Didymus

I think you're mistaken - or Robert Price is mistaken - about a "clear" mix of Jewish and gnostic ideas producing the idea of the crucifixion, and most especially about the role of death and redemption in any gnostic belief system, whether Valentinian or Docetist. That role is anything but clear to me - if you have evidence for it, by all means point the way.

As to whether the Pauling writings contain gnostic elements, the question has been debated since Marcion's time. It has still not been resolved among scholars. So "clear" is not exactly the word to describe how things stand in that respect either.

While I think you're right about concepts like atoning sacrifice and death/resurrection being in the air at the time Paul's epistles and/or Mark's gospels were written, there's no tradition that specifically denotes crucifixion as a symbolic means of death.

But that's not the central issue I take with your argument, the gist of which seems to be that theological tradition trumps history. By arguing that a crucifixion emerged from ideas already abroad in the theological landscape, you seem to be dismissing the possibility that it might have actually taken place.

That's a little like a doctor refusing to treat a hypochrondriac, despite symptoms that scream "appendicitis!" Yes, he may often imagine symptoms of one kind or another, but that cluster of symptoms is common in actual illness. Shouldn't his complaints be viewed with alarm?

The existence of prophesies, legends and superstitions with typologies similar to a reported event does not preclude the possibility that the event itself may be historical. Although it's possible that Jesus' crucifixion was a purely fictional construct, I think it's much more likely that circumstances were such that an otherwise mundane historical event was interpreted in the light of those traditions.

After all, crucifixions were not uncommon in 1st and 2nd century Palestine. And a particularly unjust crucifixion may have aroused public ire, and, in turn, superstition.

To make a modern analogy, the most parsimonious way to explain reports of a weeping Mexican statue is not to deny that the statue ever existed.

Ddms

spamandham

I'm not arguing against the possibility of an actual death (crucifixion, stoning, hanging or whatever) or even against a HJ of some kind.

I'm refuting the HJ argument that the crucifixion must have been historical since it doesn't follow from pre-existing ideas. I'm making the claim that an atoning sacrificial death with resurrection could easily be concocted by mixing pre-existing ideas, and pointed out some evidence of gnostic influence to support that claim. This hardly seems an outrageous claim to me, so I don't think mountains of evidence are required to support it.

The exact mechanism chosen for death (crucifixion), seems irrelevant to me, and it's not clear that crucifixion was even universally acknowledged as the mechanism of death, as opposed to hanging (Gal 3-13, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, 281). Increasing this uncertainty is the absurdly unrealistic behavior of Pilate in the passion story.

The point I'm hoping to make, is that there's really nothing to the crucifixion that adds weight to the HJ argument.

Solitary Man

Well, something would be nice.

spamandham

"something" was already presented.

Solitary Man

Sorry, I meant something of a little substance.

spamandham

Something of sufficient substance was already provided. I have two scholars backing me up on that substance. You have squat refuting it.

Didymus

Oh. Well, that wasn't my argument. As I said, I agree that the atoning sacrifice / resurrection idea was present in the culture, although I haven't seen it in gnosticism, which as far as I can tell emerged in the 2nd century. But I think that those ideas were attached to a real crucifixion, rather than an imaginary one.

The passion narrative, and especially the procedural stuff, seems to me to have been fabricated decades later for political and theological purposes. The miraculous elements -the empty tomb, etc. - are more likely to have been believed by contemporary Jerusalemites, and IMO it's those stories that generated the belief that a particular crucified man was the messiah.

If by "adding weight," you mean that the novelty of the crucifixion - its absence from tradition - makes historicity more believable, I agree that it does not. That novelty argument seems like a variation on the embarrassment theme. I don't buy the "embarrassment" arguments - they always seem to understate the complexity of Greco-Roman-Judaic culture(s), and they overreach in attempting to mind-read people who lived 2000 years ago.

Ddms

Solitary Man

I went back to reread what you wrote in this thread. All of your posts. I did see this:

I misread your statement. However, mine was clear - Griesbach theory is out of touch with modern scholarship. There are very little proponents left, and honestly only the problems of the two main theories, 2source and Farrer-Goulder, are the reason in my estimate why they survive.

I did see your two scholars. But you still haven't offered anything in support.

This is what you said:

"Next, notice that in a scholarly translation, there is no denying a gnostic mythological interpretation."

Then you name Bauer. Have you read Bauer? What evidence is there to support this reading? Then you name Couchoud. But again you lack any evidence. Assertion, assertion, assertion - anything of substance at all? Nope, none at all.

In No. 167, you list 4 points, after your computer "locked up". All assertion, no evidence. Responding to Didymus, I couldn't find anything that backed up your assertions in your post. Then finally the post that I responded to, and still nothing substantial in there at all. Naming names isn't providing evidence, most of all you should know this.

So once again, will you provide any substance to the numerous claims you've made?

spamandham

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was refuting anything you had said. I was only trying to explain my original post.

spamandham

I gave the reference, edition, book, page, and paragraph. It's up to you to read or not. I could care less if you choose to ignore it.