Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 06-27-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...
Recently I read Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and am now wondering if I’ve been needlessly conservative on the question of interpolations. He made observations about orthodox Christian tampering with all sorts of passages, scribal emendations done for the purpose of making it clear that Jesus was such-and-such in opposition to heretical doctrines like adoptionism, separationism, and docetism. These observations were based on variant manuscript readings, of course, coming from the 3rd and later centuries, because we have no manuscripts to speak of from earlier than around the year 200, although he was able to make certain deductions about emendations that could have been made as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

The passage in the book that really jumped out at me was headed “Christ: Born Human” (p.238) from his chapter “Anti-Docetic Corruptions of Scripture”. It focused on Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3-4, the two passages most often cited against mythicists like myself. ...

If scribes could alter words in the periods from when we do have manuscripts (3rd century on), and even insert them (Ehrman’s book provides evidence of all sorts of orthodox insertions, not just emendations), there is nothing to prevent them from having been doing it in the preceding century, when we happen to have no direct textual evidence for it. “Born of woman” would be a natural insertion in Galatians (let’s say around the middle of the 2nd century to counter docetics like Marcion and others) to make the point that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.
...

As far as I can see, thanks to Ehrman (his book in 1993—and I’m sorry I didn’t read it earlier—surprised everyone with the scope and amount of corruption for polemical purposes by Christian scribes that he uncovered), the historicist case just got even weaker. It would appear that very little trust can be placed in the integrity of our texts, and historicist arguments that are based on these phrases, and on exact wording of any given passage, rest on quicksand.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Hi Earl,

I have commented before on this issue before. I believe you are headed on the right track.

Gal. 4:4 does not appear in Marcion's version of Galatians.
The question then, is which version is more original, the Catholic of the Marcionite? HDeterring has a disuccion here.

The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians Explanations.

Earl, I will be interested to see how you handle this. The issue of "kata sarka" and related passages (such as Gal. 4:4) that are used to prop up an HJ can be seen to be interpolations, without embracing the Radical position.

In fact the traditional dating makes the HJ position even more untenable. We have no extant Pauline texts earlier than the third century. If, for sake of argumaent, Paul did write in the middle of the first century, there is a gap of over a century and a half. It is incredibly naive to assume that no changes were made to the text during this period, especially when we can see that the proto-orthodox had good doctrinal reasons to do so during the second century.

The evidence we have indicates that the gospels and Pauline material were in a fluid state well into the second half of the second century.

Jake Jones IV

Doug Shaver · 06-27-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Does not seem like such a stretch to make such an assumption since it is pretty obvious that Paul believed Jesus to be THE LORD.

Did he not also think that Yahweh was THE LORD?

I'm not saying it's a stretch. I'm saying that it is not so clear-cut as to make alternative interpretations of "brother of the lord" unreasonable. You can't just throw yours around as if no others were even worth considering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Seems pretty clear to me, especially in light of Mark 6:3 and Josephus' recounting of James' execution.

You're interpreting it in light of your assumed conclusion. Mark was written at least 20 and possibly 50 years after Galatians. Josephus is at least 40 years later. There is no justification for assuming that Paul must have believed whatever they believed about Jesus.

dog-on · 06-27-2006, 06:35 AM

...and really make Irenaeus and Tertullian look like accessories to the crime. Though they could have been unwitting dupes...

Doug Shaver · 06-27-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Considering the context of the Galatians passage, Paul could hardly be emphasizing Jesus' commonality with other humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

To the contrary, I think that is exactly what Paul was emphasizing:

Given an assumption of Jesus' historicity (and, more to the point, Paul's belief in it), your interpretation has some plausibility. Without that assumption, it looks strained to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Paul here operates on the principle that the redeemer had to be like those redeemed.

If Paul's readers were taking a human Jesus for granted, Paul would not have had to explain how he was like them. He would have had to explain how he was unlike them, i.e. God incarnate. He never bothers to do that. It is the divinity of Paul's Christ, not his humanity, that gets taken for granted. What Paul is having to explain is not how a man could be divine but how a divine being could, in certain relevant respects, also be like a man.

If Paul were writing to a modern readership, he would have to include chapter or two on Platonism 101 to make his point. In the first century, that was not necessary.

Doug Shaver · 06-27-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

For obvious philosophical reasons people would find it odd that an omnipotent God would actually suffer

Yes, I can see that. If someone told them that a man who apparently had suffered was actually God, they would insist that he could not have been an actual man. What I'm questioning is the plausibility of lots of Jewish people believing, within a generation after his death, that a man who had suffered crucifixion was actually God. I can barely imagine a few of his devoted followers getting that notion into their heads, but I cannot imagine their persuading lots of other people in or around Jerusalem that it was a believable notion.

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Given an assumption of Jesus' historicity (and, more to the point, Paul's belief in it), your interpretation has some plausibility. Without that assumption, it looks strained to me.

Doherty apparently agrees with my interpretation without assuming historicity. I think my interpretation is a fair reading of the text on its own merits that we can now use to evaluate other issues, such as historicity.

Quote:

If Paul's readers were taking a human Jesus for granted, Paul would not have had to explain how he was like them.

You are thinking too mechanically about the authorial process. Paul does not have to explain how Jesus was like the Galatians; he wants to. Modern preachers without the slightest hesitation about the historicity of Jesus frequently emphasize that Jesus was human just like us.

As an interesting illustration, pay a visit to a webpage that I googled called Very Productive Time. There you will find the following paragraph (emphasis mine):

Ok, Jesus happens to be the Son of God, without sin, and perfect. Problem: we're not. Jesus spent much time in prayer, but that was only because he was doing big miracles, right? Nope. In an explanation of one of Jesus's parables, Luke records this: "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." [Luke 18:1] The disciples were human just like us. The disciples definitely didn't perfectly practice Jesus's teachings, especially before Jesus's death. But, what was true for the disciples-- always pray and not give up-- also applies to us.

Here the author, quite apparently a Christian, affirms that the disciples (!) were human just like us. Is he taking their divinity for granted? Do you really think his readers tend to literally think of the disciples as gods or angels? Rather, the author of this page is emphasizing the continuity between dominical instructions to the disciples and those same instructions to us.

Likewise, Paul is, on the principle that I traced through the Pauline epistles and Hebrews, emphasizing the continuity of Jesus with his Galatian converts.

Ben.

jgibson000 · 06-27-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Yes, I can see that. If someone told them that a man who apparently had suffered was actually God, they would insist that he could not have been an actual man. What I'm questioning is the plausibility of lots of Jewish people believing, within a generation after his death, that a man who had suffered crucifixion was actually God. I can barely imagine a few of his devoted followers getting that notion into their heads, but I cannot imagine their persuading lots of other people in or around Jerusalem that it was a believable notion.

The problem I see with all of this is not only that iyour are working from certain hidden assumptions about what "to be God" is, but that you assume what needs to be proven. Is it really the case that within a generation of Jesus death there was anyone, let alone lots of Jews, who belived that Jesus was "God"?

I think you are both misunderstanding the nature and the import of the "divinity" language used of Jesus in the NT as well as filtering that language through later Calcedonian Christology.

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Paul here operates on the principle that the redeemer had to be like those redeemed

Ben, why is that not magical thinking?

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Ben, why is that not magical thinking?

I do not recall either affirming or denying that it is magical thinking. When are you going to stop beating your wife?

Ben.

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2006, 08:22 AM

Because Doherty's agreement with you is from a different premis - is he not arguing for magical thinking, your argument being an HJ explanation? Therefore do you not have to refute that part of his argument?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2006, 06:35 AM	#53
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	...and really make Irenaeus and Tertullian look like accessories to the crime. Though they could have been unwitting dupes...

06-27-2006, 08:22 AM	#60
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Because Doherty's agreement with you is from a different premis - is he not arguing for magical thinking, your argument being an HJ explanation? Therefore do you not have to refute that part of his argument?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.