Gamera

That's a pretty insoluable question. We have the texts as we have them. It's a typical circular JM argument to say that any references to an earthly Jesus in Paul's letters by definition must be an interpolation.

The Pauline texts as we have them recognize an historical earthly Jesus who corresponds to the Jesus of the written gospels.

If JMers want to pass judgment on some other texts, which are derived from their editing the text we have, God bless them, but it isn't an evaluation of the texts we have.

Toto

No, it's not "typical." Doherty does not rely on interpolation to explain seemingly earthly references to Jesus, and I believe that Wells does not either. And the argument that Paul's letters are interpolated is based on work by non-mythicists who examine the texts critically.

The problem is not insoluable. There are recognized methods of identifying probably interpolations.

Do you think that an evaluation of the texts that we have requires that we accept them as authentic in an uncritical fashion? Doesn't that just take care of any problems in the texts?

jakejonesiv

Unfortunately, there is still a bias against publishing radical articles. See Kritik unerwünscht? on RadikalKritik. (Luke 5:39 is an anti-Marcionite gloss).

I must disagree with the A) Doherty/heavenly vs. B) Wells (unknown remote past) dichotomy. R.Price is a Jesus agnostic and H.Detering has stated that belief in a historical Jesus is naive. Neither of these two scholars can be put in the A or B category.

Robert Price's impressive work, "The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts" has recently been published. This publication will go a long way toward the much feared entry into the mainstream of Jesus Skepticism.

Earl Doherty, Hermann Detering, the Dutch Radicals, and even Acharya S find mention alongside more traditional opinions in the articles and footnotes. Very refreshing.

Regardless, due to the proliferation of the Internet, the handwriting is on the wall. Ahistorical views of Jesus will become a part of the mainstream. So many young people have encountered these ideas, that the next generation of scholars will be more receptive to the ideas; ideas that are aquired in the formative stages of youth have staying power.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Ah, so you admit to the conspiracy to infect our youth with this vile dogma!

Seriously, though, I had thought about how poorly Price fits into either category (Detering escaped my notice; thanks). Perhaps you are right. And maybe open agnosticism will gain a foothold.

I would draw a distinction, however, between agnosticism and outright mythicism. And I still predict that the hypothesis that Paul was thinking of a purely heavenly figure is not going to make a significant impact on biblical scholarship.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Gamera,

We have Marcion's version of the Pauline Epistles that have been recreated with a fairly high degree of accuracy from the Church fathers. Texts such as "born of a woman" Gal 4:4 and "seed of David according to the flesh" Romans 1:3 are not found. So the argument is hardly circular. In addition, Bart Ehrlman has demontarted (in OCS) that these very texts that are used to "prove" a historical Jesus are the very ones that the orthodox were prone to corrupt to combat docetism even after we reach the period of extant texts.


No they don't. According to the "authentic Pauline epistles" who were Jesus' parents? Who ordered his execution? What did he preach? Name one person that Jesus had a conversation with during his lifetime.

Name one thing about the alleged life of Christ that you learn that you don't already know from the gospels. I'll save you the time. Nothing.

Do you think au_GMatthew interpolated the text of GMark when he wrote his gospel? Well, whatever the solution to the synoptic problem, someone was copying from and interpolating/redacting the text of someone else. So, except for fundies, no one has a problem with the gospels being modified by redactors. But let anyone suggest that Paul was interpolated (and we have the Marcionite version to suggest bthis), the protests are unending that we "have the text we have." :rolling:

Despite the fact that at least a century and a half intervened between the alleged time that Paul wrote them (mid 1st century) until the earliest extant manuscript (p46, 2nd to 3rd century CE). And as Bart Ehrman has so clearly demonstrated, even after we enter the period of extant manuscripts, the orthodox scribes continued to modify the text of the scriptures for theological and dogmatic reasons. No, not just innocent copying errors, but deliberate changes to support orthodox doctrine against their opponents. And, if they changed scriptures after 200 CE, they were much more so likely to corrupt the scriptures during the second century CE, when, if the Church Fathers are to be believed, the doctrinal wars with the Marcionites and other heretics raged, and orthodox Christianity faced it's most severe challenge in its history.

"the text we have is what we have." Oh please. For example , all of our extant texts of Romans have 16 chapters. But we have ample evidence that in the second century Romans circulated in three forms; the 14 chapter form, 15 chapter form and 16 chapter form. Apparently, both Tertullian and Marcion only knew a 14 chapter form. So a 14 chapter form of Romans is the earliest form of which we have any actual evidence. Whatever the solution to the Romans problem may be, you comment about "the text we have" is naive. See The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Studies and Documents)), by Harry Gamble. Thanks to Ben C. Smith for recommending this study! Gamble has a solution that is amenable to the unity of the text, but is based on several unexamined assumptions.)

Jake Jones IV

P.S. Joseph B. Tyson has made a strong argument that Luke-Acts were written in reaction to Marcion's version of Christianity. This puts the compostion of Luke-Acts well into the second century, and overturns the conventional dating scheme. It is argued that Marcion's Evangelon was not derived from canonical Luke, but from an earlier version much more similar to Mark than canonical Luke. It is also argued that Acts was written to combat the Paul of the Marcionite Paulines which identified Paul as the exclusive apostle. The author omitted any direct mention of the Epistles, and teamed Paul up with Peter to create a mythical false harmony between the two.

No Robots

How about that Cephas was the first to see him after the Resurrection (1Cor 15:5)?

jakejonesiv

Well, no the conspiracy was the retrenchment against the progressive views of Arthur Drews, G.A. Van den Bergh van Eysinga, et. al. in the twentieth century. But I take your point.

The Pauline belief (or perhaps better, the Deutero-Pauline belief), even after all the so-called interpolations are discounted, and we ignore the SARX statements (all for sake of argument), it is still a bit rash to imagine that Jesus was never conceived to have descended to the surface of the earth, or even below. This is contradicted by Ephesians 4:9-10. So I am forced to agree with you.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Norobots!
Good to hear from you. I specified during the life of Jesus. Resurrection appearances and visions don't count.

Jake Jones IV

No Robots

How's it goin', mang?

Paul apparently knows a saying that wasn't retained in the Gospels:

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep.

jakejonesiv

Yes! You think more people would realize this.

Jake Jones IV