Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 11-25-2003, 07:10 AM

Layman,

As I pointed out, arguing about whether "rulers of this age" should be understood as a literal reference or as a reference to demonic powers is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. I am familiar with both sides of the argument and I've already stated which conclusion I tend to favor (even within the context of an historical Jesus). Your argument seems circular to me because Paul is contrasting the wisdom of the rulers of this age with God's wisdom right along with contrasting human wisdom. In fact, if both ultimately refer to human wisdom, he is being redundant. Regardless, this is a tangent and since it doesn't appear relevant we can agree to disagree over the interpretation of this passage.

Quote:

Paul was not shy about referring to Jewish and Greek opposition to Jesus and involvement in his death in 1 Cor. Chapters 1 & 2.

Could you provide specific verses? I see many references in those chapters to Jewish and Greek rejection of Paul's gospel but nothing about "opposing" Jesus or, with the exception of the verse in question, anything about "involvement" in his death.

Quote:

No doubt Paul is seeing God's active hand here in persecuting the Jews. But I don't think that you have to equate that with the apocalypse to do the language justice.

When I compare the translations for the passage, I can't ignore that they emphasize the sense of finality that brings to mind the wrath of God during the End Times.

Quote:

I think you are being anachronstic here and not fully appreciating the horror (to the Jews) of what Josephus reports. To them, Roman soldiers had descrated, in a very crude way, the Temple. Then Roman soldiers were called in an killed 10,000 Jews! During a sacred holiday no less.

This is not what the passage from Josephus you quoted actually states. He tells us that a Roman guard mooned the crowd, they got mad and threw stones. More guards were called and the Jews were beaten and chased out of the Temple. As they fled, 10,000 were trampled.

Even if we assume that Josephus had an inaccurate body count, I can see this would have been considered a significant tragedy but it doesn't seem anachronistic in the least to suggest it would not inspire the kind of interpretation you assert. I would be much more inclined to accept this if there were evidence that others of Paul's time considered this event (or even the two combined) as a sign of God's FINAL wrath upon the Jewish people.

Quote:

And to Christians as if God was exacting judgment on them for their opposition to the true Messiah. Indeed, I think any Christian would be hard pressed to resist such a spin on recent events. Especially if he expected the soon return of Christ.

I don't doubt that Christians would have considered this evidence that God was unhappy with the Jews but I do doubt that any of them would have described it as anywhere near "final".

Quote:

The question, given the manuscript support here, is whether Paul could have reasonably seen a great wrath having been unleashed upon the Jews?

Sorry, I don't see it fitting with the finality of the language used. If this is what Paul is referring to we have to assume he is greatly exaggerating the significance of the event(s). That is only reasonable, IMHO, if we also assume that Paul wrote this almost immediately afterward. That is too much assumption to take the wait of the claim as far as I'm concerned.

Amaleq13 · 11-25-2003, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
My favoured solution to this is that a margin gloss was included in the text. Paul wrote almost all the disputed passage except the "The wrath of God has come upon them at last" which was added as a gloss by some gleeful copyist. As so often happens, the commentary became incorporated into the text. This seems the solution that requires the least twisting and turning as interpolations tend to be as small as possible.

That seems like a very reasonable possibility. However, I still consider the false accusation against the Jews for "killing" Jesus to be unauthentic. If we had other examples of Paul making such claims, I would be more inclined to accept this as typical.

CX · 11-25-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
It never ceases to amaze me how much time you skeptics devote to things you do not care about.

Gentlemen,

(Layman and Vinnie) Could we please stick to the topic at hand rather than back and forth one line comments about the habits and motivations of other posters? Thanks.

Jimi (AKA CX - Moderator BC&H)

Amaleq13 · 11-25-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
When did I ever reduce down anything? Jews had involvement in Jesus' death as did the Romans.

You just did it again!

This is a misrepresentation of what the passage actually states. The Jews are accused of putting Jesus to death just like they killed the prophets. This is much more than "involvement", it is placing the full blame. As I pointed out before, even Josephus' Christian interpolator was smart enough to identify only the leaders as "instigating" the Romans to murder Jesus.

Quote:

Paul normally refers to Jesus' death as being crucified. In regards to Jews here he says the Jews killed him, NOT CRUCIFIED HIM. Crucified would have been his more normal usage.

True but it would have ruined the comparison to the killing of the prophets. "The Jews killed Jesus like they killed the prophets" doesn't work if the author gets specific about the mode of death.

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

You just did it again! This is a misrepresentation of what the passage actually states. The Jews are accused of putting Jesus to death just like they killed the prophets. This is much more than "involvement", it is placing the full blame. As I pointed out before, even Josephus' Christian interpolator was smart enough to identify only the leaders as "instigating" the Romans to murder Jesus.

Your wooden literalism is worthy of no further consideration. As I mentioned, Paul's usage is consistent with the Romans crucifying Jesus. The "Jews" killed Jesus. So did the "Romans".

Quote:

rue but it would have ruined the comparison to the killing of the prophets. "The Jews killed Jesus like they killed the prophets" doesn't work if the author gets specific about the mode of death.

You don't have the be the one who pulled a trigger to bearr the responsibility/guilt of one's death.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
This "rebuttal" to Doherty simply assumes what you are trying to prove. The underlying logic of it is bogus. Since the belief is that Paul's letters predate 70, therefore, this most refer to a pre-70 event, so then we search for an event we can shoehorn into this, and then voila! problem solved. The reality is that no event that occurred prior to the destruction of Jerusalem could be called "God's Wrath upon the Jews." None was universal enough.

It is my belief that this is an interpolation. The most natural reading of the meaning of this passage is that the calamity referred to therein is the destruction of Jerusalem. Consider that there are few, if any other references in the literature of the age in which anyone says "the jews got what they deserved" "Jerusalem is desolate" etc and they mean something other than the 70 AD events. In what other Christian document are these events remembered? Whereas the NT is chock full of references to the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, this cannot refer to a local calamity like the massacre at Passover or the expulsion from Rome, because it refers to the Jews collectively (twice in the passage -- the jews killed prophets, and then again, the jews got what they deserved). Imagine how this would read;

Those horrible Jews, historically they killed all the prophets, and then they got expelled from Rome? See?

Nor can it refer to the Passover Massacre, whose numbers in Josephus are wildly exaggerated as always.

It doesn't work, Vinnie. The only thing with the psychic "weight" to counter the whole of Jewish history is of course the destruction of Jewry's living heart, the Temple in Jerusalem. That is why the last line in that sequence must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, which means that this is either an interpolation, or the letter dates from after 70. I consider either possible, as does Toto, I suspect.

As for the "evidence" from Acts, Acts is a fantasy and contains little if any valid history of Paul. It is fiction. We've had a million threads on it here, and I think the reasons for consider it fantasy are well known and need not be repeated here. Therefore, whatever it says about Paul hobnobbing with the great of Judea is total nonsense, and useless as historical data.

A claim often made, but alas, inherently unsupportable from the evidence at hand. Moreover, Paul often avers that his groups knew other stories, which he chides them for listening to or go over to. It is doubtful that the kind of knowledge which you claim is really true of those groups. Most of the recent converts I know of here in Taiwan, for example, know almost nothing about Christianity. They have converted for some complex social reasons, not because they have heard and memorized and know a set of stories. That is the last reason anyone converts. Conversion is largely a social act, not an intellectual one.

Vorkosigan

Are you not aware that Paul already had an urgent eschatology to begin with? I mean, it oozes out of the Thess letter itself. His converts were shocked that some of their community had died before the Lord's returned. Take this and Paul's flexible apocalyptic langauge itself into consideration before reiterating only what Doherty did.

To require a referece to the destruction of the Jerusalem is entirely anachronistic. Welcome to Pauline theology 101.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
My favoured solution to this is that a margin gloss was included in the text. Paul wrote almost all the disputed passage except the "The wrath of God has come upon them at last" which was added as a gloss by some gleeful copyist. As so often happens, the commentary became incorporated into the text. This seems the solution that requires the least twisting and turning as interpolations tend to be as small as possible.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

For what reasons do you consider this a margin gloss? That its a reference to tmeple destruction?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I read your essay and decided to respond to Layman far more concise points. IMHO, your work contains way to much 'ad hominem' distraction and appeals to the majority. I had to slog through a lot of crap before discovering your true argument and it seemed that Layman hit all the high notes in his brief response.

Please, list all the ad hominem lines.

Then please list all the appeals to authority.

Use specific quotes.

Thanks,
Vinnie

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
That seems like a very reasonable possibility. However, I still consider the false accusation against the Jews for "killing" Jesus to be unauthentic. If we had other examples of Paul making such claims, I would be more inclined to accept this as typical.

The false accusation that the Jews were involved?

Why don't you list all the positive historical reasons which demonstrate the Jews were not involed in Jesus' death?

That is right, because you don't have any. Given this, how do you make the claim that the "accusation" of Jewish involvement is false? Are we to take your good word on the issue?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 11-25-2003, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
True but it would have ruined the comparison to the killing of the prophets. "The Jews killed Jesus like they killed the prophets" doesn't work if the author gets specific about the mode of death.

But what:

Text from NIV: "who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out".

It would have been easy to write: and crucified the Lord Jesus, killed the prophets and also drove us out.

This is an unecessary defense to begin with though.

Vinnie

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.