Amaleq13

How about this?:
The HJ writers lack an interest in the details because they had not yet been created by the imaginations of the Gospel authors. None were known previously because the incarnation served no other purpose than to allow the Son/Christ to be executed.

TedM

If the incarnation included other details, it can be argued that those details reflect the fulfillment of other purposes beyond just the execution of the Son/Christ. One might be that he fulfill certain expectations of the Messiah such as being "descended from David", being crucified in Zion (Jerusalem), and born under the law, to be a 'stumbling block' to the Jews.. Other apparant purposes might be: to initiate a ceremony of rememberance (the Eucharist), to die during Passover as a pashal lamb sacrifice, to be poor, meek and gentle, to die by method of crucifixion as a curse upon a tree. All of these are details of Paul's Jesus.

ted

NOGO

Why is that so?

Doesn't this point to a legendary character?

Amaleq13

That is a detail required by assuming the Son was also the Messiah but, ultimately, one required for the execution. Is the Son the Messiah without being executed?

This is obviously not a purpose "beyond" being executed but an apparent condition of the execution.

This is not a purpose "beyond" being executed but a condition for the atoning nature of the sacrifice.

This is a result from the execution not a purpose for the Son to descend.

This follows from the execution and is, therefore, not a purpose "beyond" it but it also comes from the risen Christ so it has nothing to do with the purpose of the incarnation. Likewise, even if we assume a literal timing of the crucifixion with Passover, that also results from the primary purpose of being an atoning sacrifice.

And all of the above relate to the ultimate purpose of the incarnation as being executed. None are actually "beyond" that stated purpose.

andrewcriddle

IMO '1900 years of interpretation' is beside the point, in most of these cases the interpretation with Lord = Christ is reasonably early in the Christian tradition.

For example I agree that the original of 1 Corinthians 5:5 probably read 'day of the Lord' not 'day of the Lord Jesus' but 'day of the Lord Jesus' is certainly old and widespread (it is found in Codex Sinaiticus for example), and if not original indicates how the pasasge was early understood.

The problem of interpretation involves IMO two issues.

a/ It seems generally true that unless Paul's readers had either a basis for shared understanding with him not needing to be made explicit in the letters, or great intellectual abilities, they would sometimes find it difficult to fully and accurately understand him.

b/ This need not mean that Paul himself was confused as to his meaning. Paul seems clearly in his original writing to have used Lord as equivalebt to Christ in an almost technical way see for example 1 Corinthians 8:6 However he is also influenced both in direct quotes and allusions by the Septuagint which in its original context uses Lord (Kyrios) as equivalent to God (Theos)

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Heck if I know.

My point was to show that in Paul's works it isn't just the Son being executed. It is also the execution of the Messiah, and with that comes conditions and details related to that execution, as you seem to agree. Most details seem prescribed by the OT, but some (like the Eucharist and probably the choice of method by death of crucifixion) don't appear to be. The details of being poor, meek, and gentle all will facilitate crucifixion, but also do nothing to explain the motive for the crucifixion, which is a curiousity: What is Paul's explanation for the the executioners' motives? Did Paul never consider that? Is that an unexpected 'silence'?

A related point: It seems that Paul uses a number of possible 'sources' to describe a Son/Christ that fulfills a purpose for being executed. The question of course is whether these different 'sources' all originate from Paul's imagination, or tie back to a HJ.

ted

GakuseiDon

Yep, and my point is: either way, we have the brute fact that there were HJ writers who weren't concerned with the lack of historical details.

If that is the case, then the following statements become invalidated:
* "A writer doesn't refer to details of Jesus's ministry because he regarded Christ as mythical"
* "Christ must have been mythical because a writer doesn't refer to details of Jesus's ministry."

Of course, mythicism stands on more than just this, but it would be nice if we could close those options off as invalid.

Toto

The problem is that it is just counterintuitive to think that early Christians were not interested in the personal historical details of Jesus. It goes against everything we observe about human nature and later Christian behavior. Why did Christians suddenly develop an intererest in the details of a HJ in the 4th century? Why was there a trade in relics after that time?

It doesn't matter how many writers you produce that (you claim) are historicists who don't recount details. How do we really know that they believed in a historical Jesus, as opposed to taking a theological position that Jesus came in the flesh, for reasons that we don't quite understand? How do we know that the historicist elements that make you think they believed in a HJ were not added by later interpolators/forgers to support a theological position?

spin

It is very hard to read anything in the bible without having voices from the last few millennia speaking through us. I don't think it is beside the point at all.

I thought I'd made the distinction in usage of kyrios clear by calling it the absolute use, ie when kyrios stands by itself with no qualifications, as if it were a name, not as a title. The case in 1 Cor 8:6 is of a title and in my mind not relevant. [K]yrios can be used both ways, "the lord said to my lord", eipen o kurios tw kuriw mou, ie name and distinct title, indicated with the possessive adjective mou. The lord Jesus, is another example of the title.

I am of the opinion that Paul uses the absolute kyrios just as the LXX does and the titular kyrios as the LXX does. I am also of the opinion that 1900 years of interpretation makes it difficult to see that.


spin

Amaleq13

I would argue that, according to Paul, the Son is the Messiah only because he gets executed. If we removed everything Paul says about Jesus that is required by or results from his execution, would we have any Jesus left at all? As for crucifixion being found in the OT, I just read something by an early church father who listed a whole bunch of alleged examples of foreshadowing. I can't remember which thread lead to the text or which Father it was, though.

Well, that is essentially the question I said I would feel compelled to ask him. Why did the 'archons' kill him?