Vinnie

"""""""""""I accept arguments against authenticity primarily because:"""""""""

What would happen if it were shown to be genuine?

This has been dealt with satisfactorily by numerous scholars. My review will include their thoughts.

You are merely multiplying your problem. The interpolator has to make that same mistake as he/she would/should have known crucifixion was not a Jewish practice.

I addressed this above. There is no need to read this with a wooden literalism like that. As I said: "Presumably because he [Paul] thought they [Jews] were involved somehow. He would have known that crucifixion was Roman practice. We have polemic against Jews here and he must have thought they were involved. God's wrath is upon them (possible restrictive)". As J.P. would say, "high-context-society"

I appreciate you forrmulation here more than Doherty's. "Doesn't seem" is much different than Doherty's saying "this is an OBVIOUS reference to temple..."...

Some scholars--reputable ones as well!-- do agree with him but the majority of scholars accept this passage as accuate and it is not so obvious to them or myself.

So if show to be authentic what happens?

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - how can you show it to be authentic? You can make arguments that it is authentic, but there is nothing that rises to the level of proof, since we do not have the original document.

But if it were authentic, perhaps that means that Paul's letters are misdated - that Paul lived past the destruction of the Temple. (This was argued by Harold Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth). Or it might mean that Paul identified Jesus with the Jeschu was was stoned and hung on a tree for heresy by the Jews in 100 BC, according to later Talmudic stories.

What do you think it would mean? Just a simple indication that Paul thought that Jesus was a human?

Vinnie

Toto, I am going to challenege the assumption that this refers to the destrution of the temple. Doherty opines that it "obviously" does. It doesn't. There is no need for redating.

""""Vinnie - how can you show it to be authentic? """"

I will show that since it is consistent with Pauline thought, has Pauline vocabulary, is in all Pauline mss. and that reasons cited for interpolation do not hold up at all, we should regard the passage as genuine and as part of the original Pauline corpus.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Oh yeah, FYI, Carrier disagreed in his review:

"""" (iii) In Appendix 1 (pp. 297-9) Doherty should add that even if 1 Thess. 2:15-16 is original (or partly so), Paul may have believed the Jews were spiritually responsible for killing the cosmic Jesus, since scripture says so (pp. 254-5), and God may well have told him so. This shores Doherty's case up from both sides (since the case for interpolation is already pretty strong)."""""

Vinnie

Vinnie

Holding on the flipside:

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I would probably accept Carrier's suggestion you provided:

In Appendix 1 (pp. 297-9) Doherty should add that even if 1 Thess. 2:15-16 is original (or partly so), Paul may have believed the Jews were spiritually responsible for killing the cosmic Jesus, since scripture says so (pp. 254-5), and God may well have told him so.

It certainly isn't sufficient to carry the entire weight of the historical claim.

I offered the following objection to the passage's authenticity:
It is factually inaccurate since the Jews, even if they had been allowed to execute Jesus, would not have used the Roman method of crucifixion.

Vinnie replied:
Suggesting that a later (who knows how much later) interpolator was either unfamiliar or willing to entirely disregard the historical reality, is far less of a problem than suggesting Paul might do the same. We know that it became quite popular for later Christians to blame the Jews for the death of their Savior and this has persisted even up until today. Clearly none of them cared that their assertion runs contrary to known history, why should the interpolator get an exception?

Vinnie continued:
I agree but a literal interpretation is the strongest argument for Paul believing in an historical Jesus. If we are not bound by a literal interpretation, what is to prevent us from understanding this statement to reflect the historical reality that the Jews apparently largely rejected the original gospel of the Risen Savior?

Well, I'm not writing a book so I can afford to be more cautious. To give credit where it is due, I was "converted" by Doherty's book after engaging him in some email exchanges. I think he had just published the first edition and an online acquaintance somehow dragged him into our discussion forum. At that time, he was willing to sell the book directly and even autographed my copy. If I recall correctly, I think he even offered to buy it back if I wasn't convinced. I agree with many of Carrier's observations and I look forward to a more scholarly treatment of the subject by Doherty in the future.

PS I wouldn't count on either of those offers to still be in existence.

Amaleq13

Does Paul refer to all three as "prophets" elsewhere in his letters? That would strengthen this argument.

If I remember correctly, Q contains an accusation against Jerusalem for killing prophets. If I continue to remember correctly, I read somewhere that the historicity of this accusation was called into question and the claim was considered to be more along the lines of rhetorical excess. I'll try to find specific references if you are interested.

Amaleq13

Regarding the date of Mark, I wrote:
I would like to clarify this information by adding that this comes originally from Josephus to Zindler by way of Eisler.

There is apparently a passage in Josephus claiming that the torn curtain from the Temple was placed on display c.75CE. Eisler suggests that this is the likely origin of the "torn veil" detail in the Gospel story.

I would also add that Zindler is not convinced this passage shouldn't be considered a later Christian interpolation but still thinks it suggests a date of authorship for Mark no earlier than 75CE.

Vinnie

The double standards are in full force now

In the baptism thread Vinnie writed this:

Amaleq13 writes something about Mark's audience would have made the obvious connection. Its so obvious no one in the Christian record needed to write about it.


In this thread Amaleq13 argues Paul doesn't mention Roman involvement in killing of Jesus.

Vinnie Responds: Pauls countless references to crucifixion shows he knows how Jesus die and it would have been painfully obvious to everyone that Romans were involved if Jesus was crucified. My argument is actually much much much more convincing than your baptism argument yet you dismiss it.


As long as double-standards persist I will continue to expose them for what they are.

Vinnie

Vinnie

You need to provide us with some verses so we can check these out