rlogan

FWIW,

I find the discussions of whether Jesus was "something-flesh" in an up, down, sideways, on earth, or four light years away through a worm hole in the firmament just a giant red herring.

It is a story in a developing mystery religion where there are some contraints placed upon the story as far as marketing goes.

That does not necessarily mean that the originators thought through all the elements necessary for it to survive and flourish or even that it is a coherent set of thoughts - but rather that the market placed constraints on what kind of religions survived.


One very important element - and this was emphasized by the early chuch fathers - was that it had to have some kind of "validation" in previous scripture.

That was apparently important to recruiting adherents.

While Christian theorists are working out the gibberish about Christ being sacrificed for our own expiation they are also telling adherents "look joe: he descended from David, just like this old parchment says".


Now, it seems just as important to say "seed of David" when that is patently absurd in reality as it is to put the word "Natural" on a package of mass-marketed factory produced cereal.

The "seed of David" thing is important to survival of the religion in the marketplace for religions. It is better than brand X because it's "seed of David" stuff. Prophets said so and therefore so it is.

To anguish over exactly what that means when religion is absurd mystical gibberish to begin with seems a waste of time to me. Just like anguishing over what "natural" must mean on the cereal box that has been through the industrial hands of numerous giant corporations on its way to the grocery store chain where you bought it.

What is important to the marketplace for religion is that we have "seed of David" on the label. We have some hand waving about "something-flesh" being the manner in which he is seed. But why obsess over something so opaque here? The market apparently didn't care very much about the details.

Even when someone tried to put a lineage together for the pedantic types, it was negated by the virgin birth anyway. The market just didn't care. Apparently the market wanted both virgin birth and seed of David. Who cares if they are mutually exclusive.

LGM

IIRC, Earl's theory is that the Christ of Paul’s epistles is a mythical messianic savior god invented by Paul and others, and not the pithy parable spewing, magical Galilean we later find described in the gospels.

Where exactly Paul’s messianic Christ gets whacked and resurrected seems to be just one piece of evidence in Earl’s theory and “Jesus Puzzle�. And the fact that there is this much argument and confusion amongst the learned scholars who study nothing but ancient Greek and Paul’s musings all their lives, is a strong indictment that Paul…

…wasn’t very clear.

Which makes me wonder…why wasn’t he clear? Why doesn’t he come right out and tell everybody the well known historical facts about the earthly Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, post resurrection appearances, how all those dead Jewish saints were trippin’ round Jerusalem, and how everyone saw Jesus fly up into the sky to sit by himself in the top layer of heaven?

Seems that would be an important thing to mention to folks…seems like other Christian preachers can’t stop talking about that stuff ever since.

I enjoyed the Jesus Puzzle immensely, and I think Earl makes a strong case that Paul has no clue who the Jesus of Mark’s gospel is. And he also makes a strong case that Paul’s Christian tradition and the Galilean Christian tradition of Q and the gospels, are two separate, but related traditions, that got duct taped together by second century Christian theocrats.

Does Earl have all the answers? Does he have ALL the pieces to the puzzle? No…because no one does. That’s why rearranging the 100 pieces, of the 1000 piece Jesus puzzle is a huge cottage industry.

It makes me wonder… why god had his spokesmodels leave such a confusing, incomplete, and at times, contradictory puzzle, instead of a simple clear message, that the average pipe fitter who never studied 8 years of ancient Greek in seminary, who doesn’t know kata sarka from snarky Katie…

...could easily figure out.

I’m curious GDon, where do you see evidence that Paul knows anything about the circumstances of the gospel's earthly passion story and post resurrection accounts? Where is your evidence that Paul clearly places his Christ in human form hiking around Palestine with Paul’s rival apostles and being crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem? Or did everyone in first century Corinth already “know� all this, as “historical fact�, so there was “no need� to mention it, as JP Holding would moan?

What seems pretty clear from his writings, is that Paul has no first hand knowledge of any earthly Jesus found in the gospels, and no specific details of the various resurrection stories found in the gospels and Acts. Remember folks, Jesus wasn’t the only one resurrected…we had Lazarus, Jarius daughter, Dorcas, and all those dead saints.
Yet for some odd reason…Paul simply never mentions these resurrection accounts when he’s trying to convince his cult that the dead are in fact resurrected. Interesting…

Paul’s Christ seems to simply be the central prop of his afterlife sales pitch; “believe in my visions of Christ, get forgiven by my savior god for your sins, and you’ll get a brand new resurrected physical body after you die. And then you’ll get to show everybody who is wise, that you’re really not a fool for believing my gospel�.

Paul’s derives all his authority from his mystical “visions� of invisible gods, his exegesis of ancient scripture, and his charismatic intellect and preaching ability…the exact same place Reverend Moon does. Paul describes his version of a nebulous messianic savior Christ to his followers, and what god wants his followers to do…the same way Reverend Moon does. Paul portrays himself as a humble, persecuted, moral man of god who didn’t want his calling, but god convinced him how he was needed to spread god’s message…just like Reverend Moon does.

In his day, most of the orthodox Jews didn’t believe Paul…just like most of the orthodox Christians don’t believe Moon today. Intelligent, highly educated, modern men spend a lifetime trying to decipher the meaning of Paul’s ancient Greek “kata sarka� while never giving Reverend Moon’s musings a second thought. I wonder why? See if you can figure out why we pay so much attention to Paul.

Paul is a gnostic visionary, just like Reverend Moon, they are both charismatic, deeply religious men who never met any earthly Jesus, but for some odd reason, they both think they are the earthly appointed spokesmodels of the one true god of the universe. And they both have a plan to save humanity. I’m sure that’s quite a rush.

Its no surprise that they both grew successful cults from the never ending supply of god-struck, credulous humans who so desperately want to be saved. And its no surprise that this scenario will continue to be repeated again and again, as long as there are humans.

EarlDoherty

What “indications� are these? I think it is encumbent on you to demonstrate this, not simply state it. As I’ve asked before, what did the “heavenly Jerusalem� constitute? What about the “robes and thrones and crowns� awaiting the righteous in heaven in the Ascension (9:9-11) and the “garments� in the Similitudes of Enoch (62)? Did the believer looking forward to his reward in heaven think that these were only allegorical? Did he imagine himself walking the allegorical streets of an allegorical city, or seeing God sitting on an allegorical throne? Did the adherents of Osiris imagine that their savior had only been allegorically dismembered and buried in allegorical boxes? An intelligent man like Plutarch may have drawn such a conclusion, but I doubt that the man-in-the-street did; as I said, Plutarch’s admonition to Clea shows he is countering that very literal interpretation. And you would need to demonstrate that some these things, if not allegorical, were still seen “euhemeristically� in the time of nascent Christianity.

I think we need to heed the comments of “rlogan� and “LGM� in their very perceptive postings on such matters.

By the way, you refer above to “Hellenic� gods. Are you restricting your statement to the traditional myths of the Greeks (as in Zeus and company)? If so, this is virtually irrelevant, as it does not directly relate (let alone overlap) with the type of mythological views we are discussing here.

Best wishes,
Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Continuing with my responses to TedM’s objections to my OP statements regarding the lack of reference to an historical Jesus in the early non-Gospel record:

On Hebrews 2:3-4, I quote from my Article No. 7: Transfigured on the Holy Mountain:

For Ted’s other two quotes, I urge the interested reader to have a look at two website articles, as the pertinent passages are really too long to reproduce here:

For the alleged references to an historical teaching Jesus in 1 Clement, see my Article No. 12, Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers at the Turn of the Second Century - Part One, beginning with the heading “Speaking Through Scripture�. The following few sections deal with each of the passages raised by Ted.

On the Didache, I have demonstrated that all references in that document to “Lord� are to God, not to Jesus, and thus the “gospel� it speaks of is God’s product, not Jesus’. Appendix 8 in The Jesus Puzzle is a somewhat abbreviated version of a passage on this subject, “The 'Lord' in the Didache� and the following section, in my book review of J. D. Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity.

the_cave

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's likely that people did view these things critically at the time. If religion is a marketplace, there must have been many views competing for adherents. If one guy says "'Seed of David' means something mythical'", it seems likely that there's some other guy saying "No, 'Seed of David' means something physical." The choice is then up to the individual which version is better. If people abandoned the notion that "Seed of David" needed to be a physical description of the Messiah, fine--we simply need evidence for that. I'm not necessarily saying we don't have that evidence; I'm just saying it's not a red herring.

But "natural" does have a meaning to consumers. Maybe some of them only care that the word "natural" on their cereal makes them feel good, but surely many of them assume that "natural" has some real-world consequences. I suppose they imagine that there are no man-made chemicals in the cereal, or that the grain was grown organically, or something like that. But I can't believe that there's just nothing going on inside everyone's heads besides "'Natural' sounds good, therefore this cereal is good." Granted, maybe a few, but surely not everyone.

They cared so much that eventually elaborate theologies were crafted in order to explain the contradiction, which led to great disputes. If that's not caring, then I don't know what is!

jakejonesiv

Actually, it is based on the Targum of Psalm 68:18. "Gave" rather than "received".
Regardless of the allusion to Moses ascending the Mount (and Jesus too Ex. 21:13), the concept to the fore in Eph. 4:9-10 is a redeemer descending from heaven and ascending back to heaven.
Well, that would make a nimble Jesus who could hopscotch from the air to the underworld without setting docetic foot on earth between.
The Descendit ad Inferos is a later thelogical develepment found in 1 Peter 3:18-19. It does not pertain to Ephesians. The comparison is between to be between Jesus' ascent to heaven and descent to earth.
The lower regions refers to the earth itself, not to some subterranean cavity. The mythical universe was imagined to be concentric spheres with the earth at the bottom.

First of all I never said a human Jesus, rather a docetic Jesus. I am puzzled as to why you have "no idea how such an idea could have arisen." Myths (or allegories!) can be deemed to have ocurred anywhere, including on earth. The earth of the NT is a fantasy land where all sorts of supernatural things are alleged to have occured.
__________________________________________
Now we turn to Hebrews, which is not Pauline. We shouldn't make the mistake of reading the context of one into the other, since they likely arose from differnt origins.

Hebrews evidences a "Joshua Messiah" myth. Jesus is a translation from the Greek Iesous. Iesous is also used in the Septuagint, thus readers of the Septuagint could read of "Jesus" before there ever was a New Testament (Bolland).

Well, at least not a recent one. The author of Hebrews had in mind at least two Jesus' of the Septuagint. Jesus son of Nave, as seen in Hebrews 4:8, cf Joshua 22:5. And "outside the camp" Hebrews 13:11-14 is the wilderness camp outside which Moses pitched the Tabernacle(i.e. tent, Exodus 33:7) and spoke to the Lord face to face (Exodus 33:11). The divine presense was deemed to be very difficult to bear for a mortal, resulting in death. In this case of Moses exposure to the Divine presense was said to make his face shine. But Moses came and went, but what bad effects were upon young Jesus (Exodus 33:11) who departed not from the tabernacle? This is the source of Jesus' suffering ouside the camp in Hebrews.

Now we turn to another Jesus, who was the primary inspiration for the author of Hebrews.
According to Zaxarias chapter 3 LXX, Jesus (Iesous) was High Priest in heaven. The New Testament, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, is brimming with allusions to this chapter.

CHAPTER 3
1 And the Lord showed me Jesus the High Priest, standing in front of the angel of the Lord, and the devil was on his right hand, to be opposed to him.
2 And the Lord called to the devil: That the Lord represses you, ô Satan; how the Lord, who chose Jerusalem, represses you! See: isn't that like a withdrawn firebrand of fire?
3 Now Jesus had sordid clothing, and he stood in front of the face of the angel.
4 And this one spoke, and said to those which were standing in front of his face: Remove from this priest his sordid clothing. and, being addressed to him, he added: Here I have removed your iniquities; and, adorned you trailing a long robe,
5 to you and pose on your head a clean turban< JJ correction>). And they covered it with a clean turban, and they gave him other clothing; and the angel of the Lord stood near them.
6 And the angel of the Lord, exhorted to Jesus, says to him:
7 Here what the Lord Pantokrator [Master of all things] says: If you walk on in my ways, if you guard my commands, you will be the judge of my house; and if you guard my court, I will give you men to walk in the midst of those which are here.
8 Listen thus, Jesus, High Priest, also listen, you who sit with him; because you are men attentive to the wonders; behold here that I bring forth My Servant the BRANCH.
9 See here the stone which I placed in front of the face of Jesus; on this single stone there are seven eyes; and here I dig a pit, says the Lord Pantokrator, and in only one day I will remove all the iniquity of this land.
10 In this day, says the Lord Pantokrator, each one of you will invite his friend under his vine and his fig tree.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

On the contrary, I think we would need evidence that it was ever accepted or considered or assumed to be literally true in the first place.

Paul offers no evidence to support the assertion (ie name of the mother, place of birth, etc.), he simply asserts it and, presumably, his audience simply believed it.

and

Matthew and Luke clearly tell us no "seed of David" was actually involved in the conception of Jesus.

yet

The belief continued.

Was Jesus asserted to be of "the seed of David" because he was believed to be the Messiah or because his pedigree was well-known?

If we understand belief in Jesus as the Messiah as the fundamental starting point, all of Paul's assertions follow from the combination of that assumption with various portions of Scripture believed to carry messianic prophecies or requirements.

the_cave

Are you suggesting that at no point did any Jews believe that the Messiah must be literally descended from David?

Sure. But this doesn't tell us what exactly he was asserting, or what his audience was believing. All by itself, it looks like he's asserting that there was a person named Jesus who was descended from David. Evidence that he's saying (and his audience is believing) something else has to come from elsewhere, whether in Paul or someplace else.

Yet they clearly go to great trouble to call Joseph a son of David, and provide extensive genealogies. Why would they go to such lengths if there were no controversy?

My guess is the former, though I can't rule out the latter.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question "What did Paul mean by "seed of David?" Like I say, that answer has to come from elsewhere.

Amaleq13

No, I'm questioning whether we can assume that this belief was abandoned by Christians and I'm suggesting it might not have existed in earliest Christianity.

Wouldn't he feel compelled to support the assertion if he knew it was questioned by his readers?

I think even Earl would agree that the passage in isolation appears to carry that meaning and I think he would say that he does do exactly as you suggest in your second sentence. Whether he does a convincing job of it is, of course, up to the individual.

I assume they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.

It is my understanding that the genealogies really only "work" for a gentile audience that had superficial familiarity with Jewish messianic traditions/expectations and, as a result, were willing to accept the notion of Davidic descent by adoption.

I tend to agree and that's why I think all bets are off with regard to assuming that Paul had anything else to support his assertions.

Sure it does. Paul believed Jesus was the Messiah and he also believed that the Messiah would be "of the seed of David". The first belief requires that he believed the second was also true of Jesus regardless of whether he knew anything about a biological father.

the_cave

Perhaps not "abandoned", but if "seed of David" was a mythical statement, I'm saying that a choice was being made. One interpretation was not being chosen. So this is not a meaningless discussion.

Possibly, but then this is just begging the question!

I'm not so much taking issue directly with Earl's claim, as I am making the statement that at some point, Paul's meaning matters. rlogan does have a certain point--for the purposes of fulfilling prophecy, it doesn't matter what he meant. But when push comes to shove, a believer either believes Paul meant one thing, or he believes Paul meant another.

Well, sure, it's just that something must have motivated them to want to have it as well as eat it. It must have been the demand by some that Christ be literally descended from David.

Also possible. But then why would Paul's audience lack such a requirement?
It's a little odd to claim that Pauls mostly Gentile audience made no such demands, but that later Gentiles would make such demands. Not impossible, but odd.

Yes, but when he believes the second was true, what was he believing? Was he believing a mythical interpretation, or a literal interpretation? Was he just believing that it had to be true one way or another? In that last case, it's Earl's theory that's the red herring--it wouldn't matter one way or the other what Paul meant.

Another possibility is, he meant both, in which case this discussion is very relevant!