Gregg

Does Paul ever explicitly say that he regarded the crucifixion as a "scandal"?

And why should this have been more of a scandal to an orthodox Jew than the idea that God became a man, or that a crucified man became God? Believing a man was resurrected from the dead is one thing. Believing that he ascended into the heavens is another. But worshipping him as part of the Godhead is something else altogether. It's pure blasphemy. Ask any Rabbi or Imam.So is Peter to be included among the "twelve" or not?The problem is, Vinnie, that none of this provides evidence for a historical Jesus. It could just as easily be applied to a Cosmic Christ who was revealed to Paul via revelation and "inspired" reading of the Scriptures.

As to NT Wright, he is setting up a strawman. Nobody is saying that Paul had to "parrot" Jesus' teachings or try to "be" Jesus. But if a self-proclaimed Christian (Apollos) is going around saying that Jesus was never crucified, is God going to strike Paul down for saying, "Well, Peter and James might have something to say about that. And I myself saw the hill where he was crucified and the tomb he rose from." And if there's controversy over whether Christians have to follow the Jewish dietary laws, is God going to strike Paul down for saying, "Well, as you know, our Lord was very clear on that matter--'It's not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles'." And if people (Christians again) are going around saying there's no resurrection of the dead, is God going to strike Paul down for saying, "You heard the story as well as I...our Lord raised Lazarus from the dead" ?

And would it have hurt Paul to have at least given Jesus credit for first announcing the the good news, instead describing inspired apostles (like himself) and the Scriptures as the source of gospel of Christ?

Anyway, people apparently WERE passing along detailed accounts of Jesus' actions, words and teachings, even those they couldn't possibly have been privy to (the agony in the Garden, the trial before Pilate). Apparently nobody told them they were making themselves into little messiahs.

As to Greeks and Romans feeling "threatened" by Jesus, there is no indication outside the Gospels that even the Jews felt threatened by him. For two centuries or more Christianity was just another mystery cult. Christians were persecuted, but there's no indication that this was because of their belief in Jesus--more likely it was because many of them, like many of the Jews, refused to worship the Emperor or the Olympian gods.

Gregg

Peter Kirby

I shirk such a burden because I am not making any positive claims here. Some are claiming to know that Paul et al. disbelieved in an earthly Jesus. I have not claimed the opposite.

Paul wanted to set his ministry on the same or greater authority as that of other apostles, such as the pillars in Jerusalem. Paul also may have had some major innovations to the gospel; at the very least, as Doherty recognizes, Paul opposed the requirements of Hebrew law on converts to his cult. Regardless of whether Paul believed or disbelieved in an earthly Jesus, Paul is an unlikely character to be portraying himself as subordinate to other apostles. You will note that non-Pauline letters, such as 1 Clement, do speak of faith being traced back through human beings. These phenomena can be accounted on either Jesus Myth or Historical Jesus grounds, and in much the same way in each case. Doherty doesn't claim that Paul was the first to preach the gospel, after all.

It is contentious to say that Paul wrote Rom 16:25-27. There is a note in the NAB, saying, "This doxology is assigned variously to the end of chs 14, 15, and 16 in the manuscript tradition. Some manuscripts omit it entirely."

Was the reference to Gal. 3:5-10 a typing error? What is it about this passage that demands a reference to Jesus' earthly career?

This is an extrapolation from the fact that Paul claims the same authority on the basis that he also had a vision of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 9:1). There has been a lot of discussion of this point in context of those who see Paul as teaching a "spiritual resurrection." I used to be one who advocated the idea that Paul taught a non-physical resurrection (which would account for this point nicely under an earthly Jesus framework), but now I am not so sure and await a publication from Carrier that may set out the basis of the "spiritual resurrection" claim. In any case, I do not believe that Paul held to a distinction between pre-ascension and post-ascension appearances as developed in later orthodox thought. Quite possibly the Resurrection and Ascension constituted one event for Paul.

Were there any passages that you find striking in this regard?

This is, I think, one of the most powerful arguments in the Jesus Myth arsenal for contending that Paul disbelieved in an earthly Jesus. But it is not conclusive. What if, for Paul, the crucifixion was the intended sacrifice of an incarnate redeemer, not the unfortunate martyrdom of a prophet? It became a commonplace in later Christian literature to declare that John the Baptist was the last of the Jewish prophets.

This one has two problems. (1) The traditions that Jesus raised the dead are easily written off as post-70 developments by mainstream HJ scholars. (2) The occasional raising of a dead person to the same life as previous would not establish the idea of a glorious general resurrection at the end of time. This is probably why later apologists, in their defense of the resurrection, also neglect to appeal to the resuscitations in the OT and NT.

I have looked closely at what Paul wrote, though I must admit that why he wrote is rather opaque, both to Jesus Mythers and HJers. There are plenty of theories but rather few facts.

Think of it this way: there are thousands of books written on Christian origins. There are lots of way-out theories, most of which I don't spend any time trying to refute. The very fact that I take considerable time to listen to Jesus Myth hypotheses and to offer comments should be taken as nothing other than a sign of respect.

However, I do have a wish that an otherwise interesting subject were not quite so politicized by people on both "sides."

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

That's a good question, but perhaps it becomes irrelevant as soon as it is answered. If anyone ever did (which I now begin to doubt), nobody reading this will now assert that it is true as a general principle that a person who accepted an earthly Jesus could not have left a religious letter collection sans historical references. So perhaps the contribution offered here is an invitation to Jesus Myth advocates to lay out the premises of their argument establishing that Paul et al. disbelieved in an earthly Jesus, given that a rather simple argument from silence does not work.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Cor 1:23but "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles".

That is what is meant by the scandal of the Cross. The idea of a crucified messiah is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

Apparently, one Jew, namely Paul, had no insurmountable difficulties incorporating Jesus into his jewish monotheis.. This would kind of contradict your statement that no Jew would believe this doesn't it? And do you mean no Jew today? Or no Jew in circa 50 a.d.?

Paul retained his Jewish monotheism. See Cor 8:4 "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one."

Paul denounced pagan polythiesm and idol worship. Yet Paul also incorporated Jesus into that very same Jewish monotheism as we see two verses later "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Woops, maybe within the timetable of Jewish eschatology is the appropriate context for Paul afterall

Something about Paul, Pharisee and bodily resurrection comes to mind....

he is not setting up a straww man. Wright was not arguing against mythicism at any rate but I'm not sure what you mean. The mythicist position is one big argument from silence. This explains some of the "silence" of Paul and when we look at actual HJ material in the Pauline corpus it should (and I stress that word) lay this nonsense to rest.

I don't understand any of that. What are you trying to say?

Paul in many places is passing along tradition which goes back to the original follows of Jesus. I have no clue what you are trying to argue here? Please substantiate this with citations.

That is unintellible to me? Can you explain that in other words or elaborate? I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say.

That is the EXACT point. If we interpret Paul in light of Jewish eschatology (Jewish monotheism and all that which his own words clearly indicate) he was refusing to worship the emperor. he was proclaiming that Jesus was King and that the emperor was not.

Though maybe a heavenly, cosmic-Christ mythical cults was common within the eschatological timetable of Jewish salvation history and fit in nicely with Jewish monotheism??? in any event, pauled firmly believed that this cosmic-mtyhical-Christ or whatever you want to call him, was actually crucified on a Roman Cross.

Paul was a bonafide Jew, before and after Damascus.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

If Paul made positive statements to indicate that Jesus was only a spiritual being, that would make a good argument. So let's discuss those positive statements.

I have a problem with appealing to "a strain of Christians," as there is also a strain which contends that Jesus was a mere man.

Are you trying to provoke me to beg the question? Each of these documents is under dispute, which is why I did not use them in this regard--that would be like saying, "Paul accepted the former existence of an earthly Jesus, yet Paul writes in the manner that he does, so it is not surprising that Paul accepted an earthly Jesus and wrote as he does"--something which I wouldn't do.

If you can present an argument that any of the above writers disbelieved in an earthly Jesus, though, I would be willing to hear it.

This is a legitimate criticism. If I had some help we could begin to examine larger corpora.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Yes, no hard feelings.

If we're going to question fundamentals, let's question fundamentals. Can we show that a single Christian document dates before the year 100 CE?

Which neo-Platonist philosopher writings do you have in mind? And what language do they have in common?

Where does an epistle writer complain about people denying the crucifixion?

With regards to 1 John, I am aware of Doherty's essay but am not convinced that the epistle precedes the Gospel.

What makes you think that the author of the Paulines does not distinguish between God and Jesus?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

It should be obvious that I am already "willing to consider" that the authors of the NT epistles disbelieved in an earthly Jesus.

I am aware of ancient docetism. I am not aware of an ancient claim that there was no such thing as an appearance of Jesus on earth. If you could cite the texts that show this, then I would appreciate it.

You'll have to explain how you reached the conclusion in the last sentence. Wouldn't "crucified as an atonement for the sins of the world" be a supernatural belief? If you mean that the authors of the NT epistles weren't speaking of a pre-mythologized Jesus, I would agree. Nor were the Gospel writers.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - What "larger corpora" did you have in mind? Unfortunately, history is not like a science lab where you can rerun your experiment controlling for different variables, and often doesn't have the quantity of material you might need for real empirical research.

I suspect that any number of letters or documents that you examine will have some features that will allow them to be distinguished from Paul's letters. Too short, too selective, different audience, etc.

But I have thought of a possible source of data, if I understand your original point.

The Catholic Church has many saints, who existed bodily on earth and now are presumed to be spiritual entities that influence events on earth. I think if you examine writings about those saints about 20 - 100 years after their death by believers, you might get some idea of how likely it is that a person could be written about with no historical details.

For example, in 20 years will the nuns of Mother Theresa's order refer to her as a spiritual being, or will they write about how she was born in Macedonia in the Ottoman Empire, about her work with the poor in India, the fact that she was an international celebrity who took donations from Charles Pickering, etc?

I have no idea how this will turn out if you take a sample of medieval saints and trace writings about them, and I'm pretty sure which ever way it turns out, someone will find a way to distinguish the results from Paul. But it is the closest analogy I can think of.

Peter Kirby

You are right that there will always be an escape hatch. Which would perhaps make any such exercise futile--but, really, I am not overly concerned about which way other people lean on these issues. I would be interested in contributing to any such project for my own edification. But then there are a lot of other things I could be doing that would probably be more worthwhile--such as working on "Early Jewish Writings" or doing math homework. Which is just what I am going to do right now.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Sounds good to me