Ben C Smith

This thread is all about fishing for sources.

I am going to make an assertion, and I am hoping that Doherty mythicists (so to speak) on this board will be able to counter my assertion with citations from ancient texts, be they pagan, Christian, Jewish, or what have you.

For the purposes of this thread, please bear with me as I assume (perhaps recklessly) that the so-called genuine Pauline epistles are indeed genuine pretty much as they stand (that is, they are not riddled with interpolations and such).

Here is my assertion: When Paul makes seemingly earthly claims about Jesus, he means them to be taken in their most common, ordinary sense. For example, when he claims that Jesus was born of a woman, he means that Jesus experienced an ordinary human birth and was a member of the human race; when he claims that Jesus was of the seed of Abraham and that Christ came from Israel according to the flesh, he means that Jesus Christ was both human and a Jew; when he claims that Jesus was born under the law, he means that Jesus was born a Jew at a time postdating the giving of the law to Moses; when he claims that Jesus was the seed of David, he means that Jesus was a descendant of David.

(This same principle would apply to seemingly heavenly claims about Jesus, as well. When Paul claims that Jesus is at the right hand of God, he means that Jesus is presently in heaven with the supreme ruler of the universe. But I am limiting this thread to the more earthly claims.)

What I am hoping someone will be able to give me is at least one clear example (and perhaps even more) of writers in antiquity writing such things of somebody (be he a god, a human, a demigod, a hero, a daemon, or other) but demonstrably not intending the reader to understand them in an ordinary sense.

Let me issue a caution here. What I am after is a clear example of the same person writing in one way but intending a meaning that is not clear on the surface. For instance, what good would it do to find one author blankly saying that Dionysus was born of Semele, thus apparently placing Dionysus in the generation after Semele, but another author saying that Dionysus never touched the earth? These two authors may simply disagree with each other. Likewise, what good would it do to find one author taking the story of Attis literally but another claiming that it is only allegorical? Again, these two may simply disagree.

What I am looking for is a passage (or more) that will explain clearly how to take terms and concepts such as according to the flesh, born of a woman, and the seed of so-and-so in a way other than their prima facie sense. IOW, we need to find the same mind both expressing itself in these terms and intending them in a different way than the prima facie reading would indicate. (Perhaps there is some author who writes one way in one text but then explains things, as it were, in another text, or in a letter to a friend; or perhaps there is some philosopher who details the beliefs of some text, saying that they say X but believe Y; but these options are not meant to be exhaustive.)

Now for the usual caveats, though I am certain I shall have to repeat them for those who are unaccustomed to evaluating individual arguments rather than whole theories at a time: I do not intend this thread to prove (or disprove, for that matter) the existence of Jesus; I do not intend this thread to show that, for Paul, Jesus was a recent personage; I especially do not intend this thread to turn into a debate proper about sublunar realms and worlds of myth. It ought to be possible to produce some texts that are analogous to what Paul writes about Jesus without getting into all that. (IOW, assuming that certain ancients believed in a world of myth or a sublunar realm where humanlike activities could take place, what is the evidence that this is what Paul was invoking with the terms he uses of Jesus?)

Again, this is a hunt for analogous sources, in the spirit of what Richard Carrier once wrote:

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Martin Luther?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/luther.htm

The point is if you think God and Demons and lakes and grooms are all real, what is stopping you thinking a god will be fleshy or in David's line - that one is a definition of a king so was essential to the plot - same argument about woman and flesh.

(I might be arguing that in Paul's view this god did come to earth but as it is all myth he was completely unconcerned about the equivalent of what plants were actually growing on the heath in Macbeth.)

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Clive. You apparently are more of a Wells mythicist than a Doherty mythicist.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

But isn't this an argument about where Act 3 Scene 27 took place? Was Kirk on Vulcan or in orbit above Vulcan? Was there a fault in the second century "Beam me up Scotty" machine?

http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/pag...asp?PageID=354

Did Hercules really give Atlas a rest?

And interestingly, has anyone compared this to the story of Atlas and Hercules?

http://www.nlas.org/hymns.htm

stuart shepherd

Is this what you are looking for?

John 11:11-14 (King James Version)
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

stuart shepherd

Ben C Smith

The interchangeability of sleep and death is widespread, as are plenty of other idioms and expressions. I am not disputing the existence of idioms.

If I were confused about the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4.14, for example, and just could not believe that when Paul said asleep he meant dead, you could pull John 11 out as evidence for the existence of that very idiom.

What I am looking for is the same kind of evidence for how Paul describes Jesus.

Thanks.

Ben.

JoeWallack

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...l2.html#Mother

" Thy Mother and Thy Brethren

Adv.Marc.iv.19;Panarion 42
20 And it was told him by certain [people] which said,
Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them,
[ Who is] My mother and my brethren?
My mother and my brethren are these
which hear My words, and do [them]."


JW:
Did Marcion intend the Reader to understand here that this was Jesus' Mother and Brothers in the ordinary sense?

What's happened is that Marcion has inherited a Gospel that has parts he doesn't want. So he's going to be forced to give meanings that are not the ordinary meanings.

Paul is similiar in that he has inherited a Jewish Bible which clearly contradicts his new Christian Gospel. So he's also forced to give meanings that are not the ordinary meanings.

I think you are correct that the quotes you give for Paul are direct and clear evidence of his belief in a Historical Jesus. I think though that you underestimate that Paul's motivation for them is to sell supposed formulas of Jesus' prophecy fulfillment from the Jewish Bible and you overestimate their value as evidence of Historical Jesus which Paul otherwise is largely unconcerned with.

If Paul is your star witness for HJ than you have a weak case. Paul was not a Christian while Jesus was supposedly alive. He becomes Christian when he thinks Jesus is in Heaven. You have a huge religious group at the time (Gnostics) who have a basic belief that things do not have the ordinary meaning. Gnostics say true meaning is determined by Knowledge and Christians say true meaning is determined by Spirit. What's the diff?



Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

stuart shepherd

Now I think I know what you are asking.

I think that you are looking for Scripture in Paul's writings which refer to a HUMAN Jesus.
Is this what you want?

It is interesting if you have a red letter edition of the Bible, where the words of Jesus are in red letters. Flip through the pages of Paul's letters and look for red letters. The only passages I know of in red letters are in 1Corinthians chapter 11 and 2Corinthians 12:9 . I am familiar with the theory that Paul wrote his letters before the gospels were written, but in any case Paul doesn't seem to quote Jesus except in very rare instances as I have noted.

2 Corinthians 12:9 (King James Version)
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness
These red letter words are not from a human Jesus but a Jesus in Heaven. In fact this passage is somewhat ambiguous because they are not attributed directly to Jesus but to the "Lord".

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (King James Version)
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The interesting thing about this passage is that this was supposed to be a Passover supper. Many Jews are quick to notice that Paul has Jesus blessing [giving thanks] the bread first and then the wine. But at a passover supper the wine is blessed first and then the bread. It is inconceivable that a learned Jew would make this mistake.
In addition the God of the OT was not too keen on cannibalism and God absolutely prohibited the eating of Blood.
This passage in 1Corinthians 11 raises problems and questions.

It would appear that Paul knew nothing of a Human Jesus....he doesn't quote him nor does he provide any substantial Human attributes of Jesus.

stuart shepherd

Ben C Smith

Thank you.

Maybe I do. But on this thread that hardly matters, since I am only trying to evaluate what Paul means by descendant of David and such, not how accurate he is.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

No. Paul is the disputed property for the purposes of this thread. What we need is something outside of Paul to help us determine what Paul meant. I wrote in the OP:

I am looking for another author (other than Paul) who says that somebody was born of a woman or of the seed of somebody but indubitably, or at least demonstrably, means something very different, something that would not place that person in relationship to the one who bore him or her.

Ben.