Rick Sumner

Unfortunately, as I've noted previously, I don't have my books, them being packed for a move. But I can give you a reason off the top of my head.

The sarx/pneuma dichotomy is not employed the way Paul standardly employs it. Here it is used to introduce Jesus as the Messiah in distinctively Jewish terms (something Paul is not overly concerned with elsewhere--if "the seed of David, according to the flesh" didn't stand out in the Pauline Corpus, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place).

As an argument against this, it could be suggested that this introduction serves as a focal point for the epistle, where Jesus is the Messiah of both Israel "according to the flesh," and "according to the spirit." But, of course, that's the different use of the dichotomy that causes the problem in the first place.

As an argument that it's interpolated, I candidly can't think of one. I'm not aware of any variant that excludes this introduction (though I'll gladly be corrected), and it's attested relatively early by church fathers. You'd need some rather substantial evidence to overcome that. Something more than a desire to make it go away, which is all that's been offered so far.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

FWIW the pasage Romans 1:3-4 is explicitly quoted by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" Book 3 chs 16 and 22 and probably alluded to by Ignatius 'To the Smyrnaeans" chapter 1 which says Andrew Criddle

dongiovanni1976x

You most certainly can use the Bible as an historical source just like any other ancient writing. Most historical sources from antiquity do not derive from eyewitnesses (and even those can be suspect for their credibility).
Paul obviously has a bias but this does not preclude us from using him as an actual source. I think Chris said it best: I am not using him to prove the Bible's theological credibility- I am simply using him to add support to the argument that there once lived a man named Jesus from which Christianity likely developed.

The infamous Testimony of Flavius, which the majority of scholars agree has been tampered with is NOT the source I was using. But since you brought it up, it is worth noting that John Meier in his 1991 work, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, makes a convincing argument that the passage could have just as easliy read, Regardless, I was quoting Josephus' mention of James in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus, who abused his power before Rome in 62 CE by unlawfully putting James, who Josephus identifies as the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.9.1) and is corroborated by Paul (Gal 1:19) and Mark (6:3), to death. As far as ancient history goes- for establishing personhood, you can't ask for much more. You cannot simply throw out a source that disagrees with your theory anymore than you can any other ancient source. Historians simply take a sources biases into account. Even the gospels (Mark being arguably the best) can be used as "sources" but they certainly have more layers to peel back to get nearer to Jesus' day.
But Paul, Josephus, Tacitus and possibly Seutonius (if Chrestus referred to Christ) are our best sources to establish that Jesus walked this earth in the first century.

dongiovanni1976x

Yes, but I would argue that arguments against the Docetics would be why such acknowledgements were stressed. Especially when addressing a church he had never been too. Paul wanted to demonstrate that his gospel was "orthodox", likely to alliveate any concerns the Christians in Rome had about him.

achristianbeliever

For me to take the Jesus myth seriously I always ask for three things:

1. What is the minimal requirement for any figure to be considered historical? That way I can compare those requirements with Jesus to see why he fails.
2. Can you give examples of people who meet this minimal requirement? In other words John F. Kennedy is not acceptable since having only died 40 years ago the evidence is no doubt much better than Jesus. Course the evidence for John F Kennedy would be better than anyone in the 1st century.
3. Does your minimal requirement work for anyone you consider historical? This is the catch. I have to be able to use this "minimal requirement" not just for your examples and Jesus but for anyone you personally consider historical. If it doesn't work for anyone you consider historical that requirement becomes null and void.

I once asked this on another thread in these forums. A Jesus mythicist mentioned Bhuddha and how Bhuddha was most likely historical. When I showed him that the evidence for Bhuddha is even worse than Jesus that person stopped responding.

aa5874

Trying to show that Jesus is historic, because Buddha was not, makes absolutely no sense. I am patiently waiting for a shred of extra-biblical evidence that Jesus is historical.

And by the way, the Jesus you believe in, that is not the Jesus the 'professional historians' are looking for. The 'professional historians' are searching for a Jesus whose real father was a Human being, who did no miracles, falsely thought he was the Messiah and died after being crucified.

I need extra-biblical evidence to show that your Jesus or the 'professional historians' Jesus is indeed historic. So far only speculation.

dongiovanni1976x

Paul is a contemporary of Jesus, though he never met him in person. For him to claim that he knows of Jesus' brother and for us to have a written testimony of such a claim is an historical source.

The anonymous author of the gospel attributed to John Mark was beleived to have used Q as a source and its the earliest of the synoptic gospels.

This admission, and the fact that Mark uses a source independent of Paul, means that we have another source for Jesus's probable existence.

Josephus can be used as an independent Jewish source. (without even mentioning the controversial Flavian Testimony)

Tacitus, as a pagan source, though he is much later corroborates both of our independent sources.

Seutonius is a debatable source for his reference to Chrestus, which I think very easliy could have referred to Christ but is not necessary to demonstrate that it is more probable that Jesus existed than that he did not.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes with regard to how historians approach figures from antiquity, it is quite obvious why there is a near universal concensus that Jesus was an actual figure in history who was: born of a woman (Gal 4:4, Rom 1:3); was born as a Jew (Gal 4:4); that he had brothers (1 Cor 9:5), one of whom was named James (Gal 1:19, Mark 6:3, plus in Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1, he was thought by some people to be the messiah); that he ministered among the Jews (Rom 15:7); that he had twelve disciples (1 Cor 15:5); that he instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25); possibly that he was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23, assuming that the Greek term here means “betrayed” rather than “handed over” to death by God); and that he was crucified (1 Cor 2:2, “executed by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius" in the Annals 15.44)

You cannot get much more evidence for this for someone who never wrote anything and you certainly are never going to get the kind of certainty that you seem to be "patiently waiting for".

Clivedurdle

I thought it said brother of the Lord!

Have you looked at the link to radicalkritik 1928, it is not accepted near universally as you assert!

jjramsey

Actually, Q is the source that Matthew and Luke purportedly used in addition to Mark. The text of Q is supposed to contain the material that is shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark (with the occasional exception of a Mark-Q overlap).

aa5874

I asked for extra-biblical evidence, statements in the Christian Bible cannot verify Jesus' historicity.
Speculation is not evidence.

Speculation is not evidence.

Josephus is not an eye-witness of Jesus.

Tacitus is not an eye-witness of Jesus.

Speculation is not evidence.

The Christian Bible is not an extra-biblical source, it can not be used to prove the historicity of Jesus. Josephus writings may have been tampered with and Josephus is not an eye-witness to Jesus.

You have given me no reliable extra-biblical evidence, you have just repeated statements from the Bible and other historians who may have repeated what they have read. You have confirmed that there is no credible extra-biblical evidence which supports HJ.
And, we don't even know how many persons named Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.