Rick Sumner

But he does indicate things that are coherent with the gospels, i.e. the prohibition on divorce. But because Paul predates the gospels, Doherty presumes that it runs the other way--divine revelation > Paul > gospels. If it were working linearly in the opposite direction, the converse would hold. His argument is hinged on Paul predating the gospels.

Because 2Pet, who does know the gospels, writes the same way as Paul, who doesn't. How do we tell them apart, without using the gospels--without using a criteria that can't be employed on Paul?

This is circular. Jesus' life is defined by the gospels. Paul cannot string linearlly from the gospels.

See above.

No, he says that because they have a high christology they are referring to events that occur on another plane. Except 2Pet uses high christology to refer to events in human experience.

See above.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

I don’t agree. The question of whether or not AoP knows the Gospels is still open, and reading over it myself, I don’t see where Loisy is getting the prophecy from.

True, this can’t be used to support dependence on the Gospels.

It could, but I’m thinking AoP is probably dependent on the Gospels.

This can’t be really used to argue against 2Pet knowing the Gospels. 2Pet clearly knows a collection of Paul’s letters and considers them scripture. Even some Christians today talking about “knowing Jesus� and having a relationship with him.

This is explained by a late dating of 2Pet, which puts in a time period where Church authorities would frown on such behavior, even if it contradicts the Gospels.

It says commands given by the Lord and Savior. Unless God is the Savior, it seems to be saying Jesus did make these commands.

2Pet is specifically defending the Parousia, which certainly could be supported with some words from Jesus, but the point is moot if 2Pet can be shown to know the Gospels, much like the rest of Doherty’s examples.

Intelligitimate

Paul doesn’t say anything about Jesus teaching anything about divorce. “Coherent with the gospels� doesn’t tell us anything about what Paul thinks of Jesus’ life.

Is this something you disagree with?

What do you mean by tell them apart? I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

If the Gospels were basically accurate historical accounts of a man who was crucified under Pilate, then it wouldn’t matter if Paul knew the Gospels or not; he would still give us such details. The fact that he doesn’t indicates that Paul’s faith had nothing to do with a man who was recently crucified under Pilate.

Yes, I see your point now (and it's a strong one). I personally prefer Wells’ reading, which doesn’t require anything about different planes of existence, but still has a mythical Jesus.

Toto

I thought that the long discussion with DramaQ made it clear.

. . .

There are some gospel like stories, but also some silences where you would expect a reference if AofP really read the gospels as we have them today.

But Christians today also commonly speak of the Bible stories, "what would Jesus do" and quote Jesus.

The dating of 2Pet is hardly well established, except that it had to follow the Pastorals.

It says commands given by the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

It has not been shown that 2Pet knows the Gospels, much less that 2Pet knew the gospels is their present form, or thought that they were history. All that has been shown is that 2Pet has some themes in common with the AofP which someone asserts knew the gospels.

In the future, if a religion develops based on Star Wars, and some later civilization decides that there was a historic Luke Skywalker, can you say that everyone who saw Star Wars in the 20th century knew the historic Luke Skywalker??

Intelligitimate

DramaQ didn’t address anything about whether AoP is based on the Gospels or where Loisy is getting the prophecy from. You yourself read it three times still aren’t sure where Loisy is getting the prophecy from.

AoP is an incredibly strange document that I’m not sure if anything can be expected from it.

Touché.

Brown seems to think it is a very Catholic writing, making it even later.

Touché again.

I don’t think it is relevant to ask what the author thought of HJ stories he knew, unless he specifically says what he thinks about the issue. That water is way too muddy to attempt to tread.

Doherty’s questions about the silence of the writer is moot even if there is one instance of the writer displaying his knowledge of the Gospel stories.

Even if AoP knows the prophecy of Peter’s death (which hasn’t been shown, and I can’t find it in AoP), it doesn’t establish that 2Pet knows or is borrowing from AoP in that instance. Both could be borrowing from GJn. So for it to be relevant, it has to be established that AoP isn’t dependent on GJn for the prophecy.

I’m not sure what relevance this has.

Rick Sumner

Huh? 1Cor.7.10. Of course Paul says something about divorce. And the problem is that if it ran Gospels > Paul, we would have no doubt that this verse was utterly dependent on them. Running the other way there's room to question it. Without a late, 2Peter-esque dating, the converse argument is unfalsifiable.

You seem to get it below, so I'll presume that it was clarified. If I'm missing something, let me know.

Wells doesn't anymore, if I understand correctly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

Well, duh. I said Paul doesn’t attribute his teaching to Jesus. He didn’t say Jesus said that or taught anything like that in a relatively recent ministry.

I still don’t see a problem. Maybe I’m just thick, but you’ll have to explain your reasoning a little bit clearer.

Actually, no, I don’t get what you mean, as the comment I got about a high christology has nothing to do with clarifying what you mean about Paul and 2Pet.

Though even on the high christology, I’m sure Doherty could still argue that Paul and other writers thought of Jesus as a mythical being acting in other planes of existence, yet later Christian like 2Pet just took over their language. Not a great counter-argument, but it doesn’t disprove Doherty.

Wells’ accepts the cynic-sage Q Jesus. His arguments haven’t changed about Paul and the other writings. Even without supposing that Paul’s Jesus acts in another plane of existence, there is still no reason to see his Jesus as historical, or to think Paul conceived the Jesus of his faith as operating in the recent past. And this is still Wells’ position.

Rick Sumner

I'm not about to argue historicity, the debate bores me to tears, so I'll restrict this to the question of Doherty's criteria and the application of this passage Wells is, of course, an entirely separate issue from Doherty (I'm beginning to think it might be time to coin a new variant of Godwin's Law for the IIDB and the Jesus-Myth. . .we'll call it "Sumner's corollary," and I'll expect you all to quote it with such reverence that people soon forget that Godwin ever posted to Usenet :-P )

Doherty's argument is that "Lord" in 1Cor.7.10 refers to God. He bases this argument on Paul's consistently high christology. We've just established that the argument from high christology is moot, due to its failure on 2Pet.

Can you establish that when Paul says "Lord" or "Lord Jesus" or anything to that effect, that he is referring to a spiritual being without relying on an argument based on high christology?

And your defense that it doesn't "disprove" Doherty is a non-sequitor. Nobody said a word about "disproving" anyone. It renders his criteria moot, because the only defense of it is ad hocs such as the one you suggested. His argument is no more or less subjective than anyone else's.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

I’d have to reread Doherty to make sure, but I don’t think he ever said anything like a high christology means the author necessarily thought of Jesus in terms of another plane of existence. I think it causes some problems for Doherty’s thesis, but it is not necessarily insurmountable. After all, the only thing that has been established is that a very late second century forgery mimics Paul and knows the Gospels.

Any reference to an earthly ministry should do it.

My argument isn’t ad hoc. Showing that one author has a high christology and believes in a HJ does not establish it for others.

I’ve been thinking of rereading our exchange and trying to frame your arguments in my own terms and respond to them, so we can see if I understand you correctly and you can correct me. I wish I had more time to do that...

Rick Sumner

Has it been established that he mimics Paul? How did this get from an ad hoc to a foregone conclusion? Just to make your task a little more difficult (no fun if it isn't challenging), why would a pseudepigrapher of Peter want to mimic Paul? You'd think he'd be aware of the seeming animus between the two.

You misread me. I'm asking for evidence for Doherty's end--I'm the dissenter, not the claimant. I'm not saying that Paul is referring to an earthly ministry, I'm saying that Doherty has not come up with a valid method to show that Paul isn't.

Doherty is making an affirmative claim (Lord refers to a heavenly being). That needs to be evidenced. It needs to be evidenced without relying on the argument from Christology, which we've agreed is specious.

You're missing where the ad hoc is. It's the suggestion that 2Peter is mimicing Paul--there's absolutely no reason to presume he's doing so.

Regards,
Rick Sumner