PhilosopherJay

Hi Malachi,

I think that the referent in the original passage is not Christ but the people of Israel who are bringing the word of God to the world.

15And how are they [Jews] to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’...So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of God.

When the Anti-Jewish editor sees the passage "How beautfiul are the feet of those who bring good news," he is annoyed that the text is calling the Jews 'beautiful'. He writes in "But not all have obeyed the good news."

It is evident that the editor himself agrees that "they" refers to the Jews. It does not make sense for him to be saying "But not all Christ have obeyed the good news." He is declaring that not all Jews have obeyed the good news (that the kingdom of God is near).

Then he looks over at his scroll of Isaiah and adds the quote:
"Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’" Again he's trying to indicate that not all the Jews have acted like good Jews in passing along God's word.

We can be resonably sure that there were no Greek texts of Isaiah until Aquila published his translation circa 130. It makes no sense to be quoting Isaiah to Greeks before this point because they would not know what the writer was talking about. We can be reasonably certain that any quotes from Isaiah (and all the prophets for that matter) are coming from re-writters of the original Jewish text, certainly after 130 and most likely after 140 (giving Aquila's translation some time to circulate and become known).

I agree with you that the editor (and certainly not the original writer) is still not talking about an historical Christ. The editor has not started rewriting of other Jewish text to create the prophesized-historical Jesus gospel genre. He tackles that problem after he creates his version of the letters of Paul.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Niall Armstrong

Thanks for giving me your attention! Nothing improves us like a good sparring partner.

I see your point: Different standards are expected for someone trying to find coherence between Gospels and Epistles than for those who try to find disharmony. (Or is your point more subtle?)
But is the above right? A lot of Paul matches the Epistles (something that shouldn't surprise anyone), so it is only when other interpretations are readable from the text that "reading the Gospels into Paul" is to be discussed. As to disharmony, shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing whatever? Especially when they harmonize with a theory that says that Paul has different agenda to the Gospels?

Apart from this, shouldn't we look at religious texts with a critical eye? (Xians would expect no less from investigators of the claims of the Quran.) It's like we've been given a chance to go through Al Capone's financial records on behalf of the taxman. Any discrepancy should be lept upon, and particularly glaring inconsistencies taken as probable evidence of something shadier going on. If any receipts or other pieces of evidence are lacking we are in our right to ask what has become of them. We do in general believe he would preserve the legitimate documents, fabricate those he might need, and "lose" those that were embarrassing.
When it comes to taxes, "innocent till proven guilty" seldom applies.
If God can't keep his books in order, why should I believe him to be innocent of non-existence? :devil1:

Cheers!

jakejonesiv

What a punchline! :notworthy:

GakuseiDon

I don't understand what you mean by "a non-historical reference" here. Are you saying that, because he uses scripture, that the word really hasn't gone out?

Here is that section again:
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for
‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.’

I would say that Paul is referring to something that has actually happened, i.e. the Israelites have heard, and is using scriptures to show that this was expected. I can only see this as a historical reference. Do you think that Paul doesn't believe that this has actually happened on earth?

Ted Hoffman

Where is JGibson and Rick Sumner to help out GDon?

jakejonesiv

Why would anybody give a hoot what Paul said if thousands of eye witnesses, lead by the Eleven/Twelve Apostles and Seventy Disciples, were really spread out over the earth preaching the gospel to all the nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)?

It doesn't make a lick of sense. They would say, "Paul, you didn't even know the guy. What's that you say? 'he was a Jew, was born of a woman, and maybe had a brother? ' Is that the best you got? Dude, me and Jesus and John the baptist are cousins. Go find another gravy train, this is our gig."

GakuseiDon, you need to do a reality check. There is something wrong with your scenerio.

GakuseiDon

But, how do you know that that exact thing didn't happen? Perhaps Paul could have replied, "Dude, haven't I also seen the Risen Christ? Anyway, I checked with James and others in Jerusalem, and they said I was okay. Besides, all I care about is Christ and his resurrection, and what it means to the Gentiles. They don't care about all that law stuff that James and co keep going on about. Only I have the REAL scoop when it comes to the Gentiles -- given to me by Jesus himself!!! Did Jesus appear and tell THEM to go to the Gentiles???"

My scenario is used to question that Paul explaining something using "Scriptures" shouldn't mean that it suddenly becomes non-historical. This method seems to be used by mythicists to explain away problematic passages. I was questioning Malachi on why he thought that passage supports a "non historical" interpretation. Here are a couple of other passages in Romans:

Rom 2:23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.

Paul is supporting a theological point about something that he seems to believe is occuring with a passage from "Scriptures".

The next one seems to have implications for historicity, at least IMHO:

Rom 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."*

Paul seems to be claiming that Jesus was crucified in Jerulasem.

Malachi151

The problem GD, is that this is ALL Paul does. With the possible exception of the eucharist ritual in 1 Corinthians, Paul NEVER presents any words or teachings or acts of Jesus.

You can explain this away in any manner that you like, but the fact is that the first person that is widely acknowledged to have written about Jesus provides no support for the view of Jesus as a historical person.

You can claim that his writings don't necessarily prove that Paul didn't view Jesus as a historical person or have historical knowledge of the life of Jesus, but the fact remain that even if he did view him in this way and did know historical facts about him, he presented none of them in his writings.

Paul, the first major writer about Jesus Christ, provides no evidence FOR his existence.

Now, if you want to get into details, then Paul may not have even been the first, other documents such as Didache, The Ascension of Isaiah, etc., could actually have come before Paul, and they, of course, provide no evidence for a real Jesus either, indeed quite the opposite.

jakejonesiv

Duh? Yes! Matthew 28:19.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

The gospels don't need no stinkin' Paul.

Ben C Smith

As far as I can tell, the position that GakuseiDon is advocating is, in fact, the majority position amongst biblical scholars.

Let me hasten to add that being in the majority does not make one right.

Indeed, to question the majority position is just fine, and quite welcome. It is often a sign of good scholarship. But to question the majority position as if no one in his or her right mind could hold to it (reality check??) is usually a sign of quackery.

I do not know precisely what GDon thinks of the historicity of Matthew 28.19, but if you had thrown that verse at me in this kind of debate you would be guilty of burning a straw man.

Ben.