Toto

I don't think you are correct on this. If you don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion, you would not construct a theory and argue for it as the best, but there is nothing in ABE that requires you to build a theory when there is no evidence.

Steve Weiss

Rather than debating whether or not there was a flesh and blood biblical Jesus shouldn't the focus be on determining whether the entire OT and NT is fictional or factual? If the story is one of fiction, then debates about the reality of characters within the story are moot. The "facts" would indicate that the "Bible" (choose your version of it) was wholly fictional, written at unknown times, by unknown authors for political purposes. No original texts survive, and there is no valid corroboration for the events related in the holy scriptures, and only the attribution of "sacredness" to it prevents it from being properly categorized as fiction.

Much of what passes for ancient history should be reclassified as fiction, and the further one goes back in history the less credibility such works have. In the case of the OT and NT for some "reason" oldness seems to confer credibility to the source rather than the opposite. There are valid disputes over contemporary history even when sources are readily available; how much more debatable ancient history is without such credible sources is self-evident. What is left is opinions, assertions, guesses and frauds.

aa5874

Criteria #5 of ABE destroys the HJ.

Once a person assumes HJ then every non-historical event of Jesus needs an ad-hoc explanation based on pure speculation NOT on observed data.

In the Jesus story, Jesus was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost without an human father. HJ needs ad-hoc explanations to counter the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.

These ad-hoc explanations will themselves be baseless fabrications or inventions.

And every ad-hoc explanations will then present problems which will further need more baseless ad-hoc explanations.

For example, it requires that either Joseph, Mary or both lied or someone else lied about the VIRGIN birth of Jesus if Jesus did exist and was registered in the census of Cyrenius.

The ad-hoc explanations to counter the virgin birth of Jesus may be endless and without any observed data or statement.

Criteria 5 of ABE rejects HJ as a likely solution to the status of the Jesus of the NT.

The theory that Jesus was just a story and believed to be true does not require any ad-hoc explanations. The observed data or statements can be found in the NT.

The virgin birth of Jesus was part of a story that people in antiquity believed was true.

Criteria 5 of ABE supports MJ.

JoeWallack

JW:
I have never seen any professional historical methodology from Mr. Doherty. His detractors can not complain because they do not have one either. Where Mr. Doherty is correct is that in order to conclude MJ you have to have at least one source for MJ and Mr. Doherty has recruited Paul as witness for MJ. Mr. Doherty has confessed here that he is an Advocate for MJ and not a Judge for HJ/MJ. If he just wants to remain an Advocate, fine. He needs no PHM (professional historical methodology) because he is mainly arguing with Advocates for HJ who do not have one either. If and when he decides he wants to be a Judge, than he needs one.

Note my distinction between "methodology" and PHM. "Methodology" does not necessarily mean much by itself. It could consist of proof-texting and that is the dominant methodology of both sides here. The benefit of PHM is that the criteria are the same for all arguments and because of its comprehensive nature, differences in identifying individual pieces of evidence (such as TF) will make relatively little difference in the weight of the conclusion.

I have Faith that both sides here are capable of constructing PHM but realize it would largely expose the weakness of their argument due to the overall lack of quality evidence (Hoffman, look out!). You have a real source problem when the only potential quality witness (Paul) lacks credibility and can be claimed as a witness for both sides.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

GakuseiDon

Yes, I think so, at least in that context. That is, we would need to ask why the interpolators were interested in added statements that promoted either an ahistorical or a historical Jesus.

For example, for those who believe that "born of a woman" was added to Paul, why add that phrase? Why not add "born of Mary"?

spamandham

We see Jesus depicted as historical in the gospels. Is it really difficult to understand why later editors would want that same Jesus to shine through in Paul?

Doesn't this same question apply if you presume the phrase is genuine?

Toto

The interpolator was not concerned with adding historical details for the benefit of 21st century questers. The interpolator only needed to provide a theological correction and establish that Jesus was born of a woman, to counter the heretics who claimed that he arrived on earth by some other means.

spin

Gak's question is actually an interesting one.

I don't see the need to appeal to an interpolator to deal with the comment "born of a woman". For Jesus to function as a valid surrogate in place of believers who would normally be considered as having failed to fulfill the law and are therefore under the curse of the law, he needs to be able to fulfill the law himself, ie he needs to be under the law (ie human) and to have unfailingly kept the law. If both conditions are met he can be seen as a worthy substitute for those who have come under the penalty of the law. The second is a matter of his actions, while the first is a result of having been born of a woman.

The fact that Paul doesn't say "born of Mary" suggests that the information wasn't available to Paul, which is of course consistent with the Jesus tradition developing after the time of Paul.


spin

aa5874

So what do you know "Paul" wrote?

I find it completely odd and a bit absurd that in a Canon where Jesus is presented as a God/man that the Church did not realize that the Pauline writers, who supposedly preached and had churches all over the Roman Empire, were actually HERETICS and did not ever preach that Jesus was born of a virgin as found in the Scriptures.

The Pauline writers should have known the Scripture, Isaiah 7.14 where a woman should conceive and bear a son.

Isa 7:14 - What interpolator! The Pauline writers knew the Scriptures and the prophets.

Romans 1:1-3 - The Pauline writers do need an interpolator to claim Jesus was made of a woman.

ApostateAbe

Mostly with you. I think the best way to make sense of the purpose of a phrase is to look at the whole sentence.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

It seems to be the same theological point that I heard in Sunday school: Christ needed to be a man in order to be accepted among men, represent men and "redeem" men.

So, spin, I am with on your second paragraph. I am not with you on the third paragraph, because it seems to follow that it is irrelevant that Jesus was born from Mary--naming such a name may distract from the point that Paul was making. The point was that Jesus was born from a woman, which makes him a man, and the specific mother did not matter.