Doctor X

I have to agree with Gawen, raise my eyebrow and note "fascinating."

A brief FYI:

There is no "a" in Greek. The text used the definite article ton.

Continue. . . .

--J.D.

Ted Hoffman

Most of his case? See, this is flat out WRONG.

Let me remind you of the 12 pieces of the Jesus Puzzle:

1] Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

[2] There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

[3] The early epistles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new “salvation� movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

[4] Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

[5] The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

[6] The pagan “mystery cults� of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.

[7] The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul’s heavenly Christ.

[8] All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.

[9] The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of “midrash,� a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

[10] “Q,� a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

[11] The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.

[12] Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.

Epistolary silence, which you are bemoaning for being speculative, is just one. And we havent even mentioned the apostolic fathers like Shepherd of Hermas, Didache etc and their usage of "the son". When you bring in Harold Leidners work, MacDonald's Homeric Epics and the Gospel according to Mark, the argument concerning lack of apostolic tradition in the first century, when you look at John etc etc, the Christ Myth Hypothesis is secure for ever.

Argument for the Best Explanation - thats the main strength. Jesus Myth Hypothesis accounts for just about everything that needs to be accounted for.

Doherty doesnt just argue that there is no evidence for a HJ: he argues that Jesus was mythical. Please appreciate the difference.

Its easy to claim an elephant is thin when you are only grabbing its tail.

GakuseiDon

Jacob Aliet, I quoted from Gal 1:3, JA. That has the word "Lord" (kurios) as a title for Jesus Christ, the same word used in Gal 1:19. Why you are looking at Gal 1:1, I have no idea.

It is "Lord Jesus Christ" in Gal 1:3, and "brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19. So, can YOU admit that on that single point, Doherty's point is weak?

spin

I do hate getting repetitive, but first, do you remember what the name Ahijah means? Yeah, that's right, "my brother is the lord". What can that name signify? You wanna postulate that someone really was the brother of Yah?

I tried to batter into Layman's head that when Paul uses the absolute "the Lord", not "my lord" or "the lord (someone)", he is referring to Yahweh. When the term "o kurios" is used without any qualifications, ie in the absolute, a reader understands that it refers to God.

This is not strange for it is how the word "kurios" used in the LXX. Look at Ps 110:1 with its "the Lord said to my lord" (Gk: eipen o kurios tw kuriw mou, Heb: N'M YHWH L-'DNY). Reading it might be confusing if you didn't realise that o kurios, "the lord" refers to God, o kurios mou, "my lord", does not.

The use of "kurios" in "our lord Jesus Christ", ie as a title, Gal 1:3, is not an absolute use of the word, so it is unrelated to Gal 1:19, o adelfos tou kuriou, an absolute use of "kurios". This last phrase is analogous to the Hebrew name I quoted at the beginning, Ahijah, whose ultimate significance I'd be happy if you could clarify.


spin

Doctor X

Still, it would be helpful if Paul refered to someone else as o adelphos tou kuriou, particularly someone who clearly could not be a brother of an HJ such a Timothy or Bob.

--J.D.

spin

But when did the tradition regarding this particular Jacob, ie the one involved with Jerusalem messianists, being the brother of Jesus, first hit paper?


spin

Doctor X

No bloody idea.

Much later, Mk has no problem presenting a "parable" in which his mother and brothers come to take him away [Mk 3:32b--Ed.], and Lk and Mt feel no need to correct that point. Is that because he had brothers--the HJ--or did the tradition arise? I have no idea.

However, if Paul is refering to James as the brother of the HJ--whom he clearly disagrees with--then it suggest strongly a HJ--of which we know squat all about!

I have not read Doherty yet, but it seems the "worst" he could suffer is that all of the details are mythic and there was a HJ all details of whom are lost.

Obviously, the fight for a HJ comes from two reasons:

1. Historical--we would like to get the right answer.
2. Religious--with a HJ people have hope the "message is true" whatever that means.

As you demonstrated with your example, one does not need a whole hell of a lot to create a character. As one mentor put it regarding the HJ, Moses, and other such characters--"All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

I can only find that it means "Brother (friend) of YHWH". Why would the word "Lord" be used instead of "God"? Are you saying it was wrongly translated from Hebrew to Greek?

Ted Hoffman

Gakuseidon,
I dont remember you quoting Galatians 1:3 - and I was responding to Gregg.
I can see spin has responded to your claims. I know jack about Greek so I won't add much to that.

Secondly, I argued that its clear that Paul seems to use the word "Lord" ambiguously - its probable that transcribers or interpolators imported the Gospel traditions into Galatians hence the resulting ambiguity or inconsistency.

O kurios...o kurios mou...
mon kurios c'est la meilleur deux...
O kurios makes me very curious...

There was something he said about "in the absolute sense"...
love...my love

spin

No. YHWH is regularly translated into Greek as kurios. It is also translated into English as Lord.

Your problem is relating "brother (friend!?) of the Lord" to Jesus. Why should "o kurios", regularly translated in the LXX from YHWH alone, have anything to do with Jesus??


spin