Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-01-2005, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Possibly even the second century writers that you claim believed in a HJ had only a vague sense of his historicity, and it took about a century to really believe that the gospels were history?

Wouldn't this apply to first century writers as well? In other words, why couldn't Paul be a HJ writer with only a vague sense of Christ's historicity?

NOGO · 09-01-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Wouldn't this apply to first century writers as well? In other words, why couldn't Paul be a HJ writer with only a vague sense of Christ's historicity?

But Paul met Peter and had contacts with Christians in Jerusalem.
Hello!
With all due respect, this is where your position goes down the drain.
Unless you believe that Peter also had only a vague sense of Christ's historicity. But does that not suggest that Jesus the man was a legend and what we are seeing in Paul is the start of that legend.

GakuseiDon · 09-01-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This is predicated on your acceptance of (e.g.) Barnabas as an HJ writer. It's not a problem for MJ-ers, who all come from Missouri

IOW, yes, if you take X writer as an HJ writer then the apparent undecidability is a problem. But if one simply takes the MJ criteria (wall-to-wall weird, mystical and visionary Christs/Logoi/Sons, etc., blocking out the familiar human-being-albeit-God-type JC) then the MJ-er has the luxury of being happy to have, on the one side fairly clear and unambiguous (one might say mini-proto-Nicene) statements in people like Ignatius and Justin, on the other unambiguously weird and unrecognisable "Christs" in people like Paul; so things like Barnabas, which are inbetween and difficult to decide, aren't a problem.

If there are examples that are 'inbetween and difficult to decide', then it shows that there is a problem when trying to decide who is an MJer or not, without explicit comments to establish this. If there are no explicit comments in Paul, then we can't know whether he was an MJer or a HJer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

You are the one who has given the "unambiguous" criterion, and presented examples; yet upon being shown that some of what you present as unambiguous is actually ambiguous, you are saying that the ambiguity is a problem for the MJ-er? No, it's a problem for you, but not necessarily for the MJ-er.

Do you mean my "in the flesh" example? Why is that ambiguous? If Barnabas clearly believes in a HJ (even if you disagree, lets assume this for the moment), and says that Christ came "in the flesh" so that we could "behold him", then why is this ambiguous? And why can't it be applied to Paul's use of "in the flesh"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

[later note] A slightly different way of talking about this has occurred to me. It all depends on context, right? At one extreme, we wouldn't expect even a 40 AD Christian's laundry list (hypothetical HJ or MJ) to have any mention of Christ at all. But at the other extreme, when what's under discussion is religious and moral material, we would expect a Christian (hypothetical HJ or MJ) to mention teachings "from" their relevant "Christ". There are all sorts of possible inbetween scenarios, and one has to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I agree, it has to be a case-by-case basis. But if themes are common to both MJ and HJ writings, then we can start to rule them out as indications of non-historicity; for example: lack of historicity details; mapping Christ back to the OT, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I can't accept that way of working, because I can't go with your blithe acceptance of any of these writers as HJ in the first place, when that's the very thing which has to be investigated! And when, further, your deciding criterion for HJ-ness is itself found wanting in some of the very examples you offer, surely the problem is "yours", not "ours"?

So, are you saying that the 'Epistle of Barnabas' appears similar enough to MJ writings that it could, in fact, be an MJ tract?

TedM · 09-01-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There are basically three references involved in the discussion (all from 1 Cor.):

1) 2:8b;

2) 6:14; and

3) 11:26-7

The first two can be dealt with if you look at the immediate context: see which makes better sense, with or without the verse.

The third is part of the one clear piece of gospel material contained in the Pauline corpus. In the midst of a passage about the feast of the lord (one can find the ritual feast in the Qumran literature, as well as the temple centred sacrificial feast) and the correct way to approach the feast, which abruptly stops at 11:22 and restarts again at 11:28, with an intervening passage which institutes the last supper, followed by an attempted relinkage (11:27).

Consider those sure examples in which "lord" indicates god:

1) Rom 4:8 (from Ps 32:2);

2) (Rom 9:29);

3) Rom 11:34 (basically Is 40:13);

4) Rom 14:11

5) 1 Cor 3:20;

6) 2 Cor 6:17-8;

These are all based on HB and must refer to god. There are others that in my mind clearly refer to god, as I have argued with Andrew Criddle, but as they are open to interpretation, I'll leave them out.

Hopefully some of this will answer some of your questions.

spin

Thanks for the info. How about the references in Romans 14:5-9? Sounds like references to Jesus to me. And what about all of the "in the Lord" and "our Lord" references?

As for those open to interpretation, how many are there?

thanks,

ted

TedM · 09-01-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Actually, you could argue that he really didn't qualify until he was resurrected. That vindication becomes his "annointing". This would be consistent with the prayer in Philippians.

Ok, but that doesn't preclude his being recognizable as the Messiah-to-be while on earth, does it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Would he not have been sinless, desiring only to please God?

Quote:

Why would that alone qualify him to be considered the Messiah?

Maybe not for Paul, but I can see how others would have seen him as the Messiah.

I guess I see your point though about Paul's focus on a Messiah in Jesus whose purpose really was to die and be resurrected. This doesn't deny details, but whatever details Paul might have been interested in are important to Paul as they might pertain to the atoning act.

ted

Amaleq13 · 09-01-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, but that doesn't preclude his being recognizable as the Messiah-to-be while on earth, does it?

No, what seems to preclude that is Paul's claim that this wasn't revealed until after his death/resurrection.

Quote:

Maybe not for Paul, but I can see how others would have seen him as the Messiah.

How would they know he was sinless? Where would they get the idea that this qualified him to be or even suggested he might be the Messiah? What triggered that belief was a perception that the individual could free Israel. Even under the new conception, this holds true but with a redefinition of that freedom as referring to the salvation of souls.

gurugeorge · 09-01-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If there are examples that are 'inbetween and difficult to decide', then it shows that there is a problem when trying to decide who is an MJer or not, without explicit comments to establish this.

You speak as if this is a problem for the MJ theorist only, but it is equally a problem for the HJ theorist!

Quote:

If there are no explicit comments in Paul, then we can't know whether he was an MJer or a HJer.

But this is the whole point about the "positive" side of Doherty's argument. There are explicit comments in Paul that would seem to rule out an HJ - for example, the tenor of his teachings suggest that the "gospel" isn't something transmitted to us from witnesses to a historical person, but is inspired (according to Paul, in him and in Christians generally) directly by God.

Now, while it obviously can be done, you have to work pretty hard to make this fit with a HJ, whereas the MJ meaning (remember this isn't a monolithic thing, but refers to a basket of fairly diverse "Christianities" in the early period) doesn't require any work at all - it's the apparent meaning.

Why do the extra work? Of course if you are a committed Christian (for example) you will be willing to do so, but nobody else is under the same obligation.

Quote:

Do you mean my "in the flesh" example? Why is that ambiguous? If Barnabas clearly believes in a HJ (even if you disagree, lets assume this for the moment), and says that Christ came "in the flesh" so that we could "behold him", then why is this ambiguous? And why can't it be applied to Paul's use of "in the flesh"?

I can't assume it because the ambiguity is the very reason I don't assume it! (IIRC I gave above somewhere some musings re. this.)

Quote:

I agree, it has to be a case-by-case basis. But if themes are common to both MJ and HJ writings, then we can start to rule them out as indications of non-historicity; for example: lack of historicity details; mapping Christ back to the OT, etc.

But since the "themes" will mean different things under HJ and MJ interpretations, this sounds nice in theory but I can't see it working in practice.

Quote:

So, are you saying that the 'Epistle of Barnabas' appears similar enough to MJ writings that it could, in fact, be an MJ tract?

Well, to me it's an open question. Don't forget, following the gradual and increasing appearance of an unequivocally HJ JC in the texts, the MJ idea is that there was in fact (i.e. in the history of the movement) a more or less gradual adoption of the the HJ idea. Barnabas could be an example of an early phase of this.

TedM · 09-01-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, what seems to preclude that is Paul's claim that this wasn't revealed until after his death/resurrection.

Are you basing this on the Phillipians passage alone, or others?

Quote:

How would they know he was sinless? Where would they get the idea that this qualified him to be or even suggested he might be the Messiah?

I"m not sure how they would know, but Paul claims to have known. Maybe he had a reputation for being sinless. As far as how that qualified him to be suggested as Messiah, you gotta be kidding. What sinless men have you known? Given Messiah mania, any man considered righteous might qualify.

Quote:

What triggered that belief was a perception that the individual could free Israel. Even under the new conception, this holds true but with a redefinition of that freedom as referring to the salvation of souls.

Since salvation and righteousness are heavily linked throughout the OT, it seems like it would be a natural inclination to question whether a righteous man is the Messiah, as the gospels indicate. The Messiah secret you mention on the other thread seems to coexist with a following based at least in part on the idea that Jesus was sent by God, and maybe even the Messiah: Mark 6:14-16, 8:11, 8:27-29, 10:37, 11:9-10, 12:35-37, 14:61, 15:18 all show a curiousity about who Jesus was including some questioning whether he was the Messiah.

ted

spin · 09-01-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Thanks for the info. How about the references in Romans 14:5-9? Sounds like references to Jesus to me.

Sounds like god to me. What is the day Paul mentions, if not the shabbat? The only thing I see that needs commenting on is v9, which is not an absolute use of the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And what about all of the "in the Lord"

I take to mean god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

and "our Lord" references?

Not absolute, therefore not god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

As for those open to interpretation, how many are there?

How 'bout if you do some of the research?

spin

GakuseiDon · 09-01-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Wouldn't this apply to first century writers as well? In other words, why couldn't Paul be a HJ writer with only a vague sense of Christ's historicity?

But Paul met Peter and had contacts with Christians in Jerusalem.
Hello!

Oops!

You're right. Paul couldn't have had only a vague sense of Christ's historicity. I've been trying to distinguish between a lack of interest in the pre-Risen Christ and a lack of knowledge of a pre-Risen Christ. Certainly Paul must have had knowledge of a pre-Risen Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

With all due respect, this is where your position goes down the drain.
Unless you believe that Peter also had only a vague sense of Christ's historicity. But does that not suggest that Jesus the man was a legend and what we are seeing in Paul is the start of that legend.

It could be. But as I've said, the earliest HJers appeared to have little interest in Jesus the man, except for what they could find prefigured in the OT. If they had only a vague sense of Christ's historicity, they didn't appear to worry about it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.