Toto

Hi Peter - Doherty says this interpretation has been adopted by the majority of commentators, some of them reluctantly. He also shows how that reading is consistent with the rest of Paul's writing, in particular Ephesians 3:9-10. What more would you want?

Scroll down to "rulers of this age"

PS - he dates Mark at about 80, not in the 2nd century.

Radorth

But some very serious agnostic or Jewish historians had to admit that it did happen because the alternatives are absurd and incoherent, and the mere fact that skeptics come up with so many self-contradictory theories only vindicates their premise.

I have read Doherty and he does claim the Gospels came much later. He claims the Gospels were written after Paul's "revelation" which ironically shortens the time to make them up and redact them. Maybe you should read him.

Rad

Gregg

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
[B]Dear Rad,
So then I guess you've missed the whole point of my original article... Because my argument rests precisely on the idea that "such a personality as Jesus, his extraordinary miracles, parables, etc." could NOT have arisen "in such a short time"!

Yuri,

It's not really such a big deal once you realize that all the pieces were in place and just needed assembly. "Mark" simply pulled together several distinct elements and created something that turned out to be much larger than the sum of its parts.

He already had the "teachings" document, an accumulated collection of sayings, and the community that created this document had probably already invented a "founder figure" to whom these sayings were ascribed (Kung Fu-Tze is now believed by many scholars to be an invented source of traditional Chinese philosophical sayings). Practically all the elements of Jesus' life, ministry, and Passion can be found in the Scriptures. All that was left was to create some symbolic characters and a narrative (which was likely based on the Jewish liturgical reading model). See, "Mark" did not just "make up" (a term some folks are fond of using because it sounds flippant) his gospel out of whole cloth. The CONTENT is not really what's original about it--it's the presentation.

Gregg

Gregg

"Historical Jesus" scholars certainly have come up with many incoherent and self-contradictory theories. That's the reason I no longer subscribe to the historicist position. The mythicist theory is logical, coherent, and internally consistent.

So "Doherty claims" that the Gospels were written after Paul's revelation? Well, yeah. Him and the vast majority of Biblical scholars as well, Rad. No surprises there.

Gregg

Gregg

As far as I know, he accepts a first century dating for at least Mark. And I'm not sure how this dependence is a weakness. There's no compelling evidence that an earlier dating for the Gospels is more likely. Could you give me examples of how he gets "carried away" with "wishful assertions"? When Doherty agrees with liberal scholars, he explains why. When he doesn't, he explains why. There is nothing "inconsistent" about this. Are you (and Rad) suggesting that to be consistent, he must reject everything conservative scholars say, and uncritically accept everything liberal scholars say?

Gregg

Gregg

Doherty does not "contradict liberal scholars" on this score. He's saying exactly what they do. You are trying to argue that the Gospels cannot be "contradictory and divergent" and "similar" at the same time. The problem with your argument is that the "contradictory and divergent" elements and the "similar" elements are not the same. Generally, the "contradictory and divergent" aspect has more to do with details and specifics, while the "similar" aspect has more to do with the overall structure of the narrativesDoherty asserts no such thing. You, sir, are lying. This is a bald-faced, filthy lie. There is no other way to put it.Doherty asserts no "conspiracies" and "cover-ups." He asserts nothing more than an honest misunderstanding of the Gospels by Gentiles who were unaware of their allegorical origins and unfamiliar with the Greek Platonistic worldview of Paul and the early Christians.

By the way, your claim to have "read Doherty" is gratuitious lie # 3. You can't claim to have read something until you've read it thoroughly, and understood it. It also helps if you don't tell lies about it.

Gregg

Peter Kirby

Hi Toto,

Thanks for your reply.

Toto: "Doherty says this interpretation has been adopted by the majority of commentators, some of them reluctantly."

About the majority (and the reluctance of some), this may or may not be true; I haven't looked at this in much detail. But certainly Doherty would agree that an appeal to a majority of commentators is a fallacy?

I just picked out the two commentaries on 1 Corinthians that I happen to have in my room, and here is what they say.

"There seems to be no convincing reason to interpret 'this world's rulers' as being any other than those who actually took part in the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus, and the wisdom they did not know was that their action would have a result exactly opposite to their intention: the ignominy of the cross was turned into the glory of redeeming lordship." (William Orr and James Walther, 1976, Anchor Bible Commentary, 1 Corinthians, p. 164)

"With unwearied persistence the apostle points out that the wisdom of which he speaks is not the wisdom of this age. He has been stressing this for some time and he now adds or of the rulers of this age. In antiquity, Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers, an interpretation which Chrysostom rejected, and this difference of opinion has persisted through the centuries. Among modern commentators Conzelmann, for example, sees a reference to the demons, while Orr and Walther think of earthly rulers. The 'demonic' view sees Christ as engaged in a gigantic struggle with evil forces of the unseen world, a view which is undoubtedly to be found in Paul's writings (e.g. Rom 8:38-39; Col. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:4). But it may be doubted whether this is his meaning here. Three points are especially important. One is that throughout this whole passage the contrast is between the wisdom of God shown in the gospel and the wisdom of this world. To introduce now the thought of the wisdom of demonic powers is to bring in an extraneous concept, and one that is out of harmony with v. 9, which clearly refers to humans. Paul could scarcely have expected his readers to grasp this without one word of explanation. A second is that it was the rulers of this age who are said to have crucified Christ and this same word rulers, archontes, is repeatedly used of the Jewish and Roman leaders (Acts 3:17; 4:5,8,26; Rom. 13:3, etc.). The third is that it is explicitly said that they carried out the crucifixion in ignorance (Acts 3:17; 13:27; cf. Jn 16:3), but, by contrast, the demons are often said to have known who Jesus was when people did not (Mk. 1:24, 34, etc.). Paul habitually ascribes power to the demonic forces, but not ignorance. The very concept of a struggle between demonic forces and the power of God implies that the demons knew what they were up against. Paul's use of this age probably points to the transitory nature of the office of rulers, over against the truth of the gospel, which is permanent. This transitoriness is also in mind in the concluding who are coming to nothing (the verb is katargeo; see on 1:28). The rulers are being rendered completely ineffective; their vaunted power and wisdom are made null and void." (Leon Morris, 1985, 1 Corinthians, pp. 53-54)

Doherty clearly has read more commentaries than I have, so he may know better about the percentage of scholars who favor the 'demonic hypothesis', but this quick glance at what is available to me at the moment suggests that this is not an issue on which there is enough agreement to base an argument on scholarly opinion.

Toto: "He also shows how that reading is consistent with the rest of Paul's writing, in particular Ephesians 3:9-10."

According to Doherty, at least, Paul did not write Ephesians. If it is an error to turn to the Gospel of Mark in order to interpret the authentic letters of Paul, something which Doherty warns about dozens of times, why would it be okay to interpret 1 Corinthians with the use of Ephesians?

Toto: "What more would you want?"

It would be more clear if Paul had used "in the heavens" or some such indication that the rulers of this age are not earthly but rather non-physical.

best,
Peter Kirby

Gregg

I understand that, Yuri. What I was trying to say is, I see all these people who seem absolutely determined to dismiss any possibility of an entirely mythic origin of Christ and to shoehorn a historical figure named Jesus into the beginning of Christianity, even to the point of being willing to strip him of every element--charisma, notoriety, etc.--that would have caused people to organize a faith movement around him in the first place!Forgive me, but I must disagree and ask a question. If you have read Doherty, how can you say this? Doherty presents a very plausible and coherent story of how this could have happened. It one of the central elements of his thesis and very difficult to miss. Try re-reading the three main articles.

Essentially, Doherty suggests that Christianity did not begin with any one person--it began with many different, unconnected individuals and groups worshiping the Logos/Christ. In other words, it began more with a concept--an idea or belief developing among numerous Greek and Hellenized Jewish philosophers in a divine intermediary who brought salvation, either through revealing wisdom or through a cosmic redemptive act. Many others, such as Paul, seized on this concept and started adding their own ideas.

Some regard Paul as the real "founder figure" of Christianity, but we really don't know if he was as influential as he appears to have been. He may have been, but it's also possible that "Mark" was heavily influenced by Pauline ideas, and since Christianity really took off with Mark and the other Gospels, people became more likely to preserve early Christian letters that seemed to accord with the Gospels. If this is the case, it might be more accurate to regard the anonymous "Mark" as the founding figure of Christianity as we know it today--since it was because of the Gospel that Jesus eventually came to be regarded as a historical figure.Of course we always have to take this into account. But it's by no means a law that an actual individual or event must stand behind every single mythological story. Some people seem to take it as a matter of faith that all mythological stories must have direct historical precedents. But there are thousands of mythological stories, so there is no way to prove such an assertion.I dunno that it's being "covered up." All the information is out there, it's just that most scholars don't like the implications that arise when the information is pieced together--which is exactly what Doherty has done.Now this is a remarkable claim, I must say. Remember, you don't have only the Pauline letters to consider, you have the entire corpus of epistles. If the Christian letters were contemporary with the Gospels, then it becomes stranger than ever that they would not mention anything about the HJ. "Somewhat different" problem is an understatement--it's a serious problem, and an insurmountable one, IMO.

Gregg

Toto

Hi Peter

On Ephesians, Doherty seems to think it was written within a decade or two after Paul's death by some of his close followers. He does not discuss using it to explicate Paul's letter to the Corinthians, but I imagine that he thinks it reflects Paul's thinking because of its early dating.

Doherty discusses the various interpretations of the phrase on the url I gave above:

I don't think Doherty is basing his statement on a clear consensus of scholarly opinion as much as he is using the agreement of scholars to validate his own reading.

Peter Kirby

Hi Toto,

If Doherty's reading is not based on scholarly opinion, what is the reading based on, other than the interpretation of books other than 1 Corinthians (such as Ephesians)? Or is Doherty's reading possible yet undemonstrated?

Other than the fact that the pseudepigraphist wrote falsely under the name of Paul, what suggests that Ephesians was written by people with ties to the apostle?

best,
Peter Kirby