archibald

'In Romans 9:6-8, the gentiles are characterized as Abraham's 'seed' in a non-physical way, opening wide the door for an understanding of Christ's relationship to Abraham and David in the same mystical fashion. Such a relationship involving an eternal Son need not have 'begun' at any specific point in time.'

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...esDonJNGNM.htm

Very odd conclusion. Why introduce the word 'mystical'? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a lovely word, and clearly some are very fond of it indeed, but presumably the gentiles weren't mystical beings, even though they maybe weren't said to be 'born under the law', like a certain someone else was. Was Abraham seen as mystical? (Were Moses, Adam and David all 'mystical'?). Maybe someone went out the window of understanding instead of using the door.

andrewcriddle

Note that 2 Enoch exists in several rather different Slavonic recensions. The reference to prisoners hanging comes IIUC from the long recension which is probably not original.
Emperor Julian (the Apostate) and Sallustius both lived in the 4th century CE and were Neo-Platonists, ie heavily influenced by the 3rd century philosopher Plotinus and his successors.

Andrew Criddle

archibald

Thanks Andrew.

In view of all that Earl wrote in his recent responses to Don, I am now willing, in principle, to consider that there may have been a 'world of Platonic myth' into which Paul could have placed Jesus.

I am still not inclined to think that he did, and here are the first 5 reasons which come to mind, just at this moment:

1. It's not sufficiently clear. Presumably we are able to tell that the other mythical figures cited as examples were described as such (if it were unclear, presumably we wouldn't be able to cite them). It seems we have to bend over backwards to find possible meanings of phrases in Paul which are anything more than ambiguous. For his pre-crucifixion and during crucifixion Jesus, I mean. Obviously his post-crucifixion Jesus, who takes up the bulk of Paul's references, is going to be non-earthly. You'd nearly think that if Paul was setting his Pre-Cruc Jesus as unearthly, he was deliberately not making it apparent. I'm surprised nobody has added this to the hypothesis. OTOH, somebody probably already has. :]

2. Too many seeming references to earthly or human or fleshly Jesus. Someone listed 90. I know some are stronger than others. Maybe some are later additions too. But I don't think I've seen anyone trash the whole list, or even most of it, or indeed set that list against a similar (though presumably much shorter and less unambiguous) list of 'mythical' references. And I don't think anyone has yet said that such earthly/humanly/fleshly references populated the other myth examples. So, in a nutshell, Paul's story doesn't seem to be enough like the others cited.

So, we seem to have this multiple exercising going on, on the one hand to get 'world of myth' meanings out of ambiguous phrases, and on the other hand, to get earthly phrases minimized and/or trashed. There just seems to be far too many individual hoops to jump through. Especially when the alternative is comparatively straightforward.

3. The unusuality, dare I even say almost unique quality, of a myth character having been fully transformed into an earthly one in writings which come not too much later (it seems), and not just some writings, but virtually all (I'm not forgetting Hebrews, but so far it's even less clearly about a mythical figure than Paul, as far as I can see). No unambiguous traces of Jesus as myth after a relatively short period of time and no sign of anyone, Christian or otherwize, commenting or denouncing the idea. In fact, I can't think of a parallell example of such a thing. John Frum is about the best, and he's not on the same scale or detail. Plus, he's not exactly part of a long list. Unlike the list of eschatological prophets who were (as far as we know) real. :]

4. The 'Q source'.

5. Paul's epistles saying that he had joined a cult which he had perscuted beforehand but with whose views he now tallied, and the 'silence' in Paul as to him being the first and/or only witness, if he was.

I say all the above mainly to recap for myself. I don't expect a detailed reply. Apart from anything, I can't recall which side of the fence you are on.

Doug Shaver

By "stronger," do you mean "less ambiguous"?

It seems to me that if Paul had referred to Jesus even half that many times in such a way that no reasonable person could doubt that he was talking about a man of this world, then Christian apologetic Web sites at least would be crawling with that factoid. As it is, even the most conservative Christians seem to be under the impression that in their search for Paul's testimony to Jesus' humanity, they are stuck with "born of a woman," "seed of David," "James, brother of the lord," and "the night he was betrayed." If they cannot find any others, then there are no others.

Doug Shaver

It doesn't exist, and therefore it cannot be evidence for anything.

We may have good reason to believe it did exist. We may have some good guesses as to what was in it. But guesses aren't evidence, and anyway those guesses are nothing but inferences from material that is in documents that do exist. It is those existing documents that constitute the only evidence we can use.

Kapyong

Gday,

Seemingly?
i.e. they are ambiguous and uncertain.
90?
What a laugh - 90% of them are a joke - they do NOT refer to an earthly Jesus at all. They are just interpreted that way.

In fact there are maybe 3 or 4 passages which MAY imply an earthly Jesus.


K.

archibald

Yes. I meant less ambiguous, though only arguably so, since if this were any other eschatological prophet from history, we'd be inclined to see them as even less ambiguous. And we don't need to go to any apologetics sites to see them cited. A list of 90 (I believe, I didn't tally them up, but it was a long list) was posted here on this thread, and as far as I am aware, no one has yet addressed them as a set. So, we have a large set, some of which are stronger than others, but all of which, when seen as an extended pattern, give the strong impression that the most coherent explanation is that they refer to a non-mythical Jesus. That, and no clear indication that this is a story set in an upper realm, at least not until after the death. That and the evidence for additional, very early narratives which didn't come from Paul, but elsewhere. That and lack of analogies for mythical prophets being treated as, or switched to, earthly with a few decades of a 'myth'. That and the fact that Myth theories are fringe and have not successfully passed through critical review, either by scholars or Classical historians. That and the fact that there is already a more parsimonious explanation, which doesn't require anywhere near as much hoop jumping. That and lack of actual, physical evidence for a lot of supposed interpolations. That and the shortage of evidence of a myth sect, bar scrabbling around among the Docetics...........

Basically, the set of 90 references is itself only a subset of a larger pattern, which is not yet, as a whole, sufficiently countered by what is at best, an interesting alternative hypothesis, which incidentally seems to thrive largely on amateur internet forums where lots bring their own personal unorthodox theories. Some with diagrams. :]

Yes, let's adopt your criteria. Kinda rules out suggestions that stuff was interpolated, unless we have an extant ms without the supposed interpolation. :thumbs:

If we rule out 'good guesses as evidence', then we may as well close down this thread, if not indeed the whole topic. Potential double standards much? :]

Doug Shaver

My point was not that we have to go there to see them. My point was that if we do go there, we won't see them.

I just did address them as a set.

I don't have time to address all of them one by one. I could possibly take the time to address 10 of them, but then you'd say, "Hey, you didn't say anything about the other 80, so I win!" I'm not playing that game.

archibald

"I just did address dismiss them as a set".

There. Fixed. Though as I said, 'subset' might be a better word, given the larger pattern I set out.

Oh and the 'argument from not found on apologetics websites' was as flawless as the 'we can only use the texts we have' methodology.

Toto

Where exactly are these 90 references? I've lost track.