TedM

Hi Nogo,

I think we are talking past each other a bit..

In my original post I tried to make a couple of points:

1. If Jesus really had walked the earth, we should only expect Paul to write about that if it was relevant to his writings.

2. Even if Paul was not aware of a recent historical Jesus, his writings reflect a BELIEF in a Jesus that walked the earth at some point in the past, and that the events in his Last Supper took place during such life.

I can't tell from your answers--do you agree with this last point?


Actually you are refusing to answer my question, which is consistent with point #1 above. I will agree that it is POTENTIALLY surprising, but that depends on the context. IF you want to provide some contexts in which you think Paul should have used Jesus' teachings and attributed them to him, that would help your argument.




I think if Paul is talking about a revelation from scripture of a man of flesh then I think the issue of when and where this man was supposed to have lived according to the scriptures is very relevant.


I think you mean that he doesn't ATTRIBUTE his teachings to Jesus don't you? Because Paul CLEARLY teaches a lot of things that Jesus taught with regard to the mystery of the kingdom of God, the need for faith, helping the poor, being righteous, loving your enemies, his return to earth like a thief in the night, not being a hypocrite, etc.. As for ATTRIBUTING, he does attribute the teachings of Jesus at the Last Supper to Jesus, and he MAY attributed the teachings regarding divorce, getting paid for preaching, and unclean foods vs unclean heart to Jesus, depending on how one interprets the passages.


I only vaguely recall, but didn't Justin write entire religious works that barely even mentioned Jesus. Wasn't the main thrust of Gdon's argument that it was COMMON for the writers who clearly believed in a historical Jesus and even KNEW of the sayings and doings to write a lot more like Paul than the expectation you place on Paul?


[Quote=me]The Didache doesn't call it a communal meal. It is called the Thanksgiving meal, and Christ is central to it, though I'll agree that it is different. One can't conclude whether that shows an evolution of how the meal was celebrated by Christians or simply a different interpretation of it in competition with those who got it right.

I don't. That's why I said "one can't conclude"


It's the same thing as what I said. Paul doesn't KNOW that Jesus did this from history. That is what you are reading into the passage. Paul doesn't say he got it from the risen Jesus, and the word (apo) used doesn't preclude him getting it from a tradition that went back to actual events.


It seems to me that you have in mind that Paul is constantly talking about his source of revelation. Maybe I have a misperception, but I'm thinking he only "reveals" his sources a handful of times. That hardly makes a strong case IMO AGAINST receipt of info from other people. Clearly PEOPLE WERE a source of information also, and about information regarding Christ. He seems to believe that human rulers killed him on a cross yet provides no scriptural support for THAT major point.


Why "forced"?


In a time in which traditions were oral, I only would EXPECT different stories and modes of worship.


I"m not aware of scriptural support for a bread/flesh, wine/blood connection. What passage are you referring to? Paul doesn't say it was a personal revelation. In fact he doesn't say it was received as any kind of "revelation" at all!


The meal Paul describes AFAIK is just a typical meal. Weren't bread and wine consumed on a regular basis? If Paul created a revelation based on a belief in a passover meal, I'd expect him to mention something about the passover. That he doesn't mention this important item is IMO an argument in favor of passing along parts of a story he was given from others.


A recent discussion in this forum seems to favor the "arrested" and handed over multiple times interpretation over "delivered up", based on the Greek word used.

take care,

ted

TedM

Ok, given the contexts which you discuss I will agree that "brother of the Lord" could have been said in an 'implicitly critical' manner as a title, despite any immediate indicator of the intent.

Regardless of the motivator, if it is a title, it still is a descriptor--a way in which James was identified. IF a title is the proper use and has the meaning you have suggested, I find the following things curious, and requiring some kind of explanation:

1. Paul doesn't apply the title to Peter or John though Peter James and John appear to have been of like-mind with regard to adhering to Jewish law, and even though we know from 1 Cor 9 that James wasn't the only one Paul applied the title to.

2. Paul doesn't apply the title to the false brethren or the men "from James" in Galations even though they are discussed throughout the epistle

3. Paul doesn't give his opinion of the term even though it no doubt would have commanded tremendous respect among those Paul opposed. IF the motivation you suggest for Paul's mention of it is accurate I would expect a comment even moreso.


ted

TedM

My last post contains stuff (after my name) that I meant to delete but after posting, the server was too busy to make the correction. Are they moving stuff to a new server or something?

I'm not seeing that in Acts 15.

Oh, they were Judaizers allright--and that alone keeps your theory alive.. I just don't see much grounds for deducing that James was following up or had a change of mind or wanted clarification regarding Paul, or that this group from James was the same group that differed with James on the bigger issue of Gentile circumcision. As such, I don't see a strong animosity between James and Paul, though the meal issue was an issue.


I'm curious--did Paul personally keep the law? In Galations 5:3 he says that every man who receives circumcision is bound to keep the whole law. I thought I read elsewhere that he claims to do that? EDIT: Phil 3:6 may be what I am remembering:

Young's
I know Paul believed it was FAITH that saved, but I can't tell whether he also believed that he personally no longer needed to try to obey it, and not knowing the Jewish law requirements can't tell if he disobeyed them. It seems the debate was over whether his Gentile converts needed to obey them or not, although maybe Paul was being accused on certain points (the meal issue, bringing Gentiles into the temple, etc..)...Were those points clearly examples of Paul personally breaking the law?

ted

Amaleq13

The "title" specifically applied to James specifically refers to his established reputation for Jewish piety.

They are false brethren of the Lord.

It occurs to me that Paul may be distinguishing between Jewish-Christians who continue to righteously adhere to the Law (brothers of the Lord) but don't feel compelled to impose that upon gentile converts and those who actively attempt to get gentile converts to join them (false brothers). If this is correct, applying the "title" specifically to James may simply be a recognition that he was the leader of the former group but, given the possible connection between the false brethren and the "certain" sent by James, I cannot ignore the possibility that Paul has another agenda. It may be as subtle as reminding the Galatians that, even though James hasn't personally or openly attempted to compel them to adhere to the Law, he is still part of a different group.

TedM

But that doesn't explain the existence of other "brothers of the Lord" as we see in 1 Cor 9, and why that title wasn't given to the other two pillars who were apparantly of like-mind. In fact, since it applied to more than one person, it seems misleading to even call it a title. It should be something more like a "group descriptor".

The more people you add in, the more difficult it is to explain why Paul only applies the group descriptor to James, since he discusses both groups in Galations and we know from 1 Cor the alleged title applied to SOMEONE else. The most likely candidates are right there in Galations--either agreeing with Paul along with James on the circumcision issue, or opposing him and James on it, or opposing him on the meal issue (maybe reflecting the attitude of James, maybe not).

ted

Doug Shaver

Paul's epistles do not comprise the totality of evidence. What is known about Hellenistic thinking is relevant to how they should be construed. I have conducted a lot of research of my own since reading Doherty's work, which I first did more than six years ago. So far, I have discovered much that is consistent with his hypothesis and nothing that contradicts it.

We may reasonably assume that the stories were in alignment with the authors' biases. But what were those biases? If we infer them from the stories, the best inference will depend on suppositions about the authors' intentions in writing them, and their intentions would have depended among other things on their biases.

How do we know that the authors themselves had such a bias? We know from independent sources that there was a new=bad prejudice in the dominant culture of that region, but that would not keep one particular religious sect from arguing against it if the sect happened to consider the dominant culture to be morally depraved. It might, however, motivate them to conjure up a story attempting to prove that notwithstanding the appearance of novelty, it was not really a novel religion but simply the divinely ordained culmination of an ancient religion.

All it took to make it fact in their minds was their belief that it was so.

I believe that is my argument. Sometime during the second century, many Christians were coming to believe that their religion had recently been founded by a historical Jesus. That was inconvenient from a PR standpoint. But they also believed that the foundation occurred in a Jewish environment. That was very convenient, and it solved the PR problem. Or so it would have seemed to however many of them would have been worried about PR problems.

Their biases seemed to favor a new interpretation of an old religion. Just like the early Christians. Their biases seemed to be hostile to the prevailing culture of their time and place. Just like the early Christians. Their biases made them receptive to a foundation story that was pure fiction. Just like the early Christians.

OK, I looked at a few sites. In that context, it seems to mean more or less "anomalous" or "unexpected." I think my point stands. As long as certain things that you find anomalous or unexpected strike me as "so what is new?" we're going to be at an impasse.

Doug Shaver

I can go along with that. But I would say that Doherty was being creative the way Darwin was.

I'm not about to argue that the evidence on Doherty's side is as compelling as what Darwin had on his side. I used to think it was unreasonable to doubt Jesus' historicity. Doherty changed my mind, but I think reasonable people can still disagree with him.

He can speak for himself, but I don't dismiss any documents in reaching my conclusions. I'm just disagreeing with the conventional thinking about what those documents are evidence of.

If Doherty were advancing a conspiracy theory, I'd think he was full of crap.

Someone brought it to my attention soon after he posted it. I put a response on my Web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~douglasof...tor/muller.htm

TedM

Hi Doug. I checkout out your review. You make some good points. You wrote:

My thinking is that some charisma and/or zeal made those that knew and followed him think that he MIGHT be the anticipated Messiah. Sadness due to his loss may have increased the likelihood of visions after his death, but the kicker that got other Jews to come on board was neither: It was the idea that people were saying that Jesus had been a Passover sacrifice in COMBINATION with his alleged resurrection. Suddenly that enabled a whole new way of looking at the kingdom of God, forgiveness from sin, and eternal life, and certain OT prophecies which some thought were Messianic.


As for Doherty, I think that if Platonic influence was strong with Paul, we'd see more indication that Paul was thinking Platonically about other spheres etc.. than we do. You mention the archons, and while it isn't definitive I think the context of the "archons" reference is about human wisdom vs God's wisdom--not demon wisdom vs God's wisdom. Plus Paul uses the word elsewhere and it clearly refers to human authorities.

Doherty's case is strongest IMO when it focuses on the silences in Paul. You may find my review of his Top 20 of some interest. Here is the conclusion page.

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

Why can't they be Jewish-Christians who continue to righteously adhere to the Law but don't feel compelled to impose that upon gentile converts?

We are given no indication from Paul how John felt about gentile converts but, given that he was apparently willing to "bend" the rules when none of the Judaizers were around, Peter doesn't appear to qualify.

I don't think it matters what we call it whether applied to a group or specifically to an individual.

I'm not following you here.

"brethren of the Lord"/"Lord's brothers" = Jewish-Christians who continue to adhere to the Law

"brother of the Lord" = a single member of that group or, depending on how much weight the article can take, the leader of that group

"false brethren" = Jewish-Christians who attempt to compel gentile converts to adhere to the Law

I apologize for the confusion regarding the connection between "false brethren" and James. As far as I'm concerned (and I'm pretty sure I've read the same view expressed by scholars), the "certain" sent by James cannot be differentiated from the Judaizers or from the "certain" sent in Acts 15. It is possible James was unaware of their intent to attempt to compel adherence but, AFAIK, the only evidence suggesting that is later in Acts 15 where he is depicted as favoring the opposite. I consider that to be nothing more than a continuation of the effort of the author of Acts to rewrite history and present the early Christian movement as unified.

jjramsey

None of which makes them likely to place their origin in the first century rather than earlier.

I'd fire the PR company that came up with the Gospels. Let's see. Presenting the Savior as a backcountry peasant. Brilliant. Having the means of this Savior's death be a real turn-off. Doubly brilliant. Saying that the savior's hometown is from somewhere not mentioned in the OT, and then saying that the OT prophets do predict that this will be the Messiah's hometown. Gee, thanks.

I looked at it. I was not impressed. From the attempted rebuttal:

This is speculation, and the whole idea that the "dying savior" was a feature of mystery religions is dubious to say the least.

This dodges Muller's question rather than answering it. If on the basis of Scripture, Paul concludes that Jesus was the descendent of David, which would imply that he was an earthly human, why would he nonetheless believe that Jesus was not an earthly human?

This is another dodge, especially since "modern rendition" is vague, and you give no countering evidence that the ancient interpreted the myths as Doherty said they did rather than as the sources we have say. What is curious is your idea of "modern": Plutarch, Strabo, Emperor Julian, Tacitus. Relatively speaking, Emperor Julian is late, but even in his allegorizing of the Cybele and Attis myth, he does not say that Attis' castration took place in an upper heaven, but rather talks of it as an element of a fable that he treats allegorically. His reference to "the castration so much talked of by the vulgar" suggests that he is dealing with a myth interpreted literally by the populace.

Yet you ignore that Muller pointed out how Paul did use archon:

I find this passage interesting:

With this I agree, but I don't think you've come close to showing that you have made "the fewest possible and most plausible assumptions." Quite the opposite.