Pattylt said
And if Paul had given just one definitive statement of historicity ie: Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem, Pilate, etc. the game would be over.
Rthompsonmdog said
I agree with your comment, but did want to mention that even a definitive statement could be an interpolation.
It is complete B.S. that mythicists would suddenly accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth if Paul had made a somehow more “definitive statement,” whatever that means. Mythicists would either claim the statement was not definitive enough or, as Rthompsonmdog indicated, suggest it was an interpolation. That’s the game they play. All evidence is interpreted in favor of a preexisting theory; evidence which does not conform to the theory is dismissed.
- “Paul’s Jesus was unequivocally the Son of God. That would make James the brother of the son of God! Now, notice the casual indifference of Paul’s Gal 1:19 reference to the brother of the son of God. You’d expect a consistent recognition of the high status this would bring James, but there is none.”
I don’t see this as a big deal since human beings were sometimes called “son of God” in antiquity. Julius Caesar was called the son of god along with other ancient rulers.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Daniel,
Did you see the videos I posted with Carrier and MacDonald? That was a debate hosted by a YouTube Channel called Pinecreek. I believe the host has a friendly relationship with Carrier. He might be willing to host a debate between you and him. He discusses mythicism quite a bit on his channel, so I would think it would be right up his alley. I would suggest contacting Pinecreek.
Pattycake1974 said
Daniel,Did you see the videos I posted with Carrier and MacDonald? That was a debate hosted by a YouTube Channel called Pinecreek. I believe the host has a friendly relationship with Carrier. He might be willing to host a debate between you and him. He discusses mythicism quite a bit on his channel, so I would think it would be right up his alley. I would suggest contacting Pinecreek.
I did, Dennis and I email each other back and forth from time to time. I am not sure I would want to do it over the web, as I think doing it in person might be more fruitful. I am not sure. I go back and forth on the issue. After Carrier’s rather unprofessional response to my response, accusing me of not reading the book, I became less interested in responding to him. I might be up to it now.
Pattycake1974 said
I don’t see this as a big deal since human beings were sometimes called “son of God” in antiquity. Julius Caesar was called the son of god along with other ancient rulers.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
No. Jesus was not just called Son of God. He was the Son of God! According to Paul in Romans, it was God’s literal son who God gave up for all us. So, yes – big deal.
Tony, in the ascension of Isaiah is the being that descends to the lower heavens identified as the Son of Man? I thought that he was identified as an archangel but can’t remember and I thought Paul never referred to JC as Son of Man. Would this be important to Carriers theory and reliance on AoI?
Robert said
More recently, most scholars have tended to see this text as authentic. This is in part due to the growing tendency to read ‘Jews’ at least sometimes as something akin to ‘Judean authorities’. See the mention of Judea already in 2,13 and the implied role of authorities in killing prophets and hindering Paul. This interpretation is not contradictory to Paul’s views in his other letters. As for a reference to the destruction of the temple, one could also see it as a reference to Caligula’s intent to place a statue of himself in the Temple. Note that Gerd Lüdemann (an atheist and therefore no apologist) dates this letter and the decree of Claudius regarding the Jews to 41 CE and considers this passage as authentic.
Yes, but scholars seeing the text as not authentic are smarter and better looking…. I’m not sure what Gerd Ludemann’s atheism has to do with it. Ehrman also likes to quote 1 Thess and he’s sort of an atheist. Does Ludemann really dates 1 Thess from 41 CE? Incredible! Maybe you could send me a link. I do not see any antisemitic polemics in the other Pauline letters.
Below is a link to a paper by Birger Pearson on the subject. Pearson also quotes Ferdinand Christian Baur. It seems the sceptical view on 1 Thess 2:13-16 goes back a long ways!
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Pattylt said
Tony, in the ascension of Isaiah is the being that descends to the lower heavens identified as the Son of Man? I thought that he was identified as an archangel but can’t remember and I thought Paul never referred to JC as Son of Man. Would this be important to Carriers theory and reliance on AoI?
As far as I can tell there is no reference to “the Son of Man”. AoI calls him, “the Beloved”, “Christ”, “the Son”, “Lord Christ”, “the Lord”, “Jesus”. The same language Paul uses. You can read it yourself. Key verses are 9:13-17.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
As I said, I only mention it so you don’t think I’m referring you to an apologist of some sort. In developing his chronology, Lüdemann focuses much more thoroughly on Paul’s letters (rather than on Luke’s narrative in Acts) than more traditional Pauline scholars. Here’s a ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yes, the Christian antisemitic reading of 1 Thes 2,13ff does go back to Baur, as does the related interpolation hypothesis, but as I mentioned, there are better ways to read the passage in context as an inter-Jewish sectarian polemic against the Judean authorities who were persecuting the messianic Jews in Judea and trying to prevent Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. No more polemical than the sectarian writings at Qumran, also bitterly opposed to the Judean authorities. And one does find similar polemic elsewhere in Paul, for example, in Romans 2,17-24:
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Thanks for the link Robert! At $45 I’ll just take your word for it… I know Ludemann mostly as the guy who got punted from his academic position because the local churches were displeased with his teachings.
Paul accusations of Jewish hypocrisy in Rom 2:17-24 seems far removed from the level of accusations leveled in 1Thess on killing Jesus and the prophets. Just previous to that Paul unloaded his venom on God-fearing Pagans who still offered to idols. Great way to introduce yourself in a letter essentially asking for room, board and money.
The link on the pdf article I send did not seem to work. I’ll try again.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The pdf extension somehow is not recognized as part of the link. Beyond my pay-grade, sorry.
Robert said
I’m familiar with the arguments for this section being an interpolation. It’s possible, but even among those who have defended the interpolation hypothesis in the past, there was disagreement about the extent of the interpolation. Such hypothetical interpolations without any manuscript evidence used to be much more popular among exegetes. Bottom line, ‘though, it’s an unnecessary hypothesis since there are now ways better ways of reading the text in context without the anti-semitic hermeneutical bias that dominated traditional Christian exegesis in the past. Why do you think it is that the inerpolation hypothesis is no longer dominant among modern Pauline exegetes?
I’m sure you’re very familiar with the arguments, but I find the rhetorical question you’re asking is leading, as it contains apparent preferences and assumptions. I do not sense an anti-semitic hermeneutical bias that dominated traditional Christian exegesis in the past. It’s funny that Carrier also uses phrases like “most scholars…” in arriving at exactly the opposite view of yours.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
It seems that my earlier link to Pearson’s paper was still copyrighted. Still, Birger Pearson is no slouch. Here is, at least, a link to his available paper:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I agree with mainstream scholarship on the historical Jesus (e.g., E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, et al.) that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. Such a hypothesis, if true, would be a simple one that would make sense of a wide range of data, including the following:
“John the Baptist preached a message of repentance to escape the imminent judgment of the eschaton. Jesus was his baptized disciple, and thus accepted his message — and in fact preached basically the same message.” “ex-apologist”
Now that is funny. Among his proofs that Jesus was a failed apocalypticist, “EA” says that Christ submitted to John’s message. He even preached the same basic message as John.
Let’s look closer at that. “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'” Perfecto mundo
John gets it. Jesus is the Lamb of God and His mission was to remove the sin of the world. (Remember, that’s why He died.) How does EA rationalize those opposing facts?)
I’ve repeated this a number of times and it is appropriate to do it here. The bizarro world theories that deniers contrive are much more difficult to fathom.
“Jesus had his disciples leave everything and follow him around. This makes sense if Jesus believed that he and they were to be God’s final messengers before the eschaton.” EA
That sort of proves He wasn’t God?
“Jesus gathered twelve disciples, which is the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. He also said they were to sit on twelve thrones and serve as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. This reflects the common expectation that at the end of days, all twelve tribes would return to the land. The twelve are a symbolic representation of restored Israel.” EA
He wouldn’t do that as the Messiah?
“There is a clear pattern of a successive watering down of Jesus’ prediction of the eschaton within the generation of his disciples, starting with Mark…” EA
No watering down. It is absolutely fascinating to observe deniers create doctrine out of pure creativity. Why didn’t they alter the gospels for more consistency?
Robert said
Sure, I have my own views and opinions and methodological premises. But I am asking you a genuine question, not merely a rhetorical one: Why do you think it is that many contemporary Pauline exegetes no longer support the interpolation hypothesis?
As for there being an entrenched anti-Jewish bias in traditional Christian exegesis … Seriously? Have you read much traditional Christian exegesis?
What data, or source, do you have on contemporary exegetes relative to their support for the interpolation theory? Are there statistical numbers? Does this group represent something more? Is your question based on an assumption or a fact? If I assume that your observation is correct – and that many (more) qualified practitioners have rejected the interpolation theory – I would still have to be convinced of the argument. So far, I’ve not heard anything convincing.
What is the distinction between traditional (apparently anti-Jewish), and contemporary, exegesis? Is there a transition time/date, location, or something else associated with this distinction?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)