT you have NO actual evidence.

Matthew 1.18-20 EXIST and EXPLAINS Jesus Christ was fully Ghost and fully man.

Christians BELIEVED the EXPLANATION that Jesus Christ was FULLY Ghost and FULLY man.

Luke 1.26-35 EXIST and is ACTUAL written evidence from antiquity that EXPLAINS Jesus Christ was FULLY Ghost and fully man.

Christians believed the EXPLANATION in gLuke.

Mark 6.49 and 9.2 EXIST and is ACTUAL written evidence from antiquity that EXPLAINS that Jesus Christ WALKED on the sea and TRANSFIGURED.

Christians of antiquity BELIEVED the EXPLANATION in gMark.

John 1 EXIST and is ACTUAL written evidence from antiquity that EXPLAINS Jesus Christ was FIRST GOD with LATER FLESH and the Creator.

Christians BELIEVED the EXPLANATION in gJohn.

The Pauline writings EXIST and are ACTUAL written evidence from antiquity that EXPLAIN Jesus Christ was NOT a man, was God's Son and came FROM HEAVEN.

Christians BELIEVED the EXPLANATION in the Pauline writings.

The MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION based on actual WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity is that Jesus was BELIEVED to be a GHOST, a GOD, and a MAN simultaneously.

You have NO actual actual evidence to EXPLAIN HJ of NAZARETH.

You admit you have NOTHING so please stop posting what you think.

I don't care about what you think when you admit you have no actual evidence.

We have ACTUAL written evidence from and DATED by PALEOGRAPHY that EXPLAINS Jesus was a Ghost, a God and a Man.

MJers have the BEST EXPLANATION.

MYTH, MYTH, MYTH, MYTH is the best.

jakejonesiv

Archibald,

Let me quickly point out a few differences here with the mythical approach you are probably familiar with.

There is no denial that the author of various texts really intended to impute human birth, flesh and Jewish ancestor to Jesus. The outcome of these studies is that these texts just so happens all fall within the KR. On the other hand, the author(s) of the MR intended to represent Jesus as a docetic being (e.g. Phil 2:6-11).

The advantage of this approach is that these texts are analyzed in the context of very well documented Christological controversies that raged in the second century. We are dealing with known sects, no need to invent hypothetical churches or communities.

The modern Historical Jesus vs. Christ Myth controversy is an abstraction of modern times which the ancients really did know anything about. This is not to say that such research is invalid, it obviously has much importance. But when we read that Jesus “was born of a women” the author was not out to refute mythicism, he was out to refute docetism.

However, these studies do have an impact on the discussion of the historical Jesus. Once we lose the anchor of a first century Paul, the whole 1c. storyline becomes nebulous, and a belief in a historical Jesus becomes naïve.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

archibald

It's up for grabs, Dog-on. But one possible (very possible, IMO, in fact my preferred option) is that it referred to a human, who lived and died, who came to be considered as having divine qualities, in fact came to be believed as having descended from heaven. Ridiculous, I know, but apparently people in those days believed such things to be entirely possible. Same for resurrection of a dead human. There is, basically, no need of a mythicist or upper realm explanation. It may be the right one, but it's not required, and it runs counter to the texts.

Some even today still think it possible.

The text supports my preferred option more than it does any other, IMO.

The one way it wouldn't is if the earliest (Pauline) texts were so heavily revamped that they would say something entirely different, in which case the later writers switched to a different view. Given that this is speculative and that there is no evidence of a prior myther group, I am not inclined to see this as the most likely explanation. Though some apparently believe that the absence of this is due to the fact that mythicists morphed into docetics before any orthodox encountered them, or some other unevidenced and less parsimonius explanation.

archibald

You may need to have a chat with Stephan. His (what seemed quite 'strongly evidenced') evidence showed that 9 was missing, but, if I recall correctly, 8 and 10 either side were 'in'.

Generally, I think a reconstruction of what Maricion had in his texts would be very useful.

I think Stephan recently started a thread on this too.

My personal, somewhat uninformed view, that is to say my inclined starting position, would be to think it less likely that he cut it/them away, since adding/amending seems to be a more commonly evidenced activity generally, but that it would be possible in principle. Any actual clues would be useful.

I'm afraid I don't have time to explore this much more this afternoon. :]

archibald

I'm not sure what KR and MR are?

I agree.

It's possible. I have no way of feeling sure. I accept in principle that Paul may likely have been interpolated more than most scholars think, but how much and in exactly what ways, I'm not confident.

Having spent time previously on a couple of threads discussing possible Pauline interpolations, I came away not convinced that I should opt for them. It is speculation after all, and I prefer as little speculation as possible before changing my mind, though I do still allow that I may be wrong.

Orthodox scholars do, as you may imagine, explain the passage containing 'born of a woman' in their own way, obviously, with no need for interpolation, so I can't take it as a 'given obvious' that it's a dead giveaway interpolation, if you see what I mean.

Could you list the 'top 5' reasons, briefly why you think I should?

Prepare for me to initially furrow my brow if they are all 'lit crit', that is to say, 'sound more like something later'.

I'm not even averse to another 'interpolation case' thread, should you want to start one.

aa5874

These Christological controversies that RAGED in the 2nd century are ALSO clear indications that the Jesus story was INITIATED in that same 2nd century.

We EXPECTED the Jesus story to have CREATED MASSIVE controversies in the Jewish Community and in the 1st century BEFORE the documented 2nd century CONTROVERSIES in Rome.

We expected a LOGICAL CHRONOLOGY of the Jesus controversies.

If the Jesus story INITIATED in Judea then we EXPECTED Controversies to FIRST RAGE in Judea among NON-APOLOGETIC sources.

We have ZERO RAGE in Judea by Philo or Josephus.

In the NT, supposedly in Jerusalem Peter and later Paul claimed Jesus Christ DIED for the Sins of all mankind and the LATTER claimed Jesus Christ was the END of the LAW and yet we have NO RAGE and ZERO controversies by Philo and Josephus.

It was LATE in the 2ND century that the FIRST RAGE is DOCUMENTED by a ROMAN writer, NOT a JEWISH writer, in a "TRUE DISCOURSE" by Celsus.



The time of documented CONTROVERSIES and RAGE about any movement or character is a GOOD INDICATOR when the movement or character was FIRST known to those who were OUTRAGED by their activities or IDEALS.

1. The first documented controversy of Al Queda will not occur 130 years after Bin Laden is dead.

Controversies and outrage have been already documented.

2. The first documented controversy of the Black civil rights movement will NOT happen 130 years after Martin Luther King Jr is dead.

Controversies and outrage have already been documented.


The TIMING of the documented CONTROVERSIES of the Jesus story is a GOOD INDICATOR that it was INITIATED with the same time period.

The Jesus story is 2nd century based on the TIMING of the FIRST documented RAGE.

In antiquity, over 1600 years ago there were arguments about an "historical Jesus" and Jesus as God Incarnate, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

In the HJ/MJ argument, MYTH Jesus refers to the Jesus of FAITH, the Jesus that was born of the Holy Ghost, God and the Creator.

We have WRITINGS that SHOW people of antiquity were ARGUING whether Jesus was an ordinary man ("HISTORICAL JESUS), that people were also claiming Jesus was ALL SPIRIT ( MYTH Jesus) while others were ARGUING Jesus was BOTH AGhost of God and a man (MYTH Jesus).

Please SEE "ON the FLESH of CHRIST" by Tertullian and "Refutations Against All Heresies" and it will show that there were HJ/MJ arguments.

The controversies and outrage of the Jesus story was in the mid to late 2nd century because that is when the Jesus story was FIRST known by those who were outraged.

The BELIEF that a 2nd century anonymous Myth Fable was true is the best explanation for the Jesus cult.

gurugeorge

*scratches head*

Hmm, maybe we've been partly talking at cross-purposes in all this?

OK, "mythical" does not equate to "thought of as actually non-existing", right? We understand that for many ancient people, they thought their mythical beings were real beings, magical beings, divine beings, superhero-like beings, etc., etc. If they had any earthly aspects to their biographies, those too would have been thought of as real.

Certainly as at all times throughout history, there would have been some rationalists who thought those beings didn't exist, or were merely allegorical and nothing else, but I think that on the whole, we can take it that most believers in the cults of those beings thought they were real, i.e. really historical (had existed in their past, or did exist in divine realms, or whatever). e.g., to them, the gods really did sometimes take on a human form and talk to ordinary people.

So a description of a divine being coming to earth in human likeness is a myth.

The "Historical Jesus" question, as I understand it, is "does this myth have an origin in a human being, particularly a human being personally known to anyone involved at the time (particularly, anyone mentioned in any of the early texts), as recently alive, recently crucified, and thought of as recently resurrected?"

IOW, the question is simply "does the Christ myth have an euhemeristic origin?"

jakejonesiv

Why not the other way around?

Jake