Vorkosigan

To take just one example, Romans 9:33 is midrash on Isa 8:14. It's a perfect example of how Jesus is a figure created out of the OT. In none of your citations does anything happen in the real world....

Vorkosigan

TedM

Hi Vorkosigan! I agree that Paul uses Isaiah to support his point in Romans 9:33 about Jesus. Paul quotes the OT numerous times in Romans, to support his theology about who Jesus was. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean Paul is creating a figure out of the OT.

In any case, the figure Paul writes of is a man in the flesh who is killed by Jews. I don't see Paul placing this man in some other sphere, do you?

In my last post I attempt to make a case for how Paul places Jesus in a historical context--time and place.

Edit to include the following:

I might point out also that Paul references Jesus' death and resurrection numerous times yet from what I can tell uses a specific OT support for a Messiah that is to die only 1 time, in Galations 3:13. The reference in 3:13 is back to Deut 21:23 "cursed is he who hangs from a tree", which isn't an OT Messiac reference. He does allude to Isaiah 53 a couple of times but never as a prophecy to support the idea of a Messiah that is to die. Also, although he alludes to the resurrection over and over I couldn't find a single specific OT reference by Paul to support the idea of the Messiah being resurrected. He does say in 1 Cor 15:3&4 that Christ died, was buried and resurrected 'according to the scriptures', but doesn't provide any OT reference for either!

In short, Paul frequently used the OT to support his theology about what the death and resurrection of the Messiah meant. And he used it to support certain aspects of the Messiah's life. However, Paul DIDN'T use the OT to support the death and the resurrection of the Messiah. Yet, it is the Messiah's death and resurrection and their OT support that is the foundation of Paul's theology! What is the best conclusion?: Paul didn't 'create' the death or Jesus and he didn't 'create' the resurrection of Jesus from OT writings because he didn't have to: He had a real historical Jesus who he and others believed had really lived and died and been resurrected. Paul's task was to show that this flesh and blood man had been the man prophecied in the OT DESPITE the lack of OT prophecy that addressed the concept of the Messiah dying on a cross, and being resurrected!

ted

Amaleq13

IIRC, Richard Carrier has suggested that the Greek of 1 Timothy 6:13 can be read as establishing the timing of the appearances of the risen Christ rather than as a reference to a trial before Pilate.

ETA: Found it here.

TedM

Well, that's something I was not aware of. Is this an interpretation of the Greek that is clearly valid? Is it likely? If that is correct, then I agree that it isn't as cut and dried as I thought. Thanks for sharing that.

That interpretation seems to me lead to some questions:

1. Why would Paul mention Pontius Pilate? Is Pilate a reasonable person Paul would mention to characterize a time period in Jesus revealed the 'good news'?

2. Would Paul not mention WHO Jesus testified the good news to during the time of Pilate? That seems odd. He mentions who ELSE was alive (Pilate) but not who received the revelations?

3. If the 'testimony' were to Peter, it doesn't match well with Mark. Peter certainly isn't portrayed as a thinker/visionary in Mark, so if that is the right interpretation we then have to explain why Mark portrays him as a bumbler of sorts (Peter rebuked Jesus for planning his own death, he fell asleep at Garden, he denied Jesus 3 times). Nor does it explain why Paul would not have visitied Peter

4. If such a testimony were just a vision or revelation to people during the time of Pilate, Paul doesn't indicate that Jesus 'revealed' himself to others other than in 1 Cor 15, which says nothing of a time elapse between the death, burial and appearances to Peter, etc.. but Paul does make a big deal about being the 'last' who Jesus appeared to, even though the appearances were apparantly within a short number of years. This doesn't support a Jesus who lived in say 100BC very well.

ted

Vorkosigan

Perhaps. But your methodological approach is not legitimate. It starts from an a priori conclusion: the Jesus in Paul is flesh and blood. Then it attempts to read Paul in light of that a priori.

I do. The figure Paul refers to never lived.

That depends whether you accept that as written by Paul or as a later interpolation. If later, the gospels are probably the scriptures refered to.

That's one possibility. Another is that the death-n-resurrection is a form of Hellenistic mystery common across the Med, hence a vision that Paul or someone else had. We know that such visions were the basis of legitimacy as an apostle in the early Church. Hence, visions can just as easily, in fact, far more easily, account for Paul's theology.

I think this approach overestimates how much Paul depends on the OT and underestimates how much early Christian theology grew out of a matrix of Hellenistic Judaism that had a wide variety of texts, as well as a tradition of intercessory figures and "two powers in heaven." The fact that Jesus' death was not found in the OT is not really relevant, for the OT was not the only text used by early Christians, nor was it the only set of traditions. I suggest you go here and read the articles by Margaret Barker, especially the one on Temple Liturgy, and Alan Segal.

Vorkosigan

TedM

Paul says that the figure he is talking about is flesh and blood! I'm just repeating what Paul is saying. Those that paint Paul's Jesus as something other than what he says--living in another sphere, etc..--are going against Paul's own words.

Unless you can point to passages in which Paul says Jesus lived in another sphere, you are theorizing against his own words.

Whether by Paul or interpretation, it is not cited. The point remains: Paul didn't cite any Messiac scripture to support the death or resurrection of his Messiah.


That is possible, but not the best explanation. For Paul to accept a vision of a Messiah who was killed and then resurrected is anti-Jewish because the scriptures don't support that, and Paul was very Jewish. Paul was more likely to believe in this kind of Messiah against his will (being a persecutor of Christians) if he knew this flesh and blood Jesus he writes about was really a flesh and blood man, and not just some mythical figure he had heard about from the Romans or Greeks.


I'm sorry but that link is difficult to follow to find anything specifically related to Paul. Paul is no dummy. If this Hellenistic judaism was part of his belief system, why do we see no evidence of it? Where are the citations by Paul of the other documents reflecting these mystery cults and two powers in heaven? How many of these are clear and how many are there in comparison to the hundreds of OT quotations and references Paul makes?

Perhaps it is the perspective you have gained from all of these other sources that enables you to see Paul in a very different light than I. When it comes to Paul's own writings, I still see a HJ, and I don't think it is because I'm looking through gospel-colored glasses. He clearly refers to a flesh and blood Jesus, and it is reasonable to believe in one as he has presented him: Paul hasn't gone on and on about Jesus' teachings and he doesn't reference any miracles. Just a simple man who was pure and who was crucified. Why is that harder to believe than borrowing from mystery cults that he never references, when he does provide evidences that Jesus had very recently lived?

ted

Amaleq13

I have no reason to doubt Carrier's reading. I believe he has a good grasp of the language and that he has no personal preference to avoid the more common reading.

The reign of particular rules seems to be a fairly common way of identifying time throughout the Bible.

Why? If this reading is correct, the author is describing end points in time from the first appearances under Pilate until the final appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim 6:14). Since the author also goes on to describe the returning Christ as the "only Potentate" and "the King of kings", this might also give us a reason why Pilate is mentioned (ie as a contrast).

I don't see how this presents a problem for the interpretation.

On the contrary, if all the apostles before Paul had visions of the risen Christ and the only difference was that Paul's was relatively late, it seems quite understandable why he would not feel compelled to visit anyone else. Why should he since he had just learned everything he needed to know directly from the risen Christ?

It says nothing of a time elapse nor does it clearly state that the appearances followed immediately after the resurrection.

Who is arguing for that? If belief in a sacrificed Christ originally began with an inspired reading of the Hebrew Scriptures reinforced with a vision (or vice versa), then the "fact" that Jesus had died would be an article of faith and when or where this took place would be utterly irrelevant.


And a belated "Welcome!" to you. :wave:

S.C.Carlson

While Carrier's temporal interpretation is not impossible, epi is used so frequently in official proceedings (which tou marturesantos "who gave testimony" evokes) that 1 Tim 6:13 would be normally understood in a locative sense, i.e., to refer to a trial before Pilate.

For example, 1 Clement 5.7 has a very similar construction, but one in which the temporal interpretation is not viable at all:

If Carrier's interpretation was intended, I would expect it to be more explicit, e.g. "in the time/day of Pilate."

Stephen

GakuseiDon

Yep, exactly. Whether or not Doherty's idea of a higher 'fleshy' realm, Paul depicts Christ as having flesh and blood.

Good to see you here, Ted! :thumbs:

TedM

I don't know enough. Carlson's post may be of some interest.


Regarding my questions, you wrote:

Ok, I was wondering if Pilate would be a typical choice, as opposed to Herod or someone else.


Ok, seems reasonable.

It doesn't. It only presents questions for Mark's contrary portrayal, specific to Peter.


I meant to cancel my comment about Paul not immediately visiting Peter. The same objection applies to the HJ interpretation.

Re 1 Cor 15
I agree, but the most reasonable inference is that those appearances began soon after his burial and resurrection. Otherwise, it is reasonable expect an explanation for why there were all of these appearances.


Re: 100BC
Carrier threw it out as a possibility, and I've heard this argument--I think going back to the Jewish reference to the Jesus hung for 40 days..

I agree. I guess I can see how BELIEF that he had been a man, even if he hadn't is all that is required. But, I think it is more likely that a real man inspired the Messiac interpretation than a Messiac interpretation created a 'real' man, who lived some time in the past. It is more likely that SOME man in the past was considered holy, and a worthy Suffering Sacrifice. And IMO it is more likely that the man lived recently than in a prior generation because passion for a dead Messiah is more likely to be sustained in those who KNEW him personally or at least knew that he had lived than those who had just heard a distant story about the man.

It seems to me that the evidence for Jesus being that man is greater than the evidence for some mythical man who evolved into a flesh and blood man, because Paul's writings are the earliest, and they seem to point to a recent man as inspiration, as opposed to some mythical man. The same problems mythicists have with Paul's HJ can be applied to their own mythical man: Where is the detail about that mythical man's life?

I'd be interested in your opinions of the 8 indirect evidences for a recently living HJ from Paul I gave after mentioning the possible direct one of 1 Timothy 6:3.

Hey, thanks! HJ is a very interesting subject to me..

ted