Mythra

Kind of brings home the point I was trying to make, though.

Here's this guy - Paul or Saul or Pol or whatever his name was. He thinks he made a trip up to the third heaven. He's not even sure if it was his body or his spirit that made the trip.

And, people claim that it's a stretch for Doherty to put forth the idea that the crucifixion happened in an upper realm somewhere rather than on earth?

Earl's explanation sounds perfectly consistent and plausible to me.

andrewcriddle

Seven heavens are associated with developed gnostic/platonist/hermetic etc ideas three heavens (atmosphere, stars and dwelling of God) are a more straightforward concept.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

You have to love how the religous right reads the bible like a telescope, going in and out as it pleases them. So Paul's epistles only apply to 1st century cities, while God's admoniton to Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply (what else could they do, being the only people on earth?) applies to modern people in a world of 6 billion. Wonderful.

See James' phrase "The law of liberty". Contemplate what he means.

What the religious right means by "cherry picking" is actually taking seriously the numerous passages of the NT that contradict the odious politics of the religious right.

Now who's cherry picking. Jesus was alive at the time he said tha and speaking from the perspective of Jewish law. After Jesus died and was resurrectted, the whole concept is we got a new covenant, which isn't about following laws but loving others and acting accordingly. You're judged by the love in your heart (or lack thereof) not by some code about sins. See Matthew 25 and contemplate it.

Lots of rhetoric. No focus. You and the religious right have this fetish for trying to "prove" the resurrection of Christ. I mean, some of these guys actually write books claiming to prove it. As if God just wasn't good enough to do it, and now you all have come along to set things straight. Here's a concept: the NT is crystal clear that faith is what's required, not proof, and the reason is obvious (if it were "rational" to accept the resurrection because it was proved, then those who beleived could boast they were more rational than nonbelievers and Paul makes clear that there can be no reason to boast in one's salvation, as it is a gift). You seem to be incapable of distinguishing the issue of the historicity of Jesus (which is arguable and subject to evidence) with the claims about Jesus' divinity (which are articles of faith not subject to evidence).

As Jesus says in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man: Luke 16:31 - He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Didymus

It's pretty clear, and virtually all scholars agree, that his "gospel" consisted of his theology, i.e., the meaning of "the Lord's" teachings, and the soteriological meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection, not just the bare "facts" of those things.

What about it? I never said that Paul wasn't a fantasist.

I don't see the relevance of "difficulty of conception" here. It's not hard to conceive of Paul imagining such things, nor is it hard to conceive of him believing his messiah was crucified on earth. He probably believed both.

But you can't randomly discard the stuff you think discredits the authenticity of the work, and at the same time ridicule the rest as though it were authentically Pauline.

The gospel writers certainly got their story lines from the OT, but they also gleaned names and places from history, and they did their best to place their stories in a historical context. (Sometimes they screwed up, as might be expected when writing many years later and far from the purported locale.)

Paul didn't supply any crucifixion details. But there's nothing in his writing that precludes his regarding the crucifixion as an earthly event. With crucifixions a part of daily life, he certainly didn't need to scour the LXX or the Mysteries in order to kludge together the idea of hanging a man from a cross.

Why should derivation from ancient texts be the default position, when crucifixions were happening all around him?

You don't believe that Jewish men were unjustly crucified in the first century? Now that's hard to swallow! I don't know why it's so unlikely that Paul and his followers would have believed that their savior met such a death.

There were those, of course, but, no matter how good they might have been, it's easier to sell martyrdom than it is to sell theology. Obviously, the idea of a divine and human savior had great appeal. Note that the church didn't really "take off" until the 2nd century, when Jesus and the apostles were fully historicized.

Didymus

Didymus

To me, too, with some reservations. It's an admirable piece of work.

But I think the underlying purpose of "Earl's explanation" was to fathom why in the hell Paul said almost nothing about Jesus' earthly ministry. But it is not the only consistent and plausible explanation. The Pauline Silences could also be explained by positing an earthly crucified man whose actual identity/biography was unknown to those Diaspora-ites who heard about his miserable, protracted crucifixion and connected it with messianic prophesies.

Didymus

Mythra

Oh no. I didn't say that. It seems that crucifixion was a fairly common Roman execution method. I'm sure it was effective in discouraging trouble makers. I'm not sure whether the apparatus was a cross or a pole, but that's another topic. I can understand how crucifixion would be in the minds of first century jews. You probably didn't have to witness too many to have it imprinted in your memory.

When I said I don't buy it - I was referring to Paul's conversion, followed by his quick exit to Arabia - his daydreams or whatever they were, his personal Sunday school instruction from the re-animated LORD JESUS CHRIST, etc.

It appears about as legitimate to me as the magical golden plates and the urim and thummim magical reading glasses.

Whether there was a historical unjust crucifixion or not which was the impetus - wouldn't the scenario of the gospel development follow the exact same pattern as the mythicist model?

Either way, there was someone who either invented or embellished the story, and the gospel of Mark resulted. Either way, we can see the evolution of the christological concepts through the gospels, until Jesus ends up creating the universe.

An obscure, unjust crucifixion would explain Paul's lack of knowledge of any details. But someone still had to create the story that altered history.

Didymus

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

That's why I still prefer to call it a Virtual Mythical Jesus hypothesis. In many respects, it amounts to the same thing. On the other hand, it explains the silences without requiring us to impute to Paul a belief that he didn't explicitly state. As I said, I greatly admire Doherty, but I think he's headed down a blind alley when he tries to defend the thesis that Paul regarded Jesus as existing - and the crucifixion as having taken place - only on a supernatural, spiritual plane.

Whether we can stretch our imaginations to accept the "kata sarka" defense or not, it's a tortuous path, and, as Doherty's detractors are quick to point out, one that has never been embraced by readers of Paul. Most of the attacks on Doherty focus on this single issue. It's a huge distraction from the case against the historicity of Jesus, and that's too bad, because Doherty's writing on the Silences is the best.

Aside from being the most parsimonious explanation for the silences, VMJ is also the explanation that best fits the most commonly accepted facts. And it doesn't force us to revise the entire history of NT origins, ala the ultra-Tübingen radical theologians.

Absolutely. No bio was known, so Paul's theology of an incarnated savior impelled Mark to "flesh him out," so to speak.

Didymus

Mythra

Actually, it's an interesting hypothesis.

One question, though. And you may have already expounded on this, and I missed it - if so I apologize.

But, why would the "one trick" be a historical crucifixion?

Couldn't it also be that Jesus' one trick was performing healings, whether genuine or contrived?

Or perhaps the one historical detail was the driving of the merchants from the temple.

Or, the sermon on the mount.

Why do you think the un-embellished portion of the story needs to be the crucifixion?

Didymus

None of the events you listed are mentioned by Paul. The "silences" problems kicks in here. If an event was the impetus for Paul's belief that Jesus was the messiah, he certainly would have mentioned it. And only four earthly "main events" are mentioned in both the Pauline writings and the gospels: the Lord's Supper, the crucifixion, the resurrection and the post-resurrection (post-crucifixion, actually) appearances.

As to the resurrection, I suppose some sort of mass delusion could have taken place, but in response to what? (A crucifixion, perhaps?) Mass delusions were relatively rare even in 1st century Judea, whereas crucifixions were common at the time. And only the late and dependent Gospel of Peter suggests that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

Then there's the eucharist. But it was a private event. Jesus' arcane "toast" addressed to 12 men would not have caused a public stir. (In case there's any question, I don't for a minute think that Paul was reporting an actual event.)

But the post-crucifixion appearances do present an intriguing possibility. I think it's quite possible that such dreams/visions may have been a factor in launching the religion. A notoriously cruel and unjust crucifixion could easily have provoked such a response from the populace. And of course, there is some attestation: Jesus' after-death appearances are described both in Paul's epistles and in the gospels.

A homeless drifter (perhaps the long-lost brother of James the Just) is crucified; one or more people have dreams/visions about the event (1 Cor 15); word gets around; scripture is searched; astonishing correspondences are found, and off we go!

Didymus

andrewcriddle

I think one problem with this is the following.

If on the traditional date of the synoptics one accepts that there was a fully developed narrative about Jesus within 50 years of his death.

And if one accepts that from the beginning Jesus was considered as someone who lived and died on earth in a specific time and place IE that if the developed narrative is not original at least the conditions for its creation existed from the beginning.

Then it seems unlikely that the developed narrative only began after Paul who is writing 20 to 30 years after Jesus' death. Even if the narratives are not part of the original message they would (assuming an originally historical Jesus) be well on their way to formation by Paul's time. IE If Paul's silence does not provide evidence for a mythical Jesus it probably tells us more about Paul's priorities than anything else.

Andrew Criddle