Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 06-30-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The language sounds less certain (another possible explanation), but this explanation, too, is ad hoc. The first part (A) presumes that the phrase in question, as a way of saying that Jesus was human, was not normal enough for Paul to have meant that.

Correct

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The second part (B) presumes that the phrase in question was so normal that a later scribe could use it to combat the notion that Jesus was not human.

Not correct. The argument is that it was tampered with, not that it was completely changed. Perhaps stating "Born by Mary" would have disrupted the harmony of the text because it would have raised raise questions of "Where?" which "Miriam" etc. Plus, Marcionites would have probably rioted. This would have (re)opened a(nother) schism.

The surrounding text acts as a boundary that constrains how far the interpolator can edit the text and how explicit they can be. This could explain why he settled for an ambiguous phrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Between these two options lies another, undiscussed, in which the phrase is both original to Galatians and a normal way of calling Jesus human.

This is what is in dispute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Part A above, expanded out into a chapter in Doherty, would argue that the passage is original; part B above would argue that the meaning is normal. Thus, Doherty would no longer be arguing for the mythicist position. He would be waffling between one kind of mythicist position on the one side, another kind on the other side, and an historicist position in the middle. Just because you did not mention the middle position does not mean that it is not there.

The only way to resolve this trilemma would be to argue from the specifics of the phrase itself. That would keep the author from picking and choosing which particular combination of values he needs for his theory. He would have to commit to one side or the other, or else risk leaving his reader in the middle position.Ben.

Having the reader in the middle position is fine because the important thing then would be the historicists to persuade the reader why they should believe that the passage is both original and means a human Jesus.

Do I assume that we have got the argument of alleged ad hocness out of the way?

Ted Hoffman · 06-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

How likely really is it that the proto-orthodox would bother to co-opt the texts of their rivals by interpolation instead of doing something easier and less traceable, such as forge their own texts?

Stephen Carlson

Because they dont know how far the text in their hands has circulated, and who has read it.
It is also easier to co-opt rather than to develop a text from scratch..

dog-on · 06-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Stephen, maybe Marcion was a much better theologian. He seems to have created a few churches of his own as well. You may be underestimating the power of the church, especially after Constantine, to make certain things go away (like the Marcionites)...

Ted Hoffman · 06-30-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

Let me snip it to highlight the contradiction I see:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Born of a woman is not a normal way to say that Jesus was a human on earth. [But] it was [used] by an anti-Marcionite interpolator to make Christ sound more human

Does this make it clear why it seems that Earl is trying to have it both ways? He's trying to keep his "unearthly" reading of Paul's phrase while at the same time invoking it as a phrase that the ancients regarded as confronting "unearthly" or un-fleshlike readings..

They are alternatives. Its an OR, not and AND.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

It's bizzare to me. "Born of woman" supposedly said to Paul's audience that Christ partook of the fleshly realm by entering it, and by appearing in some way like ordinary, fleshly human beings. At the same time, when docetists say that Christ only appeared in some way like ordinary, fleshly human beings, "born of woman" tells them that Christ really was given birth by an ordinary human mother right here on earth.

This passage is unclear. I dont know who the last "them" is referring to. If it is referring to Docetists, then I would find the passage inaccurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

Perhaps enough imagination can make this work. The explanation I expect is that the phrase was ambiguous enough to communicate contradictory things.

Bingo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

That is all that Earl has formerly said about it, as a way to establish that Paul was saying something ambiguous that leaves room for a celestial being. But it makes no sense as something that an interpolater would use. The supposed interpolater wanted to emphasize birth. Why choose a phrase that supposedly is ambiguous about birth and that sounds, as Earl has said, like "becoming," or "coming into being"??? Those latter connotations are nothing if not docetist and supernatural.

I think I have addressed these questions in the post to Ben above.

Ted Hoffman · 06-30-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That post was not meant to illustrate anything yet. It was just a list of raw data.
Ben.

Okay then; I will challenge it when it is supposed to illustrate something.

Ben C Smith · 06-30-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

If Gibson is so god damn concerned with bad Bible scholarship why does he choose to focus on Doherty when there are so much better Targets on the "other" side.

Why do you think that is Ben?

Another misaimed question. Why are you asking me about the mental state and motivations of Dr. Gibson?

I might hazard a guess.... If one wishes to post on the historical Jesus on the IIDB, one will have to at some point confront Dohertyism, because here Doherty is king, or at least crown prince.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman · 06-30-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C. Smith

because here Doherty is king, or at least crown prince.

Please provide evidence for this allegation. Are you confusing mythicism with Dohertyism - or futher, the former with atheism?

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 09:20 AM

The new American Archbishop was on Radio 4 this morning, very reasonable lady, quoted Julian of Norwich - Mother Jesus.

I can see xianity, as Freke and Gandy noted, going mythicist jesus before atheists do!

Ben C Smith · 06-30-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

The second part (B) presumes that the phrase in question was so normal that a later scribe could use it to combat the notion that Jesus was not human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Not correct.

Not correct? How can that be? Doherty posted the following with reference to Galatians 4.4 and Romans 1.3:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

It is possible that we need to give more credence to the idea that key phrases appealed to by historicists may not have appeared in the original texts or were changed to make them more historical-sounding.

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

“Born of woman” would be a natural insertion in Galatians (let’s say around the middle of the 2nd century to counter docetics like Marcion and others) to make the point that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.

This presumes that the phrase born of a woman is a good way of saying that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.

Quote:

The argument is that it was tampered with, not that it was completely changed.

Call it what you will, but the second argument was that the entire phrase born of a woman was interpolated.

Quote:

Perhaps stating "Born by Mary" would have disrupted the harmony of the text because it would have raised raise questions of "Where?" which "Miriam" etc. Plus, Marcionites would have probably rioted. This would have (re)opened a(nother) schism.

When Ignatius writes in Trallians 9 of Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary, is harmony disrupted? Are questions raised? Were there riots? Schisms?

Also, you are now in the position of arguing that the Marcionites would have rioted at born of Mary but not at born of a woman, as if the latter would not destroy Marcionism as easily as the former.

Quote:

This could explain why he settled for an ambiguous phrase.

So our interpolator wishes to alter a Marcionite text to say that, contra Marcionism, Jesus was actually a real human being, but does not wish to offend any Marcionites in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Between these two options lies another, undiscussed, in which the phrase is both original to Galatians and a normal way of calling Jesus human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

This is what is in dispute.

This is the crux of the logical problem. It is not in dispute, if Doherty goes through with the plan that he has outlined on this thread, that the phrase could both (A) be Pauline and (B) call Jesus a human being. Doherty will have argued in chapter 1 (for example) that the phrase is Pauline and in chapter 2 (again, for example) that the phrase calls Jesus a human being.

Quote:

Having the reader in the middle position is fine because the important thing then would be the historicists to persuade the reader why they should believe that the passage is both original and means a human Jesus.

Why? Doherty will have already done that work for the historicist reader. He will have made a good case for Pauline originality on one chapter and a good case for a historicist meaning in another. That is why I said that Doherty would, in this case, no longer be arguing for mythicism. He would merely be offering a typology, options on a grid.

Granted, the historicist will at some point have to rule out both interpolation and mythicist meaning for himself or herself (with help on each from Doherty), but the point of this discussion is the logic of arguing for mythicism by arguing independently for two key points of historicism.

Quote:

Do I assume that we have got the argument of alleged ad hocness out of the way?

You may assume that, but your assumption would be mistaken.

If it is genuine, then it means that Jesus was not a real human. If it is an interpolation, then it means that Jesus was a real human.

This turns the entire process of historical inquiry on its head, and assumes that Paul could not have written anything implying that Jesus was human, which is in fact the conclusion to be proved.

If an apologist had made an argument like that, you would have seen right through it in a heartbeat.

Ben.

krosero · 06-30-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

It means that I think Earl was in error. And you were right. It does not mean the JM hypothesis is any weaker. It doesnt reduce my respect for Earl in any way. Even Price, Crossan, Meier and several other scholars have been in error in some clear instances but where they are not in error, we value their contributions. It doesnt make them charlatans and it does not make those of us who point out their errors any better than them.

Quite right. As Rick said in one of his earlier posts, it's not a question of character; everyone makes ad-hoc arguments all the time. I, for one, am not looking for an admission of dishonesty or of trying to pull a fast one or anything like that.

Kevin Rosero

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2006, 08:45 AM	#183
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Stephen, maybe Marcion was a much better theologian. He seems to have created a few churches of his own as well. You may be underestimating the power of the church, especially after Constantine, to make certain things go away (like the Marcionites)...

06-30-2006, 09:20 AM	#188
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The new American Archbishop was on Radio 4 this morning, very reasonable lady, quoted Julian of Norwich - Mother Jesus. I can see xianity, as Freke and Gandy noted, going mythicist jesus before atheists do!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.