jjramsey

That "interersting observation" pointed to the answer to your question. Quite simply, it would be infeasible to do the kind of interpolation that you are suggesting without leaving traces--for the reasons I mentioned above, and if the text we have weren't substantially what Paul wrote, it would have such traces.

Ben C Smith

Iasion wrote of:

And earlier Jake had given us 1 John 4.2-3 as evidence of a mythical Jesus (and I duly added it to my list).

I thought it might be relevant to actually take a look at one of those early people who claimed that Jesus was a phantom, not a real person of flesh and blood. Let us consider Marcion.

Tertullian contrasts Marcion with Ebion in Prescription Against the Heretics 33:

But in his epistle [John] especially designates those as antichrists (A) who denied that Christ was come in the flesh and (B) who refused to think that Jesus was the son of God. The one dogma (A) Marcion maintained; the other (B), Hebion

Note that Tertullian has used 1 John 4.2-3 against Marcion; the Pontic heresiarch denies that Christ has come in the flesh.

But how did Marcion conceive of this Christ who was not made of flesh? His gospel lets us know. Irenaeus summarizes some of what Marcion believed in Against Heresies 1.27.2 (emphasis mine):

But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judea, abolishing the prophets and the law....

According to Epiphanius, Panarion 42, Marcion also included the following lines in his gospel:

And going into the house of a Pharisee, he reclined with him. But a sinful woman, standing near before his feet, washed them with tears, and anointed and kissed them.

According to Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.42, Marcion even had the following incident in his gospel:

Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released as if he were the innocent man, while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer.

Are these passages from Marcion really evidence for mythicism?

Ben.

krosero

Ben,

In Appendix 3 of The Jesus Puzzle (pp. 305-308), Doherty suggests one text where Christ’s existence on earth was actually contested. In Magnesians 11:1, Ignatius says,

That’s the translation used in The Jesus Puzzle. The full text is here. That translation reads:

Doherty keeps a strong distinction between mythicism and docetism. His argument is that scholars who hear docetism in such passages as Magnesians 11:1 should be hearing mythicism instead. He points out that the passages in Ignatius which do seem to be combating docetism are different from those he identifies as mythicist. He cites two examples of anti-docetism: from Trallians 10, “It is asserted by some who deny God … that his sufferings were not genuine� (the full text here); and Smyrneans 5.2, “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?� (the full text here).

Doherty does not explicitly state that the vain doctrine referred to in Magnesians 11:1 is sublunar-crucifixion mythicism. But that is the type of mythicism which he proposes as preceding the earthly Christ of Q3 and Mark, and I know of no place where he has suggested the possibility of another kind.

And it seems to me that what Ignatius says does not counter the idea of a crucifixion above the earth. He says that the birth, death and resurrection took place at a certain time, but he says nothing about the location. Had he been facing the idea of an unearthly crucifixion, you would expect him to say that all these things took place in Palestine, or perhaps simply to say that they occurred on the earth. (That is the only time I would expect an ancient Christian historicist to make a plain statement that “Christ was born on earth,� or something to that effect).

Ignatius is possibly saying something like, “the birth, death, and resurrection which took place in the time of Pilate are the ones that we should be assured of� (i.e., “we should be assured of the only life I can be referring to, that of Christ�). But that is just a suggestion that comes first to mind, and I think the context of the statement will probably be more useful to look at.

Amaleq13

To whom was Jesus calling for repentance in the story? Upon what basis were they identified as sinners? The answers are Jews and Judaism, respectively. I believe you'll find prophets repeatedly making this call throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a call to reform Jews to a proper relationship with Yahweh which is, essentially, the very definition of Judaism.

From the outside, yes. From the inside, however, you will find many of each denomination who consider the others to be heretics. The Catholic Church is particular abhorred as evil by several Protestant denominations.

Clearly those were not the only fundamental concepts as far as each group was concerned.

Amaleq13

I'm going to give this one more shot and I trust you will slap yourself on the forehead when you recognize the utterly non-controversial nature of it.

What you and Chris are offering is essentially a description of a suspect but that is significantly different from identifying the man who fits the description.

When the cops say they are looking for a white male, approximately late 30's to early 40's, average height and weight, blue eyes, and brown hair, who goes by the name Doug, that is a description of the man they are trying to identify. Until they can point to an actual individual who matches that description, they have not made a specific identification.

You have a description but you do not have an identification and I question whether that is even possible given the available evidence.

Ben C Smith

Hmmm. Not quite yet. Try this. Give me an example of how you would positively identify, in your sense of the word, the ancient personage of your choice (preferably from the Roman empire in this approximate timeframe so that I might have some passing familiarity with him or her). Choose someone who, like Jesus, is not credibly known to have written anything himself.

Maybe that will clarify things.

Ben.

No Robots

Please identify the verse. Matthew is the most wholly Jewish of the Gospels.

He was destroying all religion, all manifestations of superstition. He preached no dogma. He addressed only Jews. He had nothing but contempt for Gentiles (Mt 15:24-26).

Amaleq13

You've got to be fucking kidding me, Ben.

If what I've written doesn't clarify the difference between a description and an identification enough for you, I give up. :banghead:

TedM

Maybe having missed some of your earlier posts, I've missed your point also, but as far as I can tell it really doesn't have anything to do with the difference between a "description" and an "indentification" of a particular type of Jesus. Doesn't it really have to do with the credibility of the evidence for their description of a particular identity?

Here is the description again:
Luke-Acts implicitly identifies Jesus as the one and only specific man who fits this description. So, the identification is there. As such, I don't see your point in distinguishing between a "description" and an "identification". Isn't your real objection that Luke-Acts isn't credible, while something like the example you gave for a hypothetical Josephus passage would have been much more credible, and thus a much more "acceptable" identification according to your standards?

If I've missed your point too, please explain it clearly. Your example with the cops is not helpful to me either because neither the description or the identification are easily transferred over to a historical situation as we have here.

ted

Chris Weimer

Matthew 8.10-12.

Hardly you can merely quote mine and claim Matthew's theology as such. Read the bigger picture. If Jesus was for the Jews only, why does he heal Gentiles? Why does he say that the Jews will lose their kingdom and the Gentiles will inherit it? Why does he proclaim that the two Gentiles he heals have greater faith than Israel? Why does he send his disciples off in the end to preach to all nations?