Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 11-17-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't find appeal in either of these scenarios. I propose the possibility of a third option. First I bring people's attention to a figure against whom Tertullian argues, a figure known as Ebion, the founder of the Ebionite movement. However, Ebion didn't exist, though Tertullian and other church fathers are blissfully unaware of his non-existence. Ebion is not a mythical figure, nor is he fictional, yet he did not exist. Once such a figure enters a tradition, the nature of the tradition allows contemplation and elaboration and by the fifth century there are more facts about Ebion, including his hometown.

Paul's gospel is a divine revelation. He expressly says in Gal 1:11 that what he proclaims is not from learnt from humans. Paul had no first hand experience of an earthly Jesus, yet he taught his proselytes that Jesus existed. Paul of course wouldn't know about any real earthly appearance as he didn't see Jesus and his gospel wasn't taught to him, so we have a figure entering a tradition and people believing that the figure was real.

Hi Spin

Just to clarify.

Am I right in thinking that you are presupposing that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation ?

Andrew Criddle

spin · 11-17-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul's gospel is a divine revelation. He expressly says in Gal 1:11 that what he proclaims is not from learnt from humans. Paul had no first hand experience of an earthly Jesus, yet he taught his proselytes that Jesus existed. Paul of course wouldn't know about any real earthly appearance as he didn't see Jesus and his gospel wasn't taught to him, so we have a figure entering a tradition and people believing that the figure was real.

Am I right in thinking that you are presupposing that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation ?

Good question. My approach has been to work with Galatians as closely as possible and hold off on other texts in order to extract what is actually in Galatians.

1 Cor 15:3-8 is highly suspect in my eyes, given the reference to "the third day" in 1 Cor 15:4. Mk 8:31 gives the rising "after three days" prophesy, which is corrected to "on the third day" in the parallels. This suggests that the reference in 1 Cor is post-Marcan. Then again after appearing to Cephas, Jesus appears to the twelve, but who are the twelve seeing as Judas was no longer with us? The separation of the twelve from the apostles suggests a Lucan dichotomy. The passage in general seems too fishy to me to be of use. It has the look of a small collection of folk traditions -- the appearance to the 500! If it is indeed veracious then it would go against what is being said in Galatians, the text I have been following, as it shows knowledge he is telling the Galatians he didn't get.

This may not be a helpful response, but it means that I suspect the text, and it doesn't square with my reading of Galatians, but then I can't rule it out. So, it's in limbo for me.

spin

Malachi151 · 11-17-2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you check Joe Wallack's recent thread, you might get the idea that Cephas was an existing leader in a faction of the church, who was incorporated in fictional form as Peter into Mark to demonstrate what a rock-headed loser he was.

Yep, this is exactly my view.

Magdlyn · 11-17-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As to the notion that "there is too much evidence that he at one time existed", I don't think there is any evidence that Jesus existed. He may have existed, but where is this evidence? The gospels? We have the sanitizing efforts of the Jesus Forum

Do you mean the Jesus Seminar, or something else?

Quote:

to get rid of unacceptable bits of the gospels on the assumption that there is good clean stuff there to start with that one will get to by removing the bad bits. Where do you stop?

Exactly. Robert Price doesn't stop. He pares it down to a disappearing point in the distance.

Quote:

That's the problem there are no guidelines,

The Seminar's guidelines:

Quote:

The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas has more authentic material than the Gospel of John.[8]

While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method,[9] the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all God's children to repair the world.[10][11]...

The Five Gospels lists seven bases for the modern critical scholarship of Jesus. These "pillars" have developed since the end of the 18th century.

1. Distinguishing between historical Jesus and the Christ of faith (see Hermann Samuel Reimarus, David Strauss).
2. Recognizing the synoptic gospels as more historically accurate than John (19th century German tradition, see higher criticism).
3. The priority of Mark before Matthew and Luke (by 1900)
4. Identification of the Q document (by 1900)
5. Rejection of eschatological (apocalyptic) Jesus (1970s and 1980s).
6. Distinction between oral and written culture
7. Reversal of burden of proof from those who consider gospel content to be ahistorical to those who consider it historical.
...

Like other scholars of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. Like their colleagues, the fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following:

* Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 - 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek."

* Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies."

* Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask -- it'll be given to you."

from

Jesus_Seminar

Quote:

no points of reference, no commonly available historical markers, nothing that allows you to apply historical methodology to say that here is a chunk of solid evidence for a real Jesus.
spin

Chili · 11-17-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Am I right in thinking that you are presupposing that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation ?

Good question. My approach has been to work with Galatians as closely as possible and hold off on other texts in order to extract what is actually in Galatians.

1 Cor 15:3-8 is highly suspect in my eyes, given the reference to "the third day" in 1 Cor 15:4. Mk 8:31 gives the rising "after three days" prophesy, which is corrected to "on the third day" in the parallels. This suggests that the reference in 1 Cor is post-Marcan. Then again after appearing to Cephas, Jesus appears to the twelve, but who are the twelve seeing as Judas was no longer with us? The separation of the twelve from the apostles suggests a Lucan dichotomy. The passage in general seems too fishy to me to be of use. It has the look of a small collection of folk traditions -- the appearance to the 500! If it is indeed veracious then it would go against what is being said in Galatians, the text I have been following, as it shows knowledge he is telling the Galatians he didn't get.

This may not be a helpful response, but it means that I suspect the text, and it doesn't square with my reading of Galatians, but then I can't rule it out. So, it's in limbo for me.

spin

Paul is pointing at the difference between his Gopsel and the Gospel of Cephas and James wherein Paul was born out of the normal cause to make Cephas' vision not normal and therefore Cephas saw 12 along with five hundred brothers of which some are aleady sleeping, nonetheless.

That Paul was the least of the apostles is a result of his persecution of the Church of God, which suggests that he stood convicted as sinner before God (Gal.2:7-9) and therefore was justified in Christ and hence found favor with God. This same cannot be said of Cephas who saw one apostle too many and thus never died as Jew in the sight of God as Christ and therefore fell from God's favor as per Gal.5:4.

Crucial here is the time that Paul spend in the netherworld after he died to the Law to be raised again on the other side of life in Christ. The difference between "on the third day" and "after three days" may be significant here to make sure that the imposter is dead indead (from Matthew 27:64) "or he will be worse than the first [imposter that was supposed to die]."

Amaleq13 · 11-17-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If it is indeed veracious then it would go against what is being said in Galatians, the text I have been following, as it shows knowledge he is telling the Galatians he didn't get.

No, it doesn't because the "good news" Paul obtained by revelation and preached to the Galatians was about their not having to follow the food laws or get circumcized while the "good news" in 1 Cor 15 is about the death and resurrection of Christ.

The former was what Paul presented to the men named in the latter while the latter is what the men named preached prior to Paul's acceptance of those beliefs.

Two different beliefs (or collection of beliefs) described as "good news" by Paul but with very different sources.

Chili · 11-17-2007, 10:03 AM

Because the freedom from food laws and circumcision is obtained in dying to the law and finding freedom in Christ and thus being alive in Christ while the Corinthians tend to see the death and resurrection of Christ as the other Christ while they continue as follower of Jesus with no victory over death as Christ.

spin · 11-17-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If it is indeed veracious then it would go against what is being said in Galatians, the text I have been following, as it shows knowledge he is telling the Galatians he didn't get.

No, it doesn't because the "good news" Paul obtained by revelation and preached to the Galatians was about their not having to follow the food laws or get circumcized while the "good news" in 1 Cor 15 is about the death and resurrection of Christ.

So you believe that when Paul says that the gospel he proclaimed amongst the Galatians was not of human origin that it was merely about the fact that they weren't bound by Jewish legal restrictions.

We are being told of Paul's conversion and its aftermath. This is the generic message that he received in his vision. There is no sign in early Galatians of the specificity you want.

He merely indicates that there had been other proselytes in circulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The former was what Paul presented to the men named in the latter while the latter is what the men named preached prior to Paul's acceptance of those beliefs.

Two different beliefs (or collection of beliefs) described as "good news" by Paul but with very different sources.

You don't seem to have justification from the context in Galatians 1.

As Paul doesn't indicate in Gal that the gospel he received was only part of the story, but was the story, given in the context of his religious life story, it's very hard to compartmentalize as you have. He's selling the whole package when he talks of his gospel and there is only one source for it.

spin

Amaleq13 · 11-18-2007, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you believe that when Paul says that the gospel he proclaimed amongst the Galatians was not of human origin that it was merely about the fact that they weren't bound by Jewish legal restrictions.

Yes. He defines his "good news" as specifically "of the uncircumcision".

Quote:

There is no sign in early Galatians of the specificity you want.

Good thing there is no reason to restrict one's reading just to "early Galatians".

Quote:

As Paul doesn't indicate in Gal that the gospel he received was only part of the story...

Not "only a part" but a particular perspective (ie "of the circumcision") of the story. He's taking the "good news" already being sold to Jews and adding his revealed "good news" to sell it to gentiles.

Quote:

He's selling the whole package when he talks of his gospel and there is only one source for it.

No, he's reconfirming their acceptance of his addition to the package. The issue is adherence to the purity codes (ie "the circumcision") not the death and resurrection of Christ. Peter was a hyprocrite with regard to the issue and Paul publicly criticized him for it.

spin · 11-18-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you believe that when Paul says that the gospel he proclaimed amongst the Galatians was not of human origin that it was merely about the fact that they weren't bound by Jewish legal restrictions.

Yes. He defines his "good news" as specifically "of the uncircumcision".

Naaa. I have specifically indicated in several threads that Gal 2:7-8 is an interpolation. You haven't contradicted that position to my knowledge. Are you doing so now?

When dealing with the indications in Gal 1 where he is talking the gospel in general, do you get any idea whatsoever that the gospel he received was restricted to dietary matters? If not, isn't it irrelevant to the general discussion? Ie that the gospel he received was the one he generally proclaimed which was a full package and not just about being free of Jewish restrictions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Good thing there is no reason to restrict one's reading just to "early Galatians".

Actually when one is trying to fathom the significance of a text, they have to deal with its content first and foremost. His is the "gospel of christ" (1:7) and that ain't just dietary laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Not "only a part" but a particular perspective (ie "of the circumcision") of the story. He's taking the "good news" already being sold to Jews and adding his revealed "good news" to sell it to gentiles.

I'll wait for you to defend using 2:7-8.

But I don't think you are on topic with his conflict with Peter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

He's selling the whole package when he talks of his gospel and there is only one source for it.

No, he's reconfirming their acceptance of his addition to the package. The issue is adherence to the purity codes (ie "the circumcision") not the death and resurrection of Christ. Peter was a hyprocrite with regard to the issue and Paul publicly criticized him for it.

The bone of contention may be one particular part of Paul's gospel, but umm, so? His specific conflict with Cephas was manifested over Jewish restrictions but that doesn't make Paul's gospel solely about being free of Jewish restrictions, nor his differences with Cephas solely about the irrelevance of dietary laws to the gentiles. It's just a way for Paul to stick his tongue out and say, "nyaa, nyaa, caught ya with ya pants down."

spin

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

11-17-2007, 10:03 AM	#37
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Because the freedom from food laws and circumcision is obtained in dying to the law and finding freedom in Christ and thus being alive in Christ while the Corinthians tend to see the death and resurrection of Christ as the other Christ while they continue as follower of Jesus with no victory over death as Christ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.