Gregg

Yuri, I'm not sure you're understanding my argument.

I think we can agree that Paul, the other epistle writers, and the people they were writing to clearly worshipped (not merely respected or revered) Jesus Christ, and considered him part of the very being of God. Even if the hymn in Philippians were a later interpolation (and I've never seen any claim that it is) there are plenty of other verses we can reference to demonstrate this.

I think we can further agree that Paul was probably a Jew, and that the Jerusalem Christians were probably Jews.

I'm sure we can also agree that if Jesus had been a human being, the vast majority of Jews would have disapproved of his being worshipped, no matter what other claims the Christians made about him. Convincing orthodox Jews that their most holy, pure, and invisible G-d had taken on actual human flesh, or that a fleshly man had been raised into the being of G-d, would have taken extraordinary apologetics. This was a blasphemous and pagan idea.

Because we can find no sign of such apologetics in early Christian writings, although we DO see evidence of some aspects of the faith (such as the crucifixion) being defended against criticism from Jews and others, I see this as one piece of evidence that the Jesus Christ that Paul and the early Christians worshipped was a spiritual being who, though he descended to the lowest level of heaven and took on the "likeness" of flesh, never actually came to Earth or lived a physical, human life.

My argument above was based mainly on Paul, it really had nothing to do with Mark. I certainly agree with the scholarly consensus that places Mark somewhere in the 3rd quarter of the 1st century.

Also, I agree that it wasn't until sometime in the second century that the belief that Jesus Christ had lived an actual human life (based on ignorance of the allegorical nature of the gospels) became widespread among Gentile Christians, who would not have had a strong Jewish or neo-Platonist aversion to the idea of God taking on a physical body or of a physical person being elevated to divine status.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

Gregg

aikido7

Let me simplify, Rad....

What prevents you from taking the gospels' accounts of Jesus metaphorically if Jesus himself told metaphoric stories about the Kingdom of God?

The rationalism of this post-Enlightenment Age has split into two parts: scientism and fundamentalism. When it comes to religion and matters of the spirit, literal prose has trumped parable and poetry. Theology has become propositional dogmatism and is being held captive by literalists with narrow vision and no imagination for the sublimities of parable and story-telling.

Churches rarely illuminate Jesus' stories and parables. If they are mentioned at all they are ripped from their original context and/or turned into allegories.

NOGO

Radorth, I have many doubts concerning Doherty's theories.
I have even more doubts about the beliefs that constitute Christianity.

For example that Jesus was/is God.
In fact I am preparing a post on this subject.
I would love to have your input.

NOGO

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Gregg, I can accept this. IMO, Paul and the early Christians indeed worshipped a spiritual being. This spiritual being was the earthly Jesus who was crucified and then appointed by God as the Messiah who will soon be sent back to earth, to restore all justice.

Thus, they didn't worship an earthly Jesus, but a spiritual Jesus. But I don't see how this would be a valid argument against the HJ.

Quote:

who, though he descended to the lowest level of heaven and took on the "likeness" of flesh, never actually came to Earth or lived a physical, human life. My argument above was based mainly on Paul, it really had nothing to do with Mark. I certainly agree with the scholarly consensus that places Mark somewhere in the 3rd quarter of the 1st century. Also, I agree that it wasn't until sometime in the second century that the belief that Jesus Christ had lived an actual human life (based on ignorance of the allegorical nature of the gospels) became widespread among Gentile Christians, who would not have had a strong Jewish or neo-Platonist aversion to the idea of God taking on a physical body or of a physical person being elevated to divine status. I hope this makes my position clearer. Gregg

Whether you base your argument on Paul or on Mark, I still don't see how this is a valid argument.

BTW, authenticity of Pauline epistles is just as doubtful as the 1c status for Mark. And I fully understand why you would be inclined to accept both, since this certainly tends to further your mythicist argument.

As I see it, this is the Achilles Hill of all mainstream NT scholars. They would like to build their pro-HJ arguments on a demonstrable falsehood, i.e. that both Mark and the Pauline epistles really belong to 1c.

Best,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Yuri, how late do you think Mark is, and what arguments do you make? I have a sort of gut feeling that Mark is early second century, and the others date from mid-first half, with Luke coming last in Hadrian's time. Other than the relationship to Josephus, though, evidence is thin.

Vorkosigan

Gregg

Yuri, you're STILL missing my point. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Let's go ahead and assume that Jesus was a real man who was crucified. Then, the "fact" that the Christians were worshipping the ascended spiritual being, not the crucified human being, doesn't change the "fact" that this spiritual being they were worshipping had once been a flesh-and-blood person, and this is what Jews and neo-Platonists who wished to criticize the new faith would have zeroed in on. Not on the "folly" of the crucifixion, but on the Christians worshipping as G-d a being that had once been a man.

You have to understand just how blasphemous and pagan this would have seemed to mainstream Jews. They wouldn't have let it go just because the Christians said, "Yes, Jesus was once a man, but we don't worship the man, we worship the spiritual being God has made him into." They would have pointed out how this was just like the pagan Romans saying their emperors became gods when they died. Furthermore, they would have asked just what was so special about Jesus that he got the appointment as the Messiah. Other humble, blameless, faithful Jews had surely been executed by the Romans, but nobody worshipped them.

Jews criticizing Christianity would have hammered and hammered away at this issue, no matter how much Christians tried to protest that the being they worshipped wasn't a human being NOW. After all, that's exactly what happened later on, when Christians DID start believing that their god had actually been on Earth. It's only at this point that we start finding people criticizing Christianity for being based on the worship of a crucified criminal.I'm confused. Does a first-century dating for Mark and the "authentic" Pauline epistles support the MJ argument, or the HJ argument? Or both?

BTW, I think you have a lot more work to do to make your case, Yuri. If you're going to argue that ALL the Pauline letters are forgeries, and that Mark is 2nd century, you're pretty much trashing current scholarly consensus in ways that Doherty doesn't even contemplate. The MJ theory looks pretty tame compared to this. Hey, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but you can't just assert this without any serious arguments or evidence or references to back it up. And I'm talking at least a book or two, here. (You might point out that I've done a lot of speculating myself in this thread, but this was to show that the idea of Christians constructing a mythical story out of Scripture isn't necessarily as improbable as some people were making it out to be--I admitted that speculation doesn't constitute evidence or proof.)

Gregg

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Vork,

My views on this are pretty well based on Loisy. But, of course, about 100 years ago and earlier, these views were quite common.

Loisy saw all four gospels as complex patchworks that contain both early and later material. None of them is really the earliest, and none is the latest. At the same time, he argued that a major re-editing of all 4 was done around the time of Hadrian, after Jerusalem was destroyed, and after the Jewish-Christian wing of the Church was weakened.

The evidence for all this is not thin. It's actually quite plentiful, but little known at this time. Although, of course, most of this evidence is circumstantial.

To give you some perspective on what I'm saying, here's a quote from Griesbach, one of the great pioneers of biblical criticism. Already back in 1771 he wrote that,

"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

So even back then he could see very clearly that our canonical gospels are loaded with lots of later editorial changes -- these are not the earliest texts.

Also, keep in mind that Lachmann (1793-1851), another great biblical pioneer, stated outright that, in publishing his edition of the Greek NT, his only aim was to reconstruct gospel text as it was current in the fourth century!

These were honest biblical scholars. It seems like it was all downhill every since...

So that's how radical I am! My views are like those of the best scholars of the 18th century.

All the best,

Yuri.

Baqqesh shalom veradphehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)

Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto

Yuri Kuchinsky

Gregg,

Somehow I suspect that you've outlined the arguments of the early Jewish opponents of Christianity quite well.

Quote:

Jews criticizing Christianity would have hammered and hammered away at this issue, no matter how much Christians tried to protest that the being they worshipped wasn't a human being NOW.

Yes, they probably did hammer away at this issue.

Quote:

After all, that's exactly what happened later on, when Christians DID start believing that their god had actually been on Earth. It's only at this point that we start finding people criticizing Christianity for being based on the worship of a crucified criminal.

But wasn't that what the "folly of the crucifixion "was all about?

Quote:

I'm confused. Does a first-century dating for Mark and the "authentic" Pauline epistles support the MJ argument, or the HJ argument? Or both?

IMHO, first-century dating for Mark and the "authentic" Pauline epistles clearly support the MJ argument. For example, it's inconceivable to me that all that high Christology gnostic stuff that we find in the Pauline epistles could have already been written in the 50s. This stuff just has "second century" written all over it.

Quote:

BTW, I think you have a lot more work to do to make your case, Yuri. If you're going to argue that ALL the Pauline letters are forgeries,

Actually, with Loisy, I'm merely arguing that the 7 so-called "authentic epistles of Paul" had been heavily interpolated in the 2c.

Quote:

and that Mark is 2nd century, you're pretty much trashing current scholarly consensus in ways that Doherty doesn't even contemplate.

But these are not just my views. These views have been held, and are held by many other scholars.

Also, see above my response to Vork today. As I say, I'm really so radical that my views are now approaching the views of the leading biblical scholars of the 18th century!

Quote:

The MJ theory looks pretty tame compared to this. Hey, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but you can't just assert this without any serious arguments or evidence or references to back it up. And I'm talking at least a book or two, here.

Consider that I already have one book out, and my webpage already has enough material for a second one... And I'm soon planning to upload there a lot more that's already written...

Quote:

(You might point out that I've done a lot of speculating myself in this thread, but this was to show that the idea of Christians constructing a mythical story out of Scripture isn't necessarily as improbable as some people were making it out to be--I admitted that speculation doesn't constitute evidence or proof.) Gregg

Cheers,

Yuri.

Baqqesh shalom veradphehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)

Vorkosigan

Hello, Vork,

My views on this are pretty well based on Loisy. But, of course, about 100 years ago and earlier, these views were quite common.

I've been reading Loisy. He's wonderful. On your recommendation.

The evidence for all this is not thin. It's actually quite plentiful, but little known at this time. Although, of course, most of this evidence is circumstantial.

What evidence is there for a second century date for all the gospels?

Peter Kirby

This is not strictly true. Doherty has revealed in e-mail correspondence that, while he does not go along with some colleagues who would make forgery of the whole Pauline corpus, Doherty suspects that the issue of Pauline authenticity is a thorny one and that a fresh examination of possible interpolations is necessary (though he only requires a couple interpolations to maintain his thesis). The difference here is that, while Yuri would regard the Gentile and gnostic sounding passages as late, Doherty is more likely to regard the "arguably historical references" to be additions. I would be interested to know if one position can be defended over the other without begging the larger question of the historical development of Christianity.

best,
Peter Kirby