mountainman

Hi ApostateAbe,

As far as I am concerned you are shooting yourself in the foot with Clement's use of the Greek LXX as a source of inspiration for some form of Jesus which is not mythical. Clement's Jesus lives in the Greek LXX. That is not on Earth. There is not much difference between what people are calling the "sublunar realm" and the "Realm of the creative writer" [of the Greek LXX].

Best wishes


Pete

Vorkosigan

Yes.... by putting that there, he's basically provided powerful support for Earl's claim that the early Christians found their Jesus in scripture. In fact, he's about clinched the case!

Also, thanks for the connection, which I did not realize, AA.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe

I figure that, if the extent of Earl Doherty's claims was that early Christians constructed their myth of Jesus primarily from Hebrew scriptures, it would still be unlikely, but it would be probably the most explanatory model of Jesus-minimalism. Nobody seriously doubts that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 had a fundamental and profound impact on the myth of Jesus and Christianity as it developed shortly after the death of Jesus. It is the best way to explain why early Christians believed Jesus to be sinless, for example.

However, this evidence does NOT do well to fit Doherty's bizarre hypothesis that early Christians including Clement of Rome believed Jesus to be an entity that exists merely in a heavenly spiritual sublunar realm. Isaiah 53 contains the passage, "for his life is taken away from the earth," traditionally meaning death at the hands of the Babylonians. That does not yet kill the hypothesis. One of the many points that seemingly kills the hypothesis is that Clement does nothing to make that passage in Isaiah consistent with the proposed doctrine that Jesus never existed on earth. It is a big problem, especially for a theory that isn't directly seen on the evidence to begin with.

dog-on

Why "unlikely"?

GakuseiDon

I think that's brilliant, AA! That's the kind of analysis that is needed, though I would be concerned that the differences potentially may be more a result of translation rather than Clement paraphrasing the LXX. But Paul is much more blatant about pulling passages from two separate parts of the Hebrew Scriptures and banging them together to create his own "it is written" interpretation. But certainly the changes Clement make from the LXX represent a process going on that would be interesting to analyse in further detail.

The pressure of finding Jesus prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures existed into the Second Century. For example, Ignatius writes:

And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, speaks similarly:

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man (First Apology, Ch 53)

Also, Acts indicates that "searching the scriptures daily whether those things were so" caused "many of them" to believe:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed (Acts 17:11-12)

Another example is Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote:

I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, t I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit.

I think it is easy to underestimate how much pressure there was on early Christians -- not just the Jewish Christians in the First Century, but more interestingly in the pagan Christians in the Second Century -- to 'find' Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures, and how this shaped their views on Jesus and his 'history.

ApostateAbe

Because of a lot of other evidence that I don't care to talk about in this thread, but you can read all about it in five of my previous threads.

dog-on

There is nothing that you posted on any of those other threads that would make the claim that Jesus was sourced from the Hebrew scriptures unlikely.

Why not humor me and pick any one piece of evidence that you think actually does serve to make the claim unlikely.

discordant

Might this just be two different ways of translating the same thing?

ApostateAbe

It could be. A much more rigorous analysis can be done just by comparing the original Greek of the LXX with the original Greek of 1 Clement, and no translations would be needed. Clement himself would have been looking at the LXX. Unfortunately for me, I don't have those texts available to look at. I would love it if anyone who has those Greek texts can make corrections.

And, welcome to the forum.

aa5874

You DON'T make any sense. Why don't you read what you post? Jesus was the FIRST-BORN of the UNBEGOTTEN God according to Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr was NOT a Heretic nor preached the Heresy that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father.

Why are Christians trying now to show that the NT CANON and the Church writers were HERETICS when it is CLEARLY FALSE?

Justin Martyr did CLAIM Jesus Christ was born WITHOUT SEXUAL UNION.

"First Apology" Please, stop wasting time. The NT Canon and the Church writers claimed Jesus Christ was born WITHOUT sexual union.

Jesus Christ existed as myth.