Zeichman

Hey Peter, since you seem to be in the business of buying copies of his book, where do you order them from? I'm just wondering if there's somewhere cheaper than amazon...

Peter Kirby

I just pay the man. Doherty, that is.

JP advert

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

jakejonesiv

Well, that is a new idea, that spiritualized Jews, meaning I suppose, Gentile converts were in the writer's mind in this passage.

These Jews are alleged to have killed Jesus and are also said to have killed the prophets. "...the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets..." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. This tells against a spiritualizing away of the Jews in this passage.

I don't see how it can be said this doesn't sync with gospel accounts. We find in Matt. 27:25, All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" cf "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:" Acts 10:39. Not to mention many passages in GJohn that _seem_ to be antisemitic.

These passages are reflective of the Sitz im Liben of Christian groups in conflict with Jewish groups and leaders well after the alleged time of Paul, leading to the suggestion that this is a late interpolation. In Mark 13:9, Jesus is made to prophecy after the fact, "But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them."

Bar Kochba is the first recorded instance of Jews
persecuting Christians, which is the alleged prophecy
in Mark 13.

"For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy." Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 31.

Jake Jones

guy_683930

Not necessarily. First, speaking to the gentiles, notice the word speaking. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 2:6 ("We speak wisdom among the perfect.").

Also, prophets has a more generalized meaning than you realize. Paul refers to the spiritual people in his congregation as prophets. Like in 1 Corinthians 13:2 prophecy is referred to as understanding all mysteries and all knowledge. Killing the prophets, in this situation, would be in keeping them "dead", that is forcing them not to prophecy or understand mysteries and knowledge.

I'm not saying 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is not an interpolation, but it is not unequivocally historical.

boneyard bill

Posted by Steven Carr:

"If you read Elaine Pagel's 'The Gnostic Paul' , you will see that Paul was used more by Gnostics than by orthodox Christians. Only later was Paul reclaimed by the orthodox."

And I think that Pagel's also suggests that the church hierarchy needed a historical Jesus because too many people we claiming a la Paul, that they, too, had experienced the resurrection.

jakejonesiv

Right you are, boneyard bill. :notworthy Justin Martyr, for example, never mentions Paul.

rlogan

Hi jbernier.

The argument here is that if we assume HJ stories are transmitted orally in the first generation, the epistles have no need to refer to them.

That does not follow. Doherty, I believe, comments on this. It is a much stronger argument that if an oral gospel tradition existed that we should very well expect references to it in order to buttress points made in the epistles.

Regardless, it simply does not follow that if a tradition was carried orally that it would never be referred to in whatever contemporaneous written record exists.

Do we have examples of that for any bona-fide historical person? That an oral tradition is carried on and contemporaneous literature is written in which he is the central focus of that literature - and yet no reference is made to his history?

Do we have to look very far for counterexamples? Of course not. There is a veritable infinity of writings as examples of the contrary. When we write about people we refer to their history.

This kind of argument is so exceedingly tenuous one has to wonder why they are made. As if the lunar landing would escape notice for a generation. Sure, why not - everyone knew about it, so why record it?

Rather a strong argument for nonexistance of the alleged events. Especially given the magnitude of the gospel claims and the complete absence of any secular confirmation.

If Jesus had indeed sent two thousand pigs to drown, then he would have faced the biggest lawsuit of all time to that date in Judea. Etc.

It would be one thing if Jesus led a ho-hum life. But when our claims make him the most exceptional personage in Judea, and indeed of all time - then you really must expect him to be written of.