Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-09-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

I notice that Bede's signature is "faith and reason," so if he would like to have a byline, I would be glad to suggest one for him.

Suggest away - but you only need another 500 odd posts to become a veteran user. Surely such an honour is all anyone could ask for.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Farrell Till · 07-09-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Suggest away - but you only need another 500 odd posts to become a veteran user. Surely such an honour is all anyone could ask for.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Five hundred? Is that all? I could reach that number easily if there are enough biblical inerrantists/prophecy-fulfillment buffs in the forum to provide challenging debating opportunities. I don't like to spend time on the type of messages that are posted in chat rooms. I want to debate biblical issues.

Is there anyone here who would care to defend specific prophecy-fulfillment claims? If I posted examples of biblical discrepancies, are there any inerrantists here who would accept the challenge to show that they are not discrepancies?

07-09-2003, 04:36 PM

Actually, we're kind of short of inerrantists around here. Some turn up but don't last long. We even get the odd atheist troll pretending to be an inerrantist to liven things up.

So, you would be better off posting on theologyweb where a few old friends(!) of yours hang out. Still, if you are interested in wider issues on the historical status of the bible then there may be more to interest you.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich · 07-09-2003, 10:47 PM

Magus55:
There is just as much evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, as there is for Alexander.

Demonstrably false. We have a lot more than a few hagiographies when it comes to Alexander the Great. We even have some accounts from India where he ran into the king Chandragupta -- known to Greek historians like Arrian as Sandracottus.

(lots and lots of biblical landmarks that have been discovered...)

And the existence of Mecca means that the Koran had been revealed by the Almighty to Mohammed, right?

And the discovery of Mycenaean Greek sites means that the Trojan War happened as described in the Iliad, Olympian intervention and all, right?

We also have accounts of the existence of Jesus from Thallus, Pliny the younger, Josephus, Seutonius, the Talmud, and Lucian.

Secondhand accounts -- at best. Thallus's works have not survived. Also, the Talmud states that Jesus Christ's father had been a Roman soldier named Panthera.

And does Magus55 believe that about JC's father?

Vorkosigan · 07-09-2003, 11:33 PM

On to 1 Cor. I have used the NIV, only fair.

Quote:

Corinthians:
2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
While it is admittedly uncertain whether "rulers of this age" is a reference to earthly rulers or not, that uncertainty is sufficient to severely damage an argument from silence.

Even if this is an historical reference, it is a little strange, for no one could mistake the Prefect of Judea and the Sanhedrin for "the rulers of this age." I think the interpretation used by Doherty is more correct, and this is not a historical reference. Paul does not know who or where Jesus was crucified; he could easily mention it here, but he does not know. That argues strongly that the Brothers of the Lord did not know either -- they were not Jesus' real brothers.

Quote:

7:10-11 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. This teaching is specifically attributed to Jesus. Similar teachings against divorce by Jesus can be found in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18.

Yes, so? Attribution of words is very common. It cannot prove the historicity of Jesus, and Paul in any case does not tell us which incarnation he got that information from. But it seems that Paul got it from the risen Lord, for he writes later on

7:25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

This implies that he is getting his information in the form of a command from the Lord, implying direct communication through channeling, visions, etc. In other words, 7:10 above does not imply that Paul knew historical words. Quite the opposite.

Quote:

9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? A reference to Jesus' brothers.

The NIV strikes again. The actual phrase reads "the brothers of the lord" the usual form of reference to some kind of entity. Whether it is fleshly or merely organizational in nature is impossible to know from the few clues Paul gives us, though the constant usage of "Brothers of the Lord" implies a specific title rather than a blood relationship. Why did he never call them "Jesus brothers" or "the Sons of Mary" or The Brothers of Christ or something similar? It is always "the brothers of the lord."

Quote:

9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. This teaching is specifically attributed to Jesus. Jesus' expression of this sentiment can be found in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7.

Again, the phrase "the Lord has commanded" is ambiguous, since we do not know the source of commands. Most likely Paul's vision, since that was where he got other information. At no time does Paul appear to refer to any written text of Jesus' words, nor does he refer to anything he heard in Jerusalem.

Quote:

11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...
Doherty theorises Paul as having visions of a spiritual Jesus, and getting all the teachings in such a manner. That Paul may have had visions of Jesus which taught him things is entirely acceptable to even the most fundamentalist Christian. This verse serves as a prime example of such an apparent claim of Paul.

Thanks. I am glad we can agree on that.

Quote:

Yet Morris (in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians), despite the fact that he agrees with Doherty as to the vision interpretation of this verse, admits that most commentators believe that this verse should be interpreted to refer to the passing on of an already established Christian tradition:

The verbs received and delivered (paralamboano and paradidomi) are almost technical terms for receiving and passing on the Christian traditions (cf. verse 2). This, taken with the general probability, leads most commentators to feel that Paul should not be taken as meaning that he had a revelation from the Lord on this matter.

Even if it is handed down as tradition, that does not mean it is true. In any case, "almost a technical term" doth not a technical term make, and even if it were, Paul might simply be arrogating the terminology to his own visions so that he can upgrade their legitimacy, a very Pauline tactic. This is not a historical reference.

In any case, if Paul is alive during the time when Jesus' brothers are alive, why the need for "tradition?" That suggests a cult hoary with age, instead of less than two decades old. Creeds and suchlike are a sign of age and strife, not youth and energy.

Quote:

11:23-25 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Jesus was somewhere:

where there could be "night" (and presumably therefore, day)

where there was bread, that could be eaten and drink that could be drunk

where there was people he could talk to and a person who could betray him

This is also in accordance with the event as recorded in the Gospels.

Maccoby has argued that the term for recieved here indicates direct revelation rather than knowledge of tradition. Also, the Common Meal Tradition predates Christianity; Jesus was incorporated into it by the usual legendizing. Additionally, these verses appear to have been inserted into Luke (to which I believe you are referring) Codex D has a short version of this which lacks this passage. It looks like an interpolation based on Paul which in turn is something he got by channeling Jesus, not out of tradition. In short, the idea that Jesus taught this historically is unsupported by Paul.

In any case, since Leidner has apparently identified the source of this story in Philo, the Pauline letters must be regarded as later forgeries, or the modern dating as all wrong (Leidner suggests post-70 for the Jerusalem crowd) or this is a later interpolation (I actually prefer the last hypothesis).

Quote:

15:3-4 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Why we should interpret "according to the Scriptures" to mean "we know this to be a spiritual truth because the Scriptures tell us" as opposed to "the physical event we told you about happened in accordance with what the Scriptures said would happen" as Doherty desires is not clear. However one point is interesting: That he was buried is not indicated as happening according to the Scriptures. Hence even if Doherty's interpretation of "according to the Scriptures" was to be accepted, it would not account for the assertion that Jesus was buried. This passage is far more consistent with a view that sees Jesus' death, burial and resurrection as being believed by the writer to be physical events predicted by Scripture.

Correct. That is good evidence that it is, as Price argued cogently, a later interpolation.

Quote:

15:21-22 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Jesus is a man just as Adam is a man. Paul (presumably) believed Adam a physical being, so such a reference to Jesus as being like Adam should reasonably be taken to indicate a belief that Jesus was also a physical being.

Paul did not believe Adam to be a physical being, but a spiritual one with immense historical significance, the Primal Adam for which Jesus is the New Adam. As 1 Cor 15 shows:

NIVIf there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[6] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

The last Adam -- Jesus -- is a lifegiving spirit. He laid it out there for all to see.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 07-09-2003, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
In any case, since Leidner has apparently identified the source of this story in Philo, the Pauline letters must be regarded as later forgeries, or the modern dating as all wrong (Leidner suggests post-70 for the Jerusalem crowd) or this is a later interpolation (I actually prefer the last hypothesis).

What's the book and chapter of Philo to which Leidner refers?

best,
Peter Kirby

Farrell Till · 07-10-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Yes, so? Attribution of words is very common. It cannot prove the historicity of Jesus, and Paul in any case does not tell us which incarnation he got that information from. But it seems that Paul got it from the risen Lord, for he writes later on

7:25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

This implies that he is getting his information in the form of a command from the Lord, implying direct communication through channeling, visions, etc. In other words, 7:10 above does not imply that Paul knew historical words. Quite the opposite.

A passage that more directly states Paul's opinion that he received information by some direct line to heaven is in Galatians 1:11-12.

Quote:

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not after man, for neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Vinnie · 07-10-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Or was there?

The subject of this post has been repeated so often and never contradicted, that it seems to have been accepted by both theists and non-theists.

Since I like to question everything I'm going to question this one.

I know that there are a lot of good historians on this forum who should be easily able to answer some simple questions.

What are the criteria for being a historical figure?

Why are Julius Caesar, Ptolemy, Alexander the Great, etc. etc. considered historical figures? (I assume they are anyway).

Why is Jesus Christ not considered to be a historical figure?

Give me some good answers and this should be a very short thread.

First factors:

We have no writings from Jesus. We have no archaeological finds. We have no contemporary references to him. We only have material from after his life. Some of this material comes from within several decades of his death. Others stems from the end of the first century. The first thing that needs to be done is to discuss the communities behind and stratify, in chronological order, all early Christian sources. The question of sources should come first.

I find there to be an HJ in Paul. If that factor is granted it should be accepted by everyone that there was an HJ. If there was no HJ in Paul then mythicism has a leg to stand on. This has long been one issue deemed crucial in the debate. But this question is complicated as Christian origins are not monolithic. Plus Paul seemed concerned only with the risen Lord anyways.

But there are several different vectors emerging from this early period with rival Jesus factions.

My new argument for the HJ in a nutshell that I'll soon be presenting is:

Early and widespread usage of Jesus sayings

It will deal especially with Thomas and Q and their overlaps which must be very early material. Also the widespread and early usage and (consequently) knowledge of the inaugural sermon in Q and other blocks.

I want to provide a somewhat comprehensive stratification of Jesus sayings material in chronological order and by attestation.

This will all be laid out soon after a lengthy set of articles on Q and Thomas lays down my presuppositions on these texts. I might be a Christ-mythicist in that I do not think the HJ ever claimed to be the "Christ" or "Messiah". But I am not a Jesus-myther.

Vinnie

Tercel · 07-12-2003, 10:48 PM

Vorkosigan,

Thank you for taking the time to respond thoroughly to my listing. Sorry for the delay in this reply, but I have been away for a week.

First I wish to assure you that I compiled the list of verse references using the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I was aware the translation would be an issue and therefore selected what I understand to be the most widely acclaimed scholarly translation. Unfortunately I am aware of no searchable online NRSV (though if you have a link to one I would be greatful) and hence decided to use the NIV -which I am well aware has numerous problems and translator biases which I (as an amateur theologian whose biases do not agree with the translators) find annoying on occaision. Hence not wanting to type all the verses in I copy and pasted from the online NIV based on my list of verse numbers chosen from the NRSV. On reflection and your example, I agree it would have been better for me to use Young's Literal Translation.
Nevertheless, all verses that appear in that listing have been checked by me in at least two widely accepted translations (NRSV and NIV). I also consulted an interlinear where I needed to be absolutely certain of the exact wording (and occaisionally the Good News and New Living paraphrases when I wanted to see an interpreation of the passage).
Where I felt the NIV differed significantly from the NRSV or the interlinear, I took care to note the important part of the literal translation in my comment on the verse.

Quote:

.....the NIV is an ideological and tenditious translation done with the idea of eliminating the mythicist position, as well as biblical "errors."

The translaters of the NIV really set out to eliminate the mythist position?? I find that a rather unlikely claim. I wouldn't have thought any/most of them cared/knew enough about it to target it.

Quote:

The phrase "who as to his human nature" is not in the original and was added by the NIV to silence doubters. The actual phrase shoud have some reference to David and Flesh.

I feel you are overdoing the rhetoric. The NIV's "who as to his human nature" is their translation of the greek phrase "kata sarka" which reads literally "according to the flesh". Their translation certainly presupposes later Church council decisions, however they have not "added" the phrase. Your rhetoric is bogus.

Quote:

Where god "presented" him is left open.

I accept that it is possible that this implies Jesus was "presented" in heavenly realm viewable to only a few mystical visionaries. However the word "presented", left unqualified, does generally suggest a public presentation. I am not arguing these references are all conclusive, merely that they all cast doubt on the JMyth case.

Quote:

Romans 3:25-26
"at the present time". Though perhaps not strictly relevant to Doherty�s thesis, this verse runs counter to the idea presented by others advancing the Myth thesis that Jesus was thought to have lived sometime in the distant past.
This is a clear misreading. On the contrary, "the present time" is clearly set against the past time when Jesus was crucified, because it was done to show justice in the present time. "I gave my son in the past to show you justice now." The implication here is that Jesus was crucified at some unspecified time prior to the present, in order to show justice in the present. This quote supports Doherty's thesis. Thanks for the find.

Nope, sorry, but after reading the passage several times I'm not seeing it. The thing that is said to be happening at the "present time" is not the "justice" but the proof. It doesn't say God presented Jesus so he could show justice at the present time, it says God presented Jesus so he could "prove at the present time that he himself is righteous" (RSV). The proof being refered to is Jesus sacrifice of atonement (vs 24-26).

Quote:

The Primal Adam was a powerful figure in various eschatological and magical thought systems in Jewish circles.

I was not aware of this. Could you please point me in the direction of some writings of the period under discussion which view Adam in such a way? They sound like an interesting read.

Quote:

This comparison enhances the argument that Paul saw Jesus as a similarly mystical and symbolic figure. Two quotes in a row ironically turn out to support the other side.

Er, no. Lots of Christians compare Adam and Jesus or Eve and Mary without ever thinking of any of them as non-historical. How does Paul doing the same "support the other side"??

Quote:

YLT
4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,
5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who [are] of Israel are these Israel;

The NIV rides again! It has inserted "human ancestry of Christ" where there is no such thing in the text.

I see no problem with the NIV translation here: they are correct. The text says what it says Vork. Bashing the NIV is not a good excuse for ignoring the point.
Saying that Christ is "of" the Jewish people means Christ is a Jew. The qualification "according to the flesh" is a note that Christ was also partially of God but that the part being referred to here is the human ancestory. Hence the NIV's translation of "human ancestry of Christ" is entirely reasonable.

Vorkosigan · 07-13-2003, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Vorkosigan,

Thank you for taking the time to respond thoroughly to my listing. Sorry for the delay in this reply, but I have been away for a week.

You're welcome. Always a good topic. I understand about delays, I am teaching down south four days a week and at home three, so I am busy too...

Quote:

Where I felt the NIV differed significantly from the NRSV or the interlinear, I took care to note the important part of the literal translation in my comment on the verse.

Quote:

The translaters of the NIV really set out to eliminate the mythist position?? I find that a rather unlikely claim. I wouldn't have thought any/most of them cared/knew enough about it to target it.

I suspect that much of the scholarship of the last 50 years in HJ studies is done by scholars looking over their shoulder at the mythicist position. The NIV is no exception....

Quote:

I feel you are overdoing the rhetoric. The NIV's "who as to his human nature" is their translation of the greek phrase "kata sarka" which reads literally "according to the flesh". Their translation certainly presupposes later Church council decisions, however they have not "added" the phrase. Your rhetoric is bogus.

I must disagree. The whole question of "kata sarka" is whether it means "human nature." In any case it does not say "human nature" but "through the flesh" an ambiguous and controversial phrase. The NIV translation simply assumes the position it is trying to prove. If the NIV is not aiming at mythicists and spiritual-Christers, what is it aiming at by inserting words that are not in the text?

Quote:

I accept that it is possible that this implies Jesus was "presented" in heavenly realm viewable to only a few mystical visionaries. However the word "presented", left unqualified, does generally suggest a public presentation. I am not arguing these references are all conclusive, merely that they all cast doubt on the JMyth case.

But Tercel, all of these can be read either way.

Quote:

Nope, sorry, but after reading the passage several times I'm not seeing it. The thing that is said to be happening at the "present time" is not the "justice" but the proof. It doesn't say God presented Jesus so he could show justice at the present time, it says God presented Jesus so he could "prove at the present time that he himself is righteous" (RSV). The proof being refered to is Jesus sacrifice of atonement (vs 24-26).

When does Jesus' death take place here? And "present" is a vague term. If Paul knew that Jesus died in his lifetime, why didn't he just plainly say so?

Quote:

I was not aware of this. Could you please point me in the direction of some writings of the period under discussion which view Adam in such a way? They sound like an interesting read.

There's quite a bit out there. Eisenman discusses it extensively in James the Brother of Jesus, of course.

Quote:

Er, no. Lots of Christians compare Adam and Jesus or Eve and Mary without ever thinking of any of them as non-historical. How does Paul doing the same "support the other side"??

Because Paul is comparing Jesus to a symbolic mythical figure, the Primal Adam. Jesus is another symbolic mythical figure, the New Adam.

Quote:

I see no problem with the NIV translation here: they are correct. The text says what it says Vork. Bashing the NIV is not a good excuse for ignoring the point.
Saying that Christ is "of" the Jewish people means Christ is a Jew. The qualification "according to the flesh" is a note that Christ was also partially of God but that the part being referred to here is the human ancestory. Hence the NIV's translation of "human ancestry of Christ" is entirely reasonable.

The phrase is "according to the flesh" or "through the flesh." That is what the ethical translator MUST write. Anything else is tendentious or erroneous. Paul most certainly did not write "the human ancestry of Christ." That is NIV doctrinal silliness breaking through. If Paul had meant "human ancestry" he was perfectly capable of writing that. Certainly he did not write that Jesus was "of" the Jewish people in that passage. The whole thing is ambiguous....and note the next passage:

And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who [are] of Israel are these Israel;

Not all of those who are of Israel....are Israel. Clearly Paul had different ideas about what "Israel" might stand for.

Vorkosigan

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

07-09-2003, 04:36 PM	#73
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Actually, we're kind of short of inerrantists around here. Some turn up but don't last long. We even get the odd atheist troll pretending to be an inerrantist to liven things up. So, you would be better off posting on theologyweb where a few old friends(!) of yours hang out. Still, if you are interested in wider issues on the historical status of the bible then there may be more to interest you. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

07-09-2003, 10:47 PM	#74
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Magus55: There is just as much evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, as there is for Alexander. Demonstrably false. We have a lot more than a few hagiographies when it comes to Alexander the Great. We even have some accounts from India where he ran into the king Chandragupta -- known to Greek historians like Arrian as Sandracottus. (lots and lots of biblical landmarks that have been discovered...) And the existence of Mecca means that the Koran had been revealed by the Almighty to Mohammed, right? And the discovery of Mycenaean Greek sites means that the Trojan War happened as described in the Iliad, Olympian intervention and all, right? We also have accounts of the existence of Jesus from Thallus, Pliny the younger, Josephus, Seutonius, the Talmud, and Lucian. Secondhand accounts -- at best. Thallus's works have not survived. Also, the Talmud states that Jesus Christ's father had been a Roman soldier named Panthera. And does Magus55 believe that about JC's father?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.