Roland

Does Homer's saying Achilles was born of Thetis qualify? Doesn't that imply Homer actually believed a real person named Achilles was born of a real sea-nymph named Thetis?

I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for here. All fictional deities had pseudo-biographical details surrounding the circumstances of their lineages and births. What's most striking about Paul's references to Jesus in this regard is not how much he says about these things but how LITTLE.

Roland

What you seem to think Paul should have done is to provide a parenthetical statement saying something like "Jesus was born of a woman (of course, we all know I'm only speaking figuratively here because Jesus wasn't REALLY born)." Why would Paul feel compelled to do that when it was already common knowledge that gods were "born" in the same sense that Zeus, Hercules, Athena etc. were born?

In fact, if Jesus were "born" in a different way than the other gods (i.e. actually born), wouldn't Paul throw a whole ton of details - date, place, parentage, surrounding circumstances - into the mix to make that distinction even clearer? In other words, all these other gods are fake but OURS is real because he was born in the city of Bethlehem to a woman named Mary and a stepfather named Joseph in such-and-such year - and I can prove it.

Chili

You'll never find it and if you do it will be wrong.

The key word is reborn, Ben. Joseph was reborn and now had 2 identities to deal with and that is why he was called Jesus. He was a new creation and therefore no longer a sinner and obviously no longer a Jew .

Mary was not ever a real person yet she was real as the beauty of Truth that was represented by Jesus of Nazareth. That is to say, without Mary Jesus would not be a Nazarite by nature . . . and not ever to become fully man. So why do you want to add a human identity to Mary? She was not a sinner and never left Eden. She is the essence beneath the name of all that is.

So here now the God identity was totally Mary and the cross Jesus carried was the old identity as Jew that had to be crucified before it can be raised. There was nothing wrong with Joseph or the cross that Jesus carried except that his time had come to be crucified on it for the liberation of his own mind wherein his own [old] world was contained. Hence, the end of his world was when he got reborn etc.

Joyce called it pregant with dispair (involutional melancholia) and once you are preganant like Joseph was there is no going back. Hence to Bethlehem he went and there gave an account of himself.

stuart shepherd

Dear Ben,
I'm trying to help but I guess I am just not getting what you're trying to prove.
But will this help.....
Acts 2:29-31 (King James Version) Peter speaking.....
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Genesis 3:15 (King James Version)
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So who is the woman? Eve? Mary ? ???
Christians will often say that Mary, Jesus' mother is the woman.
But a woman in the Bible is often symbolic of a religious organization.

Galatians 4:22-26 (King James Version)
22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

I hope what I wrote makes sense and is what you are looking for.

stuart shepherd

Ben C Smith

I think the Homeric epics assume that heroes were sometimes born of gods or goddesses. I think that they intend to say exactly that. IOW, if hero X is said to be the progeny of deity Y and mortal Z, I think the epics operate on the assumption that mortal Z was located somewhere on earth and bore hero X in the usual manner (unless otherwise specified). I also think that the epics continue to treat hero X as the son of mortal Z.

I am looking for evidence that, when Paul says, without qualification, that Jesus was of the seed of David, he does not really mean that Jesus was a Jew of the royal line, that in fact he means something else entirely, something that does not even entail Jesus being human, much less being related to king David.

I agree. And, to the extent that those details are only fictional (or epic) and not actually idioms meaning something else entirely, they are not examples of what I am looking for.

But your observations are very worthwhile. Thanks.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

David Trobisch's little ditty on letter collections is a good place to start.

What you're really asking is what Paul meant when he used terms like "according to the flesh" and a vague verb rather than a concrete one in describing how Jesus was generated. To understand what he meant, you have to turn to Gal 4 and read who was born in the flesh and spirit.

But making earthly claims about Jesus is the one thing Paul never does. Nothing of the Jesus tales written down by the gospelers comes in. Paul never writes of Jesus' ministry, sayings, pronouncements for his followers, settlements of disputes, marriage, children, death, followers, etc. Instead, he emphasizes it is God that has made him the medium, and that information about Jesus comes from revelation.

What you're doing is backreading a later understanding of Jesus into Paul. Imagine a situation in which the Paulines only exist, along with the gnostic writings -- and there are no orthodox gospels that contain the story that descends from Mark. Why would anyone take Paul as being literal when he is so obviously figurative -- like everyone else who was writing about Jesus?

Why does Paul write that Jesus was revealed through the scriptures when according to the gospels it was his actions that revealed him? In Romans 13, when Paul avers that the ruler is the minister of God for your own good, does that include when they whacked Jesus too? How can Paul possibly make that statement without reference to Jesus' own death at the hands of the rulers, either to explain or make exception? And of course, the archontes who killed Jesus were who? And as noted before, Paul's writings on marriage do not seem to recognize the problem of the marital status of the Jesus who lived on earth.

The challenge you've given doesn't address the problem, Ben.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

It might be helpful to contextualize Paul by making a list of how other real humans became gods in hellenistic antiquity. Note that I am not talking about mythical founder figures, like Moses or Romulus. Among the Mediterranean peoples, which people known to have been historical figures were worshipped as gods?

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

But aren't you doing exactly the same, by comparing the Gospels with Paul? If you let Paul speak for himself, it appears he isn't that concerned with a historical Jesus. One reason of course may be because he believed in a "mythical" Jesus, but IF Paul believed in a HJ, he seems more interested in the crucified and resurrected Christ than the "Gospel" Jesus. Trying to read Paul as someone who should have been interested in the "Gospel" Jesus is NOT reading Paul for Paul. I'm sure you agree with this assessment, so why keep bringing the Gospels into this? Isn't it a strawman?

This is what Ben is doing. So why muddy the waters by bringing the Gospels into this?

Again, you are dragging in the Gospels. Why?

AFAICS, those points are OT. The OP is about what Paul DOES say, and trying to see how it can be interpreted in terms of the literature of the day. Your point seems to be that certain statements by Paul (e.g. Jesus being killed by archontes, specific analogies, etc) suggest that the face reading of other statements by Paul (e.g. seed of David) shouldn't be taken as-is. Fair enough. But Ben is asking for examples where similar passages are read in a way other than their prima facie sense. Let's get the data first, then we can do the analysis.

Chili

Here is the NAB (Catholic)

26 But the Jerusalem on high is freeborn, and it is she who is our mother. That is why scripture says:

"Rejoice, you barren one who bears no children;
break into song, you stranger to the pains of childbirth!
For many are the children of the wife deserted--
far more than of her who has a husband!"

lovely stuart.

dog-on

Reckless is the word I'd use.

Why do you think that the passages, if genuine, need to refer to actual occurances? Why are not phrases like, "born of a woman" and "seed of David" simply understood as the author of these letters most likely understood them, as revealed knowledge? Once again, you simply want to disregard what this author says about his sources and insert some supposed knowledge that Paul must have gotten from Peter and James. Does Paul say he learned anything from these guys? Are you just reading such an assumption into the letters? Why do you do this?

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.


Hell, even if these passages are a gloss, that does not mean that the interpolator actually believed in a recent historical visitation. In fact, he probably may have thought that he was simply clarifying certain passages with the obvious scriptual references...