post tenebras lux

And Chris, are you yet ready to let us know what it is that archeology has confirmed 'surrounding' the Jesus story, as per your comment about the 'bigger picture'?

gurugeorge

I have defined my understanding of visionary experience and mystical experience in this thread already. I can understand that you haven't feverishly pored over my every word to catch every pearl of wisdom dropping from my, erm, fingers, but you can't say I haven't laid out what I mean.

Just for you, though, because you're such a jolly fellow, here it is again. What I'm calling visionary experience is the archetypal religious "thing" - i.e. somebody claims to have been in communication and conversation with some "god" or "spirit" X who gives forth some wisdom, promulgates a way of life or laws, and tells the listener to go forth and spread the word. Mysticism, on the other hand, is a non-dual experience, sometimes but not invariably connected with visionary experience, whereby the person's sense of self disappears, is seen through or somehow absorbed in a larger sense of being whatever they consider to be the "ultimate" - whether that be God, Mind, the Universe, the Absolute, whatever. Myth, as the handy online American Heritage dictionary informs us, is "a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society."

Now look at Paul's Epistles as a whole. There's a fair amount of parochial stuff to do with organisation of the movement. There's acres of stuff to do with theology, morality and mores. There's a modest amount of stuff that looks mystical, and a modest amount of stuff about what rationalists nowadays call "woo-woo" (prophecy, visions, etc.), and there are a few, tiny references that could be historical references. (I'm not that het up about possible interpolations, btw, I've never used that argument, I just put the point in for the sake of completeness; but since there are a few Epistles which have been deemed to have been not by Paul already, there's precedent, and I do like the Detering stuff that I've read - it is an alternative mythicist view that I like, particularly the "Paul" = "Simon Magus" angle. But it's also interesting to see how much can be said without assuming any more interpolations than respected scholars seem to normally assume - to see, as Doherty does, how far you can go with that minimal assumption.)

Given that most of the rest of the content is theological (which cancels out) or visionary/mythical/mystical, why isn't it legitimate to go on the premise that the few small historical-seeming bits might well be either interpolations or merely misunderstood as historical? I'm not a scholar, so I'm not equipped to prove it, but I think it's as rational to look at it this way as it is to take the other route and think of those bits as genuinely historical, while explaining away the visionary bits in a historical context. In fact, there's nothing in the text that would force one to definitely choose one interpretation or the other, both are rational.

But, given the weight of fact about how most religions start with visionary experience, or visionary experience in conjunction with mystical experience, I think the all-mythical approach has a slight edge.

(I already gave a list somewhere above in the thread I think, but look at religion round the world as a phenomenon - think of the broad sweep of religions other than Christianity, from East to West, from "high" religions like Judaism, Hindism, Buddhism, Islam, Daoism, to "low" religion like Shamanism, "oracles", Seidr magic, ancestor worship. All these religions involve visionary experience, where people seem to themselves to travel to various "realms" and speak to sundry discarnate intelligences, or have those discarnate intelligences speak to or through them directly, or move their hand to write directly, etc. etc., answering their or others' questions, bringing forth some kind of wisdom that's meant to be disseminated in the world, prophesied, etc. To me the pattern seems obvious, and Paul, and even the Pillars and "apostles" as described in the Epistles, fit right in that pocket, YMMV.)

Nope, you are the one who is making a total assumption, in fact this may be your key assumption that's misleading you (from my point of view). Go through the Epistles with a fine tooth comb. You will see nowhere the idea that James and Cephas and the rest received anything directly from a living person named Jesus. They had visionary experience of the risen Christ.

See, Christians and scholars seem to be accustomed to just assuming a connection between the Pillars/"apostles" and the human Jesus, but there is nothing of the sort in the Epistles, not even in Corinthians. They, and many others, saw a vision of him, but it's not actually said that they knew him in person or received any teaching from him.

Actually if you look at that passage, what it looks like, is either that a bunch of people had a vision of someone who they didn't know personally, who may have been crucified on the other side of Palestine (so to speak) but they had the vision that this guy had (secretly, as it were) been the Christ; or it could be as Doherty has it, that this was a cultic entity who appeared in visions straight off the bat, to a bunch of perfervid, scripture-bothering visionaries and mystics.

What it doesn't look like, unless you assume it, is a bunch of people who first of all personally knew somebody who was then crucified and who they then had visions of. Read the passage. Nothing like it:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also."

Check your reaction on reading "that Christ ..." Normally, on reading "Christ", the familiar image flashes into the mind, with the whole story as it were trailing behind. But just forget that for a moment, take this that's given as "the gospel", the good news about an event. Who is this "Messiah", this "Anointed One", and what's the great event?

To me it looks like a re-visioning of the Messiah concept from being something military/political to something spiritual. Absent echoes of the Jesus of the Gospels, it's "The Anointed One" in the abstract, the mythic concept of the Messiah, that he's talking about.

It's like he's saying: "Jews think the Messiah will be someone to come who gives us Jews worldly victory, but actually he's already been, was a weakling in terms of military/political ability, but rose from the dead and in that sense has beaten the world, and in doing so he's a universal saviour, with a universal victory, and not just a Jewish one (the last is Paul's particular wrinkle, the thing he adds to the revisioning of the concept that the Pillars don't accept). Oh, and this great victory, this good news, was predicted in Scripture, if you look closely enough."

Now there could be some historical person at the root of this passage, but it doesn't actually require a historical person for it to make sense, it just looks like a Jewish religious community that has a new version of the Messiah idea (possibly influenced by the mysteries and dying/rising saviour gods), has visions of Him, is persecuted by Jews for its blasphemy; then one of the persecutors "gets" the idea, has the same vision, and extends it to be a universal concept fit for all people, not just a new version of the Jewish Messiah.

It's also interesting and instructive to consider this: suppose for the sake of the argument that my reading is the correct one. It's easy to see, then, how even early Christians might have misinterpreted the reference to the personified concept Messiah as referring to someone who recently lived, just as people still do now. It's just an ever so slight slip, a re-jigging of one's reading, but it has large consequences.

(Another thought: looked at in this light, the name "JESUS Christ" is a sort of qualifier, as if to say "it's THIS idea of the Messiah we believe in, as opposed to the old one". IIRC there are all sorts of interesting numerological correspondences for both Joshua in Aramaic and Iesous in Greek - I trust you will agree that while numerology might seem wacky to us, mystics find it intersting and important. And of course there are other Jewish resonances for Joshua.)

Gamera

You misconstrue.

I'm not assuming those conclusions sneakilly. I'm stating that Paul's reference to his preaching the gospel, and the information he give us about what he preached in his letters is evidence for those conclusions: (a) Paul having preached about an historical Jesus; and (b) Paul talking about an historical event.

So I'm not assuming them at all. I'm arguing for them. I gave my reasons. To summarize, his references to Jesus' life, execution, burial, ressurection and appearnce to himself and the Apostles, seems to accord with the synoptics. It isn't proof, but it sure seems like good evidence that both Paul and the gospel writers were refering to the same events: the biography of Jesus that constitutes the gospel message.

In contrast there is no evidence that Paul's preaching invovled a mystical nonhistorical Jesus. Indeed, church tradition says otherwise.

So I think I have the more plausible argument given the facts and texts we have.

Gamera

Well, I only mean by that that Paul states that Jesus was a special individual in that his life and death and resurrection was salvational -- something he always points out. Now, if Jesus were just a good fellow with a nice message, presumably his death and miraculous resurrection would be interesting, but not salvational. It is after all a very unique thing to die, be resurrected and save all humanity. It doesn't happen everyday.

Therefore, it's plausiable to conclude that the full rendition of Paul's gospel invovled narrating why Jesus was unique (e.g., his miraculous birth, son of God status. etc.). And of course this accords with the synoptics and tradition.

It seems implausible that Paul would preach a gospel about a regular guy who happened to have resurrected and saved us, we know not how.

Chris Weimer

WTF IS PILATE?

Gamera

You mean a physical fitness method was in the New Testament?

Amaleq13

He "always" points out that Jesus' death and resurrection brought salvation but I don't recall him mentioning how his life was related.

It is also plausible that Paul had no knowledge of the life of Jesus.

It is also plausible that Paul intentionally ignored the life of Jesus as ultimately irrelevant.

Contrary to your claim, Paul does not connect the life of Jesus with his sacrificial death nor does he really mention any biographical details of a unique life. You simply imagine that he probably did so.

Not "happened" but "regular guy" seems entirely compatible with Phil 2:7 and, therefore, quite plausible.

Gamera

No it's not. If Paul didn't think Jesus was in some way special he couldn't plausibly conclude his life, death and resurrection had salvational value.

Well, resurrection is pretty unique. But I didn't claim he "connects" it. I claimed that it's plausible that he did in the gospel that he actually preached otherwise his claims about the salvational death of Jesus would appear lesss than convincing, and say what you want about Paul, he did convince people.

Note that the address to the Athenians, whether authentic or not, does just that, placing Jesus' life in a special context of "proving up" God's coming judgment. So either Paul did make the connection in his preaching or people thought he did.

Really?

Phil 2: So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12

I think being "in the form of God" suggests a certain uniqueness.

spamandham

...yes, but Paul could have been lying, or those words could have been put into Paul's mouth by a later writer from the Pauline sect who viewed Paul himself to be god's messenger. Of the three options, 1) Paul wrote it and really did learn everything he knew about Jesus from an epileptic vision, 2) Paul wrote it but synthesized it from other things he had previously heard, or 3) these words were put into his mouth by a later writer trying to prove a divine link between god and Paul, I vote the latter.

dog-on

So, after 18 pages of this discussion, so far there has been no single piece of evidence for HJ presented that can stand up to any amount of scrutiny and retain any semblance of reliability. That there is no logical reason for anyone to hold the position that an HJ is in anyway more likely than an MJ.

So, or it would so far seem, the "scholarly" HJ position is simply based on bunk.

hmm...