Bingo the Clown-O

I’m sorry but that just blows. Did she really say, “In the original Psalm it is God?”

Psalm 82 is rich in polytheism. Barker knows it. By using the word ‘God’ she just confuses things. I hate it when people (usually believers) say shit like that. It’s reckless and irresponsible.

Elohim #1 in Psalm 82:1 was probably Yahweh. The name was probably wiped just like it was wiped in Psalm 53:2 (cf Psalm 14:2). The purpose of the Psalm is to explain how Yahweh came to inherit ALL of the nations, even after each nation had already been assigned a patron god to guard over them. (cf Deut 32:7-9).

The “Most High” in that passage was El, and the sons of El were the sons of El. They belonged to an old paradigm. It was being replaced with a new paradigm (call it Yahwistic henotheism).

sotto voce

Not this Mickey Mouse stuff again. Deut refers to the allotment of territory to the twelve tribes by the one deity. Psalm 82 refers to the lack of good judgement exercised by Israelites, who are referred to as gods in the sense of being magistrates; judges who were supposed to represent Yahweh on earth, yet they abetted the wicked.

As is completely obvious.

stephan huller

But what is becoming increasingly clear - and we have Doherty to thank for it - is that there was a very early sense that Jesus was a supernatural being who changed the name of Oshea into Jesus, who helped the Israelites triumph over Amalek. The exact relationship with the godhead above was subject to great debate, tho.

EarlDoherty

To both Stephan and aa: The support for my position lies in the texts themselves, and notably, for example (though it is far from the only one), in the very passage this thread is devoted to: Hebrews 8:4. It is a body of Christian texts which are the "witnesses." I don't know what you are expecting otherwise. A declaration by some writer that no, the Gospel Jesus never existed? We have been over that point many times in past discussions. Until Christians were claiming based on Gospels that were only disseminated well into the 2nd century that its central character had lived, no one was going to deny something that no one was claiming. And by the time Christians were claiming that the Gospels were history, no one was in a position to make a case against it. Why is this so difficult to understand?

There are countless events in ancient history that rely solely on the documents that put them forward for their knowledge and interpretation. The mythicist case is one of analyzing the documentary record of the Christians themselves to indicate that in the early period and writings, no belief in an HJ existed. Sometimes there is no other positive 'corroboration' for them, other than comparing them to contemporary philosophy and religion. And sometimes a form of corroboration can be found in silences in contemporary writings, such as those which indicate that no Testimonium Flavianum existed before the time of Eusebius, or the utter absence of an historical incarnated Jesus in many of the 2nd century apologists, or the reasons we have to conclude that Tacitus made no reference to a Neronian slaughter of Christians, since even Christians are silent about such an event until centuries later.

So I wish that people like aa would stop this broken-record demand for a type of evidence which we should have little or no expectation about finding (let alone expecting it to clearly survive through centuries of Christian control). And in fact Stephan has actually pointed to aspects of the writings of Irenaeus which point in the direction of a Jesus/Logos who was never on earth.

And yes, yes, I know that aa will shout back "born of woman! born of woman! born of woman!" Well, he has never even remotely attempted (and he will continue to refuse) to tackle my chapter in JNGNM on this passage (nor has anyone else), and the dubious meaning and authenticity of it is swamped by countless other elements of the epistles which far more clearly support the no Jesus on earth conclusion.)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Yes, Stephan, but how can you tell the difference between such later beliefs and interpretations being based on a man who really DID walk the earth, supposedly an incarnation of God, and such beliefs being based on the need to accommodate the Gospels as history in the face of the rest of record whose heavenly Jesus is NOT portrayed as coming to earth? All this later Christian exegesis can easily be seen as a way out of admitting that the movement began with no historical individual. We can hardly rely on all these commentators, from Justin and Irenaeus on, to be reliably dealing with an historical man. It is simply too late for that. The alleged historical man was created in their minds and faith by the Gospels, not by history.

And I can see nothing in Hebrews which makes a separating distinction between Jesus the Logos and Jesus the historical man. That would be imposing your later exegetes' views onto the text.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

And how are those two compatible? How can my linguistic interpretation be correct (one in which this contrafactual statement amounts to saying that Jesus was not on earth in the past) and my "greater conclusion" miss the mark? (Of course, I do not rely entirely on Hebrews 8:4 for that conclusion. There is a mountain of evidence for it in the non-gospel record--which is why it took me 800 pages to present it all.)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Very interesting, Stephan. But--where in the Gospel of Truth is there a second figure beside the Logos/Savior who could be separately identified with a subordinate who came to earth to represent the Logos? I made a close study of the Gospel of Truth some years ago, and I cannot recall any such thing. Don't confuse that with later Valentinian writings. "Truth" is commonly dated quite early, around 130, and it reflects a soteriology based on an entirely heavenly figure, just as the bulk of the apologists did until later in the century (with the exception of Justin). The Valentinians later made an accommodation with the Gospel earthly Jesus (which is why they are lumped into the category of Christian Gnosticism), but they apparently started out without one.

By the way, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man has an Appendix disputing the claim (by Jacqueline Williams) that the Gospel of Truth contains echoes of the Gospels. It is amazing how much New Testament scholarship is riddled with unfounded 'readings into' documents from the Gospels.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

FWIW the general problem of determining from hostile reports what ancient teachers really taught is extreme in the case of Paul of Samosata.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Because that's what the Valentinians thought. You can't prove what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews thought because we don't even know who he is. But that the ideas in the letter agree with Valentinianism - a tradition which Lampe has shown was quite comfortable and firmly entrenched in Rome in the middle of the second century - that is demonstrable and adds weight to much of your linguistic reconstruction. If you cared about widespread acceptance of your work - and you were aware of the Valentinian position - you might have coupled your research with the known Valentinian beliefs as reported in Irenaeus and witnessed especially in Theodotus's surviving writings and you'd have something which might have gotten accepted into an academic journal.

Either way, there's no money in it so who gives a ...

stephan huller

But the Valentinians thought Paul was the Paraclete. It is hard to get around the idea of Paul writing the gospel if you go that far. I was just having a conversation with Trobisch about this. It seems quite reasonable to associate the figure of the Paraclete with gospel writing of some sort. It can't just be about 'new oral traditions.' After all the claim is made within the context of a gospel narrative (i.e. the announcement). "he will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you" had to have been understood in the sense of 'write a gospel.'