Amaleq13

I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude from the entire quote that the speaker thinks his opponent is talking about a completely different John.

I think your second option completely ignores the final statement which clearly implies a claim of mistaken identity (ie a second man by the same name).

As I've already said, if we only had the first part, you would be entirely correct to say we can't tell if the speaker thinks his opponent is describing a different person. It seems to me more likely a reference to differing perceptions of the same guy but it might be intended as a suggestion of mistaken identity. When the speaker uses "another", however, that clearly carries an implication of a second individual.

You've claimed repeatedly that it is "common" for people to refer to differing perceptions of the same person as "another" but it isn't anything I've ever heard nor have you offered any evidence to establish it. If there are people who speak that way, it certainly is not common.

Please look at the concordance at Blue Letter and read every passage where Paul uses the word allos. He never uses it in the sense you suggest. He always uses it in the sense Doherty is suggesting. It always means a separate entity "different from the first" (ie THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD).

TedM

Thanks for the reply. I already looked at the Blue Letter, and do think that the use of allos implies a second person. I still think though that in cases where someone is being described very differently than what a person conceives that person to be, it wouldn't be unusual at all to refer to the first description as being that of "another X". To me, "another Jesus" conveys a stronger, more meaningful contrast than does "a different Jesus". Consider a person (John) who always gets into trouble, is rude, foulmouthed. If, suddenly someone else describes John as model citizen, polite and law-obeying, and you KNOW they are talking about the same individual that you know as a thug, I think the following statement by you would sound reasonable:

"You're talking about some other John than the one I know."

Their description is of not just someone who is "different" but is SO different it is as though he is a whole other (another) person as far as you are concerned. That's the sensibility that I think Paul would have. "Another" conveys a stronger emotional response than does "different". I am interpretating "another Jesus" as "another kind of Jesus", and I think Paul's use of "allos" may have been intended to convey the meaning that his opponents' Jesus was so different from his that as far as he was concerned their Jesus was a completely different person/being than his Jesus. Theirs was--to Paul-- "another" Jesus.


At first I suggested that this was just another way of saying "another gospel". After re-reading 2 Cor more closely I can't help but wonder if the "another Jesus" part of the verse is hypothetical based on both how it is worded and the fact that Paul doesn't seem to defend his Jesus against theirs. That silence seems very unexpected if it is not hypothetical.


And, if Jesus were historical, I would expect--as we see today--many different conceptions as to both who he was while on earth (ie what divine vs human elements he possessed) and what he is like in the resurrected/divine state. Religious adherants tend to be very possessive of their own religious conceptions, so had there been a number of conceptions and religious cults which formed around them it just doesn't sound that odd to me to refer to the preaching of "another Jesus", because to each different group "their" Jesus would have been very much like a whole different person/being than the Jesus of their opponents.

ted

Amaleq13

If it isn't unusual, find an example. I think it only exists in your mind.

Why do you keep giving examples of what you wish Paul had written as though it is evidence of what he has written? The person who offers the most examples of what they would like a phrase to mean doesn't get to declare that the meaning, Ted.

It only clarifies your opinion but I already get it. I understand your interpretation and continue to deny its plausibility.

Actual examples from the real world would certainly help your cause.

Are you arguing this so strenuously because you think it somehow denies a historical Jesus?

Amaleq13

Based on some PM's exchanged with S.C.Carlson, if there is any significance in Paul's choice of word for "another", we don't know what it is.

TedM

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004/04/...interview.html (another John)

http://lfdeale.blogspot.com/ (another Bob)

These aren't the greatest examples, and I will agree that it isn't a common phrase. On the other hand the idea doesn't seem that off, but maybe I've brainwashed myself..


Doherty uses the diverse/multiple views of Jesus as an argument against a historical Jesus.

ted

Amaleq13

I can't find the example for "Fafblog!" but I agree that the "another Bob" is not a good example from "Muse". The whole "Bob" concept is incoherent but I don't see how "Bob does not create his own reality. There is another Bob that creates reality for him." suggests the author isn't talking about a completely different entity. He seems to be talking about two Bobs to me.

I'm not sure that is correct but, as far as I can tell, Doherty's interpretation holds true whether there was a historical Jesus or not.

TedM

It is weird. It was too late for try and make much sense of it. Here is the other one:

This one is a bit closer perhaps.