Ted Hoffman

Who else?!!!!

Don't bother Amaleq. First, "who else" is an invitation to resort to his appeal to numbers fallacy. Thats the ballpark of illogic - don't go there, let him wallow in the mud alone.

Secondly, if you list scholars, he will appeal to novelty by saying their works are decades old. Or, if you cite recent works, he will say they only are a "handful" of commentators/scholars - against his undisclosed millions.
If they are many, he will say its a "radical interpretation".

Either way, Layman has lost this whole argument. Its entirely irrelevant "who else" adopts Amaleq's translation. It stands, or falls on its own merit. Its clear Layman can't countenance it and thats why he wants to create red herrings like "who else" supports the interpretation.

Layman has now quoted Carrier five times (and its likely I have missed some other times he has quoted him).
Layman I think you have stretched "fair dealing" very thin. Why not just "purchase" the passage from Carrier and use it as your own - since you evidently employ it with much more gusto and lean on it very heavily whenever you need crutches to support your debunked arguments?

Layman

No, it does not. As I have explained, as Kim and other scholars have explained, there is no contradiction here. Unless, of course, you have an anachronistic understanding of "Gospel" and ignore the context of the passages. You also must ignore the many other pre-Pauline traditions evident in his letters:

Besides, you are still stuck with the fact that Paul relies on technical Pharisiac language for passing along oral tradition.

My suggestion is that Paul is repeating beliefs he heard from members of the Church.

The idea that Paul subordinated himself to the Jerusalem Church, that he lived with Peter for over two weeks, that he recounts their own resurrection appearances experiences, that he conedes that his gospel is the same one that the church was preaching before his conversetion, and that he recounts many other traditions and formulas handed to him from other Christians defeats the notion that Paul never repeated or accepted anything he heard from other Christians.

I did. Their knowledge of Greek and other Greek writings is far superior to yours or mine.

So far I've quoted leading New Testaments scholars well-learned in this field, a highly respected Greek-English Lexicon, and several scriptures demonstrating the meaning of the term that is inconsistent with "learned by a divine reading of scripture."

You have provided nothing but sheer assertion.

It shows how desperate you are. You insist that the scripture must mean "learned by a divine reading of scripture." But on the other hand you think it may have been written by a HJ Christian, who no doubt would not share your translation.

Because the Pharisees are not accusing the disciples of not having learned, or learned correctly the traditions of their elders. They are accusing them of not obeying the traditions of their elders. The issue is not on learning, but on conformity to the traditions.

Another problem is that you do not simply argue that "according to" means "learned." You insist that it means "divinely inspired." So your reconstruction of Mark 7:5 must be "why do they not walk by their divinely inspired understanding of the tradition of the elders." Which, of course is silly.

And another problem. Here, you are arguing that "according to"--as meaning "learned"--is referring to traditions. But in 1 Cor. 15:3, you are arguing that "according to"--as meaning learned--is not referring to scriptures, but to specific events mentioned before.

Surely you can admit that the better understanding of the verse is that the Pharisees were criticizing the disciples because their conduct failed to conform to those traditions?

This is like saying that Paul could not have written this if he did not breathe oxygen, so he must have been writing about oxygen. Even if is true Paul is referring to traditions that must be learned (doubtful), when you talk about walking "according" to those traditions you are referring to "agreement or conformity to a standard." (per Thayer). When you say someone is not walking according to those traditions you are not making a comment about what they learned. You are saying their conduct is not measuring up to what those traditions teach. So too when referring to prophecy. When you say certain things happened according to scripture, you are saying that the conduct does measure up to what those scriptures foretold.

In any event, I suspect you are wrong when you claim that Paul is referring to "a learned understanding beforehand." In what way is walking "according to the spirit" a "learned understanding beforehand"?

And remember, you insist that "according to" means "divinely inspired understanding of." So you seem to be talking about a "divinely inspired understanding of the flesh". That certainly is odd, is it not?

Actually, the examples all support the translation of every real scholar I have read on the subject of 1 Cor. 15:3. You have offered not a single example to support your translation.

Funny how you hang your hat on Mark after chiding me for referring to James' use of the same phrase. After all, at least -- according to you and Doherty -- James was also a Jesus Myther and wrote much closer in time to Paul than Mark did.

And some other Pauline verses using the phrase as meaning "agreement to or conformity with a standard":

2 Th. 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Once again Paul uses the term to refer to measuring (or failing to measure) up to a tradition.

Rom 8:12-13: "So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

Paul is telling the Romans that they should not live their life in conformity to the fleshly nature, but that they should live their life by measuring up to the standards of the Spirit.

1Ti 1:18: "This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight,"

Paul is telling Timothy to act in conformity to the prophecies made about him. It is Paul's hope that Timothy's actions will be in accordance with what was foretold about him. He does not suggest that he learned of Timothy's actions by a prophecy.

2 Co 4:13: "But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed, therefore I spoke,' we also believe, therefore we also speak,"

Paul is encouraging his converts to act in a certain way. A way that agrees with scripture.

You have misrepresented my position. I only said that "according to the scripture" was a reference to actual historical events. I do not and have not claimed that Paul had actually witnessed them.

In any event, you have misunderstood this passage. Paul does not claim that the Galatians saw the event of Jesus' crucifixion. True, Paul appears to be referring to a particularly vivid description of Jesus' death. Perhaps even including acting it out. But he is referring to his own presentation of that event to them.

(KJV) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(GW) You stupid people of Galatia! Who put you under an evil spell? Wasn't Christ Jesus' crucifixion clearly described to you?

(CEV) You stupid Galatians! I told you exactly how Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross. Has someone now put an evil spell on you

(GNB) You foolish Galatians! Who put a spell on you? Before your very eyes you had a clear description of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross!

(NLT) Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has cast an evil spell on you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ's death as clearly as though I had shown you a signboard with a picture of Christ dying on the cross.

Personally, I like the NKJV: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?"

Paul was a Pharisee.

Why would we have to reject the Gospel stories if we reject your bizarre rending of this passage?

Where is the traditional waiting period of three days mentioned in scripture? There is no mention of a three-day descent into Sheol in 1 Cor. 15 and there is no mention of any three day period in Psalm 16.

I thought you rejected the idea of a revelatory experience and preferred a simple development of ideas based on the reading of scripture?

I do not ignore how Paul described the events. He describes them as events. Jesus was died. That is an event. Jesus was buried. That is an event. Jesus was resurrected. That was an event. There were several resurrection appearances. Those were events.

Honestly, what do you think the odds are that Paul had some sort of revelatory experience that just happened to give him the same gospel that the Apostles in Jerusalem were already preaching, but his experience was in no way influenced by their own teaching?

But since you argue that the divinely revealed truths came from reading scripture, this is inconsistent with your position. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Remember?

These can only be divinely inspired interpretations of Scripture.

No, this information Paul describes as based on a divinely inspired reading of Scripture.

1 Cor. 15:3 does not say that the resurrection appearance to Peter was when the death of Christ was revealed. Indeed, Paul says the opposite. Jesus died, was buried, was resurrected. After that he appeared to Peter and the Twelve. Then after that to James and the 500.

Paul nowhere says in these passages that the death of Christ was "revealed" to anyone, much less that this revelation occurred during the resurrection appearances.

Actually, no. You insist that Paul's reading of scripture lead him to agree with the Church.

As has been pointed out, you have an anachronistic notion of what the term "gospel" means. And you have deafened yourself to the obvious contextual differences in the first letter to the Corinthians and the letter to the Galatians.

Amaleq13

Layman,


The previous post where the relevant passages from Paul were considered together clearly renders your claim that he directly obtained information from the Jerusalem group untenable. Your denials and those of others sharing your faith do not appear to change the plain meaning of the actual text.

Paul uses a word that is associated with rabbinical language but, as Koester notes, he deviates from that tradition when he fails to identify his source. Paul's audience "received" their knowledge from Paul who, in turn, "received" it from the Risen Christ. The use of this word does not allow you to insert sources contrary to Paul's statements elsewhere.

If by "Church", you mean the Jerusalem group, your suggestion has been shown to be untenable. If by "Church", you mean the Church of God, then you have changed your position to agree with my own given the assumption that the passage is authentic to Paul.

Already addressed. Paul went to Jerusalem because of a revelation, he asserts just before describing meeting Peter that he obtained his gospel from no man, the extent of agreement appears to have been exaggerated given the subsequent disagreement over the fairly fundamental question of Genitiles following the Law, that Paul learned beliefs from the Church of God does not equate with being told things by the Jerusalem group directly.

First, the "divine reading" portion answers the question "how did Paul learn the new interpretation of Scripture". It is obtained from reading Paul's other statements about his beliefs. Second, if the passage is not authentic, it is irrelevant to understanding Paul's beliefs.

The issue is whether "conformity to the tradition" denies that the traditions were learned. Obviously not since you cannot conform to something you have not learned.

The "divinely inspired" is specific to Paul since that is how he claims to have learned the gospel. Paul didn't write Mark and the author doesn't claim the traditions were divinely inspired.

You are merely asserting a "better understanding", you are asserting that understanding this to refer to their inadquate learning of traditions is "bizarre" or "fanciful".

Interpreting the phrase to mean "learned from" is clearly only appropriate when texts or traditions are being discussed.

I realize this has been your repeated assertion but you have yet to provide any substantive defense of it. Where does Paul refer to these as ]witnessed events? He is talking about beliefs being in conformity with a new understanding of Scripture.

You have missed the point. Paul is talking about beliefs as though they have the same level of reality as observed events. It is exactly this sort of faith that allows him to accept the kerygma of 1Cor15.

In response to Barrett's observation, I wrote:
Nobody is claiming that a Pharisee constructed the kerygma from reading Scripture.

Who is claiming that Paul constructed the kerygma from reading Scripture?

Paul clearly believes Christ rose after three days and just as clearly believes this is contained in Scripture. The Gospel stories depict Christ as already risen by dawn of the third day. This is just more evidence that Paul is working with beliefs rather than stories he has learned from people who were there.

It is entirely disingenuous of you to ask these questions when you are well aware that we have already discussed this topic at length in another thread. I provided several links (e.g. Carrier and Kirby IIRC) that show the three-day-wait in Jewish tradition as well as the three-day descent concept in earlier pagan tradition. It was also shown that early Christians strongly believed that Jesus had descended into Sheol/Hell prior to the resurrection. It is even included in one of the early creeds.

It depends on how much significance is assigned to the order Paul gives the events in 1Cor15. The above is based on accepting the order as deliberate and meaningful.

More problematic for your position is the fact that Paul nowhere says that the death of Christ was known to anyone prior to the resurrection appearances or new understanding of Scripture.

I agree that you keep repeating this assertion but you have yet to defend it adequately. Why should we assume that Paul would not include the teachings of the living Jesus as part of his gospel?

Amaleq13

Layman,


Here is the information you were provided months ago that you have apparently since forgotten:

I mistakenly attributed the first reference to Kirby rather than Lowder. I cited Kirby later in the same post but against the idea of retrojecting Gospel information into Paul's thinking.

GakuseiDon

And yet you seem to be happy that Paul would consider the teachings from a Risen Jesus to be irrelevant?

My biggest criticism on Doherty's idea is that often it doesn't explain anything. Doherty's Jesus was someone who was born, broke bread, was crucified, buried and rose again, on a celestial plane, and communicated with disciples via visions. For Doherty's Paul, Jesus WAS a real person AFAICS. Yet Paul gives little information about Him. Why is this only a problem for HJers?

And why wouldn't Doherty's Paul consider teachings from a Risen Jesus to be just as relevant as teachings from a living Jesus? Paul doesn't say what he learned from the Jerusalem group (IYO), but then why is this only a problem for HJers? Why didn't Paul talk more about learning anything from anyone else who had visions of a Risen Jesus? For that matter, why didn't Paul talk more about his own visions, like receiving the gospel, or about divorce? There is an expectation that Paul would talk about a living Jesus, but no reason given why the same doesn't apply to a Risen Jesus.

Amaleq13

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never denied that Paul appeals to teachings from the Risen Christ. In fact, there are a couple examples of this mentioned in my posts.

Because a celestial person wouldn't have much to be said about them except that they took on the appearance of flesh and was executed. An historical person, on the other hand, would have a life during which things happened.

If Doherty's Paul believed in a living, teaching Jesus, he probably would consider those teachings relevant. The point is, there is no living, teaching Jesus depicted in Paul's letters.

You incorrectly describe the evidence. Paul does say that he learned nothing from the Jerusalem group. This is a problem for anyone who claims otherwise.

There is an expectation that Paul would include the teachings of a living Jesus in his gospel. There is also an expectation that Paul would include the teachings of the Risen Christ in his gospel. The former is nowhere to be found in his letters but the latter certainly is. I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Ted Hoffman

Gakusei,

This shows you do not understand Doherty's thesis or the mythicist case. Have you read the Jesus Puzzle?
Let me tell you one major puzzle that Doherty's "idea" resolves:

It explains why we can't find anything resembling the Jesus of the Gospel story if we were to rely on the letters of the earliest Christians, such as Paul and those that wrote the NT epistles. IOW, It explains why what is in the Gospels is not outside the Gospels.

It explains the "conspiracy" of silence about a HJ that we find outside the Gospels (Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Romans etc).

And it resolves problems that concern historicity, supernaturalism, the origins of christianity, the "nature" of Jesus etc etc. In fact, I would say, the whole of Christianity makes sense when put in a mythicist light.

Paul's Jesus, per Doherty, was no more real than Attis or Dionysos was. Its not the same as a HJ. Paul doesn't mention anywhere that Jesus had a mother called Mary, or that he had a father called Joseph. Nothing he states about Jesus can be used, in the absence of the Gospels, to construct a historical person.

If a HJ existed, (1) Paul would have quoted him directly e.g. "And Jesus said to the fishermen at Galilee: 'Eat some fries' " (2) There could have been an Apostolic tradition and Paul would have had to receive teachings from "the twelve" that we see in the Gospels - there is no apostolic tradition up to 70 years after Jesus' death outside the Gospels (3) Paul would have mentioned Jesus' deeds (especially the miracles in the Gospels), the people he was close to, what he did on a certain day etc. What he mostly mentions about Jesus is a heavenly death and resurrection which adherents of Greco-Roman gods spoke of too.

So, dear friend, this is a huge problem for HJers because what we see is not consistent with a HJ theory. Let me repeat: huge, colossal problem.

For MJers, its the most beautiful sight to behold: absence of a crack outside the Gospels for a HJ to gain a foohold.

This is in addition to Amaleq's take on this: we can expect both but we only find one: the one that is less persuasive.

Shared experience's are more powerful, less questionable and more persuasive. As they say, seeing is believing. If they saw a HJ, and Paul spoke of a HJ, that would have made the testimony of Paul blend nicely with the people's experiences.

Secondly, there would have been no need to appeal to a risen Jesus if a HJ had already established a ministry on earth during his lifetime (that was Jesus' purported mission anyway). Even where people are said to "rise", the bulk of their ideas are availed during their lifetimes, not after death. So Paul would still have relied on the teachings Jesus promulgated during his life than during his death.


Because it shows there was no apostolic tradition. Ipso facto, it shows there was no HJ as depicted in the Gospels. Those like Robert Price, Crossan etc, who believe Jesus may have been a peasant, itinerant preacher, marginal Jew or whatever flavour (or pericope) of a HJ they find fashionable may not have the lack of apostolic tradition in their list of problems.

The visions of a Risen Jesus were not the only source of Paul's Kerygma. Severally, he stated "according to the scriptures" (midrash or no midrash) as an indication of the source of his gospel. He also seemed to have been relying on some oral traditions that were going round at the time. So there is no special reason why he should have spoken of his 'visions' - unless he wanted to draw attention to them. In my opinion, he had no special visions worth speaking of. His Damascus journey plus the miracles in Acts were the fabrication of the author of Luke-Acts.

Paul didn't need to speak about his vision at length if the risen Jesus appeared to other apostles alike. Secondly, its possible that he could have drawn attention to his christophany which could have cast a shadow of doubt about his authenticity as an apostle. People were evidently suspicious of the wandering preachers like Paul.