ichabod crane

Ichabod: Magdlyn, I know Hebrew (and Greek), and I can tell you, as someone pointed out, that not only is this not true, but whoever wrote it does not understand the first thing about the language, and did not check it out. The Hebrew is 'Eli`ezer, and it consists of two words 'El (God) with the pronomial suffix meaning "my" (i.e. my God) and the word `ezer, which means a helper. Since the verb "to be" is typically omitted in Hebrew, the name just means "my God is a helper". You need to go to more reliable sources for your information.

I'm well aware of the link you mentioned: I've read the stuff there in the past.

There are lots of vague parallels between pagan religions and Christianity, but vague parallels don't prove influence. I don't see any example of people interacting with Pauline texts to show how the influence is present.

Ichabod: Very arguably! I've read numerous Pauline scholars, and I don't find any examples of "eucharistic tradition" being seen as central. Current scholarship can be summarised as follows. Some scholars see his works as uncentred (Whitley, Hooker, Sanders). Some see a soteriological centre (Bultmann, Kasemann). Some see an eschatological centre (Schweitzer, Dodd, Cullmann). Some see a Christological centre (Cerfaux, Ziesler, Fitzmyer). Some are in other categories (Bousett, Stendahl). So I think you're going to have to do a LOT of exegesis to demonstrate a eucharistic centre.

Ichabod: No it wasn't. But that doesn't disprove Jewish origin.

Ichabod: But surely you must be aware that Maccoby's position is not widely held in scholarly circles, from whatever religious or non-religious perspective? I could cite a dozen scholars who believe that he was from a Rabbinic tradition, and then simply say that I'll take their word over yours! Are you aware of the debate on the so-called "New Perspective" on Paul, kicked off by E.P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism", one of the landmark works in recent Pauline scholarship? Paul did not interpret the texts the same way as the Rabbis, but he employed their *method* of interpretation, which is not quite the same thing. Sanders argues that Paul after his conversion misrepresented Palestinian Judaism, but he agrees that he came from that background. It is an extensive study of the historical context of 1st century Judaism.

Ichabod: I'll have to get back to this, because I have to go and look up Rabbinic interpretations, in order to demonstrate the point. But an example of a very detailed scholarly analysis is Hays, R.B. 1989, Echoes of scripture in the letters of Paul, Yale University Press, New Haven, which I've used in the past. I have limited time to look things up, but I can check it out in the library. I have read a lot of 1st century Rabbinic interpretation, though.

Ichabod: I don't. The Ebionites are just one example of Christian belief at the time. But the point is that Tacitus does put the origin of the sect in Judea.

Ichabod: According to Acts, he did! He persecuted the church at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3), and then set off for Damascus, whereupon he had his famous vision.

Ichabod: Yes but you've now pushed the origin of the sect back at least before AD 90.

Ichabod: I'd have to re-read it, but I can't see how you can say that the gospel of Thomas is anti-apocalyptic. You can certainly say that apocalyptic elements are absent, but that's not quite the same thing. The apocalyptic elements are throughout the gospels to a massive extent, and it's hard to believe they didn't originate with Jesus. Again, this is supported by the fact that apocalyptic worldviews had become well-established in a Jewish context at the time. Incidentally, Paul's works are filled with eschatological concerns, so much so that, as noted above, some scholars see that as his centre. This again supports the importance of apocalyptic to the movement. Paul reinterpreted the eschatology of the sect after the end didn't come as Jesus predicted (although there is every indication that Paul himself believed that the end of the world was imminent, e.g. I Cor. 15:51).

Ichabod: I'd say things like this: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

The world would be a better place if people made an effort to live along those lines.

Ichabod: Put it this way. There are a whole bunch of leaders of a movement who knew the historical Jesus. You are a new comer to the movement, but your greater brilliance makes you a far more natural leader. However, the fact that you didn't know Jesus personally makes you a "second class" apostle. So what do you do? You take the emphasis of the theology off the historical Jesus. Instead, you emphasize the wonderous visions that you have had of the exalted Christ. Seems simple enough to me.

GakuseiDon

Shockingly bad. Badly researched, badly referenced, bad logic. I could take you through the "Death of the god man" section and point out the problems in it if you like, though perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate, as it would be OT to the OP.

GakuseiDon

I agree, and I think it is even more simple that that. Other than place names and people's names, Paul barely mentions any historical details about anything. It's simply not in his style. I don't think there is any silence that needs to be explained away.

ichabod crane

I've just been having another look at Doherty's web site. Interesting, but I can see lots of problems. Let's start with one. He writes:

Doherty: The burning issue, for example, of association and table fellowship, whether Jew could mix with gentile, whether the ritually pure could eat meals with the impure, was solved by having Jesus portrayed as condemning the Pharisees for their obsession over purity, as one who had consorted with outcasts and gentiles.

OK, if the gospels were late, if gentiles were already included in the Christian religion, and they were designed to justify gentile inclusion and be down on the Jews, then why do the gospels portray Jesus as not being particularly interested in the gentiles? For example:

Mt. 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Mt. 6:7 "When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

Mt. 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mt. 15:24-26 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she [a Gentile woman] came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

Lk. 22:25-26 But he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.

Surely these, and like quotes, count strongly against Doherty's thesis? Surely these verses are easily explicable if Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher?

Vorkosigan

The problem with the position you and Ichabod hold is that this sort of absence of historical detail runs through so many of the Epistles, not merely Paul's. If it were only Paul, it would be less of an issue. But it ain't just Paul, as Doherty points out here.

It's untenable, for it assumes that not merely Paul, but also his audience, was uninterested in the historical Jesus. That is a bit much to believe. If your position is true, we should find a comment or two in Paul that addresses this issue, Paul defending this rhetorical move, something akin to "You ask me about Jesus' life on earth, but I write of Christ crucified and reborn." Paul was not the only wandering fruitcake preaching about the crucified sage; he himself points out that there were many. It seems hard to imagine that none of them mentioned Jesus, and that nobody asked Paul any questions about it, and he never dealt with the issue. Apparently Jesus' historical life was of no interest to anyone, Paul or his discussants.

Further, Paul has no trouble discussing the Apostles as such, he refers to Peter five times in Galatians, sneers at him, and dismisses him. Moreover, in Gal 2:8 Paul says God, not Jesus, assigned Peter to be an Apostle to the circumcision.

Again, in 1 Cor 15:12-16 Paul specifically refers to Jesus' crucifixation and raising, without ever mentioning it as a historical event. If Paul had regarded Jesus as an actual historical figure who had died in his own day, among people whom Paul knew firsthand, this whole passage could not have been written. Four times, Paul rhetorically refers Christ's not being raised. If he had been raised nearby in space and time, that would not really be possible, or else it would have been written much differently -- "Do you, brothers, think that James and Cephas wait in Jerusalem in vain?" This passage makes sense only if we grant that Paul and his audience knew nothing of some recent historical story.

Doherty nails this home: "The point is, and it’s unmistakable, Paul is saying that knowledge about Jesus’ raising has come from God, and that his own preaching testimony, true or false, is something which relates to information which has come from God—in other words, through revelation. Not history, not apostolic tradition about recent events on earth."

It is not merely that Paul does not mention history. It is that whenever Paul demonstrates knowledge of Jesus' deeds, meaning, and purpose, he is citing scripture. Positive evidence, not merely missing comments, tells against this interpretation of DG's and IC's.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

I don't think this is much of an objection. It assumes that Paul in his writing will pander to his audience. But that is not the Paul I see in the epistles! He is the one setting the agenda. He is the wonderful apostle. He would have every reason not to address the historical Jesus, because by even mentioning him he weakens his own authority. By the way, as far as I am aware there is nowhere anywhere in the Pauline epistles where he says anything like "You ask me such-and-such". He just doesn't interact with his audience like that.

Of course! Admitting Peter's historical existence is no threat to Paul. It is only the historicity of Jesus that is a threat.

Doherty's comments on a few non-Pauline passages where Jesus is not mentioned by name. But he argues that the term Lord (kurios) refers to God, in order to avoid the implications of a number of passages in James. The problem is, and I am happy to prove it, that in Paul's writing (at least in Romans, which I have gone through with a fine tooth comb for an assignment recently) the word "kurios" as used by him ALWAYS refers to Jesus and NEVER to God. The only instances where kurios refers to God are when he is quoting from the Septuagint. But "Lord" was the standard Christian title applied to Jesus. So unless the writer of James lived in a different linguistic universe to Paul, references to "Lord" are prima facie evidence of reference to Jesus (see James 1:1 for instance, where the writer starts off "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ", using the typically Pauline dichotomy between God and the Lord, Jesus).

Ah, I'm pretty sure that GakuseiDon's position and mine are as far apart as mine and yours, Vorkosigan.

By the way, Vorkosigan, you haven't addressed the problem I raised with Doherty's thesis.

Magdlyn

This is a bit OT , but in Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, he posits Jesus was depicted as concerned with "putting a fence around the Torah" as the Pharisees were doing in those days. Going the extra mile, so to speak. The Pharisees, he says, were so concerned with keeping God's law, they kept themselves in a state of priestly pre-ritual purity, while not even being priests.

Some of J's sayings, (lusting in the heart being as bad as adultery, etc), reflect this Pharasaic Weltanschaung.

"The gospels?" All of your examples except one (and that was Luke), were from Matthew, who was concerned with Judaizing Mark's spare text.

No, seems to me they are examples of Matt "correcting" Mark.

ichabod crane

But that makes the problem worse, not better. It places Matthew even later in time. The later you go, the more gentile the Christian sect is. The greater the motivation to do what Doherty claims would be done. So why Judaize the text and portrary Jesus as unconcerned with gentiles? Isn't that an ad hoc hypothesis to explain the data contrary to the thesis? The trouble is these quotes betray a very negative view of gentiles that would not go over well in a gentile dominated church.

I have to go to bed now, guys, but I'll see you all tomorrow.

Magdlyn

Are ancient Hebrew and ancient Egyptian completely linguistically unrelated? (I am not a speaker of ancient Greek or Hebrew, BTW, just picking up a few words as I go along.)

I wonder, because many of the names in the Torah sound quite Egyptian to me. Would there not have been swapping of terms between cultures back in 1000 BCE, as there have always been in more recent times?

So, Eleazar, or however we spell it in English, means, "God helps?" What does Osiris mean? Apparently is is questionable, as the language's meanings are somewhat lost in the mists of time...It seems to have something to do with the strength of the eye of God, ie: the sun. Strength to help or support? I am just wondering...thanks for taking an interest.

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm

The parallels between the resurrecting myths of Osiris and Lazarus, however "vague," are presented here, comparing GJn 11 and a Pyramid text.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healings.html

1 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha...
11 [Jesus] went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.�...
(discussion follows over what euphemistic refs to sleep and death really mean [physical? spiritual?], as Paul presents in his letters. Jesus seems to insist upon a physical death, which is then immediately contradicted by Thomas' interpretation)
(16 Thomas --"Let us also go that we may die with him," which seems to refer to a mystery religion ritualistic symbolic death and rebirth)
17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus has already been in the tomb for four days...
33 When Jesus saw her [Mary] weeping...he was deeply moved. (Poor Mary, first her brother dies, later her boyfriend! Then they are both resurrected! How much emotional trauma can one woman take? Note: Isis was Osiris' sister and consort. Please, no quibbling over whether Mary called Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were the same character.)
38 Jesus...came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance.
39 “Take away the stone,� he said. “But, Lord,� said Martha, the (less important, less enlightened, ie: Nepthys) sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odour, for he has been there four days.�
40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?�
41 So they took away the stone...
43...Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.�
44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.�

Utterance 670
O Osiris the King, you have gone, but you will return; you have slept [but you will awake]; you have died but you will live.
Utterance 670
Osiris speaks to Horus, for he has removed the evil [which was on the king] on his fourth day.
Utterance 670
they come to Osiris the King at the sound of the weeping of Isis, at the cry of Nephthys, at the wailing of these two spirits.
Utterance 665A
The tomb is opened for you, the doors of the tomb chamber are thrown open for you.
Utterance 412
O flesh of the king, do not decay, do not rot, do not smell unpleasant.
Utterance 620
I am Horus, O Osiris the King, I will not let you suffer. Go forth, wake up.
Utterance 703
O King, live, for you are not dead. Horus will come to you that he may cut your cords and throw off your bonds; Horus has removed your hindrance.

Magdlyn

You are just pointing out the embarrassment of the contradictions in the canon.

Different regions had different gospels. You assume an early harmony between all of them. If some of the gospels (not to mention Pauls' letters) were written in Antioch, in Alexandria and had a more Greek focus, and one, Matt, was written in Palestine, so what?

Remember, dozens of other gospels (acts, letters, creation stories, etc), with all kinds of POVs were burnt by the canonizers, their recopying made unlawful, their believers exiled or executed. They kept Matt in, perhaps, to make the story seem more authentically Jewish. The catholicizers wanted the Tanakh cachet to legitimize their new religion (while at the same time, to discredit the original owners of it, by claiming Xtians to be the "new Israel").