Gregg

Well, I haven't read your sources so I really can't say. What are THEIR sources? If they're just going by Paul's writings I'm not sure how they are getting this out of them. It's hard to see why Paul would associate himself so closely with TJC if their beliefs were so utterly different from his--after all, he utterly rejects those Christians who deny Christ "in the flesh" and/or "Christ crucified." I always thought the quarrel between Paul and TJC had to do with the mission to the Gentiles and whether Gentile Christians had to adopt Jewish practices--also questions of authority, i.e. should Paul defer to TJC on all matters.

The impression I get is that Paul first rejected the Jewish Christ cult and then, after having a spiritual revelation, accepted it more or less "as is." I don't see any disagreements between Paul and the TJC over a fundamental issue as who Jesus/Christ was.

Amaleq13

I'm saying they (at least James) had obtained a good reputation among their fellow Jews before they experienced the Risen Christ and began preaching this new concept. If you have no problem with that, I have apparently misunderstood your position.

I see Christianity as originally a Jewish sect heavily influenced by Greek thought reinterpreting the Messiah by reinterpreting Scripture and actively seeking out divine revelations. It didn't catch on with many Jews but Paul obtained remarkable success with Gentiles.

spin

I haven't been following this thread closely but I came upon this:

One can see where Paul is coming from with the citation from 1 Cor 1:15-17, if one looks at what Hebrew writings say about the personified Wisdom:

The fusion of Hebrew Wisdom (XCMH) with the Greek logos is definitely a simple step, as Wisdom proceeds from the mouth of God, the breath of power, so of course does the word of God. Jn 1:1-5 seems to be straight out of the personified Wisdom tradition.

So, along with the different flavours of priest, mediator, suffering saviour and royal messiah which are laminae placed on the Jesus tradition, one has to include the Wisdom tradition.

I'll leave it up to you'all to decide in which of the layers came first, be it even some historical basis.


spin

Amaleq13

He makes a point of specifying how long he waited to contact them initially as well as how much longer it too before (at the Lord's suggestion) he returned to obtain their approval of his Gentile gospel. Even then he dismisses their reputations and claims to have made Peter look foolish in a direct confrontation. This despite claiming that they were all teaching the same gospel.

I've only just started Maccoby but my understanding from capnkirk is that "we" are relying too much on Paul's claims about TJC's beliefs. He and the author of Acts have deliberately revised history to make it appear there was more agreement.

IMO, the argument would be more compelling if we could rely on the GEbionites to be genuinely representative of TJC beliefs. I'm not sure that is the case.

Gregg

No, I don't have any problem with the Jerusalem Church leadership being composed of devout Jews. In fact, that would go a long way toward explaining Paul's enthusiasm for trumpeting his own piety. It would also help explain the apparent friction between Paul and the Jerusalem church over the issue of non-Jewish Christians.

On the other issue, I was trying to summarize what I think Doherty's view of Christian origins is. Doherty sees various independent expressions of Logos/Christ-worship arising around the Empire about the same time, as a response to neo-Platonism, which I believe he calls (although I can't find where right now) "the dominant religious philosophy of the age." Perhaps inevitably, a uniquely Jewish form of Logos/Christ worship, centered on Jerusalem, emerged. However, this Jewish Christ-cult (with Paul as its satellite) first had to compete with the other forms of Logos/Christ-worship, those that had no teaching of the Logos/Christ coming "in the flesh" and/or being crucified, but rather believed the Logos/Christ saved by revealing spiritual knowledge to men.

The Jewish Logos/Christ cult would have had an edge to begin with, because Judaism and the Jewish scriptures were already popular. None of the other expressions of Christianity could boast anything similar--established messianic and apocalyptic beliefs, the intriguing Jewish backstory, the revelation of the Christ supposedly concealed through the generations in the scriptures, etc. Even without Paul, with all that going for it the Jewish form of Christ-worship would probably still have become the dominant version.

NOGO

You brought up this point before.
Either I do not understand what exactly you mean or you do not understand answers which have been provided.

Let's try again.

Basically it goes something like this.
The Gospels provide a reference for the HJ, if he ever existed.

So Doherty judges Paul on the basis of the Gospels for the HJ.
There is no basis to judge Paul as far as the MJ is concerned except behaps Hebrews and other early epistles.

When Doherty speaks of Paul's silence he is talking about silence regarding what the Gospels say that Jesus said and did.

If the Gospel Jesus said "Love one another" and it is considered historical then we can expect that if Paul tells his followerd "Love one another" he would also tell his followers that Jesus said this as well. Jesus would be considered authoritative and refering to authority is what preachers do all the time. Paul does it as wel but his authority is not Jesus but God and the OT.

Now, you may ask.
Why not quote the MJ as an authority?

I do not see why you would ask such a question.

If I said that God told me something, would that carry more weight than my word alone. I think not!
Whatever authority Paul had would not be increased by simply claiming that such and such a statement came from God.

Paul does in fact try to claim divine inspiration.
BUT, and it is a big but, he does not actually say that God spoke to him.
Why? Because he would loose all credibility.
People would have questions for God and Paul would very quickly get into trouble.

The HJ has no such problems.
What he said he said and what he did not say, we will never know.
Also what he did say can be corroborated by the testimony of others who have heard him or have obtained such information second hand.

The evidence is that Paul had to defend his authority but he does not appeal to the Gospel Jesus' teachings to do it.
Nor does he appeal to any apostolic tradition.
That is a very serious flaw for the HJ.

I do not believe that you can make a similar case against the MJ.

Over to you.

Amaleq13

Throw in the Suffering Servant from Isaiah, you've got the New Messiah.

If I remember correctly, the personified Wisdom tradition is also connected to the idea of the Just Man treatly poorly on earth and redeemed in heaven.

Incidently, while Q shows no apparent indication of considering Jesus the Messiah, it does have evidence they (at least eventually) considered Jesus to have been God's Wisdom incarnate.

luvluv

Is it still the case that no major scholar has reviewed Doherty's work?

Ted Hoffman

It is the case that no other scholar has publicly reviewed Doherty's work.

A Joke:

How to create an explosion:

1. Look under a rock - you will find NT Scholars huddling in consensus.

2. Throw a copy of the Jesus Puzzle in their midst.

NB: Run for cover because there will be an explosion.

I think they have ALL read Doherty's work, but are too scared to muster a response: he might mop the floor with anyone who ventures and he will be reprimanded for embarrasing the "majority".

Doctor X

The problem with biblical scholars in general is that they built the ivory tower.
They only review "serious" works that laypeople have never heard of or would care to read. Then they wonder why no one understands biblical issues. I searched the SBL web-page for any reference to Strobel or Doherty--none--but the forum page wondered if the Passion movie would cause people to be more aware of what is actually in the bible.

This is similar to other disciplines that do not "stoop" to review work without a resume and then wonder why everyone believes Shakespear was written by some other guy, UFO are rectal probing everyone, and Star Fleet Command was behind JFK.

It is only recently that scholars have moved to the "popular" press. This is seen as "grandstanding" to play for the "proles" but if people do not present their theories to the public, they cannot wonder why the public reject them.

--J.D.