Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Chris Hansen » Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am

1) I'm not forced to take it as mere coincidence. You are just being uncharitable to me now. All of the discussion is explained for theological purposes, but retro-actively reading an allegorical account back into a completely different context that Paul is discussing as Verenna and Carrier do is not only unsustainable, but completely ignorant to how Paul was writing. If they were the same, why is there a big intervening area between them separating the contexts? They aren't the same context, so reading the allegory back into Gal. 4:4 which is discussing a different matter is just misreading the text, at best.

2) Mark does not determine what is in Paul. That is just anachronistic reading.

3) And Geza Vermes would then have the passage interpolated, and therefore your thesis collapses because that is a later insertion and not relevant to interpreting the rest of Paul. I'm fine taking Vermes' position, which basically renders yours no threat to historicity at all.

4) That you are reading only what is sufficient for a spiritual/fraternal brother is of no consequence to my argument.

5) I can just come up with more hypotheses supporting historicity:

I) spiritual privileged and carnal brother simultaneously
II) spiritual unprivileged and carnal brother simultaneously
III) carnal brother
IV) spiritual privileged brother only
V) spiritual unprivileged brother only

This still makes the prior probability more in favor of historicity (I-III). Thus, you are still not able to beat my position.

6) "The Risen Christ calls Paul 'my apostle', not "my brother". I don't understand what is evidence that the Risen Christ called Paul as privileged his spiritual brother."

This is all irrelevant to my point.

7) "Correct, ''camp'' is a metaphor for ''here'', hence if we are "here", Jesus suffered not "here", but "outside" here, i.e. outside the earth: in heaven."

Actually, it is a metaphor for the locale of sacrifice.

8) "Jesus is not Melkizedek, but he is ''according to his order'' just in virtue of his being ''without mother and father, without genealogy etc". A birth by woman is denied, too. It is in evidence."

Um, no that is you reading things into the text which it never says. Being of the order of Melchizedek never means that one does not have a genealogy. That is you reading things into the text and is clearly projection.
Last edited by Chris Hansen on Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7608
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:48 am

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
1) I'm not forced to take it as mere coincidence. You are just being uncharitable to me now.
If you think that the woman and the law mentioned in our Gal 4:4 has no relation at all with Sarah and the related Law and has no relation with Agar and the related Law, then you are obliged, by definition, to call the repetition of the binomy woman/law for 3 times as: mere coincidence.

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
2) Mark does not determine what is in Paul. That is just anachronistic reading.
But Mark is the pauline gospel par excellence. How could Mark deny possibly the davidic genealogy when his master Paul would have claimed it?
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
3) And Geza Vermes would then have the passage interpolated, and therefore your thesis collapses because that is a later insertion and not relevant to interpreting the rest of Paul. I'm fine taking Vermes' position, which basically renders yours no threat to historicity at all.
Vermes declares docetism, hence denial of birth, in the Hymn of Philippians. Only in a second step he declares it as interpolation. But I don't follow him until there.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
4) That you are reading only what is sufficient for a spiritual/fraternal brother is of no consequence to my argument.
it escapes me what is your argument, frankly, here.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
5) I can just come up with more hypotheses supporting historicity:

I) spiritual privileged and carnal brother simultaneously
II) spiritual unprivileged and carnal brother simultaneously
III) carnal brother
IV) spiritual privileged brother only
V) spiritual unprivileged brother only

This still makes the prior probability more in favor of historicity (I-III). Thus, you are still not able to beat my position.
the problem with your classification is that the point (3) implies automatically (1) and (2), hence you are dividing vainly the options only in order to confute me. Really, the options mutually exclusive are only 3, as mentioned by me above.


Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
6) "The Risen Christ calls Paul 'my apostle', not "my brother". I don't understand what is evidence that the Risen Christ called Paul as privileged his spiritual brother."

This is all irrelevant to my point.
But you have just mentioned Paul as being called 'my brother' (sic) by the Risen Christ!

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
7) "Correct, ''camp'' is a metaphor for ''here'', hence if we are "here", Jesus suffered not "here", but "outside" here, i.e. outside the earth: in heaven."

Actually, it is a metaphor for the locale of sacrifice.
correct, the locale of sacrifice that coincides metaphorically with 'here', where we are, i.e. the earth. Hence 'outside the camp' is: in heaven.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:35 am
8) "Jesus is not Melkizedek, but he is ''according to his order'' just in virtue of his being ''without mother and father, without genealogy etc". A birth by woman is denied, too. It is in evidence."

Um, no that is you reading things into the text which it never says. Being of the order of Melchizedek never means that one does not have a genealogy. That is you reading things into the text and is clearly projection.
then why mention Melkizedek at all, if he has to be compared someway with Jesus (1) without being him and (2) being sharing with him the absence of mother and father and genealogy ? And (3) without even sharing an eucharistic episode? Really, I am right here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Chris Hansen
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Chris Hansen » Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am

1) There is no relation with the woman. If there were, why isn't the woman explicitly named with Sarah and Hagar? It doesn't work with the allegory. However, the use of the law is consistent, because Paul consistently uses the law to his theological advantage.

2) You haven't established that Mark is denying the Davidic genealogy. You've only established that there is a questionable quote with multiple possible interpretations. And, that Mark is Pauline does not mean that Mark cannot contradict Paul. There are also deutero-Pauline epistles which contradict Paul but which are still Pauline. Thus, Mark is not determinate in how to interpret Paul's letters. You can't use two different authors with different objectives in writing to interpret each other. That would be like me using Robert Heinlein to interpret J. R. R. Tolkien.

3) Ah, so you pick and choose what you want from Vermes. Well I follow Vermes' thesis. So, convince me it isn't an interpolation, then we can talk.

4) I'm not dividing "vainly." Those are all equally probable hypotheses to explain the passage. Having a double meaning is not uncommon (it is called a double entendre). It is not "vain" of me to do this dividing, any more than it was of you to do so.

5) I never mentioned Paul being called "brother" by the risen Christ. I mentioned James in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which you failed to demonstrate is only using "brother" as a title. You just assumed it without qualification.

6) You are imparting your projection of "here" on the text which it never states.

7) The reason for mentioning Melchizedek and placing Jesus in the "order of Melchizedek" has to do with Second Temple Judaic reverence for Melchizedek of the time. Placing him in that order makes Jesus of extreme importance, because Melchizedek was (such as the Melchizedek scroll in the DSS). Also, Iosif Kryvelev (who was a mythicist) demonstrated in 1987 that there is no evidence that Jesus was ever identified as Melchizedek. The arguments are 100% conjecture.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7608
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:20 am

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
1) There is no relation with the woman. If there were, why isn't the woman explicitly named with Sarah and Hagar? It doesn't work with the allegory. However, the use of the law is consistent, because Paul consistently uses the law to his theological advantage.
if you say that there is no relation with the woman, then the occurrence 3 times of the bynomy woman/law has to be necessarily a mere coincidence for you. My solution is more economical than your solution since it doesn't need assumption of coincidences at all.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
2) You haven't established that Mark is denying the Davidic genealogy. You've only established that there is a questionable quote with multiple possible interpretations. And, that Mark is Pauline does not mean that Mark cannot contradict Paul. There are also deutero-Pauline epistles which contradict Paul but which are still Pauline. Thus, Mark is not determinate in how to interpret Paul's letters. You can't use two different authors with different objectives in writing to interpret each other. That would be like me using Robert Heinlein to interpret J. R. R. Tolkien.
But when I say that Mark is pauline I mean that Mark is a midrash on the theology of Paul. While the deutero-Pauline are not expressions of true paulinism, but only mere expressions of co-optation of the legacy of the apostle. Please like the difference.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
3) Ah, so you pick and choose what you want from Vermes. Well I follow Vermes' thesis. So, convince me it isn't an interpolation, then we can talk.
Well, then. Stantibus sic rebus, I concede you that Jesus was born by woman. But I assume that he was considered born by woman in heaven, as Revelation says expressly. Where is evidence of historicity here then, in a birth by a celestial woman?
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
4) I'm not dividing "vainly." Those are all equally probable hypotheses to explain the passage. Having a double meaning is not uncommon (it is called a double entendre). It is not "vain" of me to do this dividing, any more than it was of you to do so.
the difference between my options and yours is that at least my 2 options are mutually exclusive (a not privileged spiritual brother can't be a privileged spiritual brother) while a carnal brother becomes ipso facto very probably a privileged spiritual brother, too, so you can't divide the latter option in other 2.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
5) I never mentioned Paul being called "brother" by the risen Christ. I mentioned James in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which you failed to demonstrate is only using "brother" as a title. You just assumed it without qualification.
where is the problem? In Gospel of Hebrews the Risen Christ calls James as 'my brother' just as the Risen Christ in Galatians 1 calls Paul as 'my apostle'. In both the cases, there is no evidence that a historical Jesus had a brother named James, or that a historical Jesus had an apostle called Paul.
Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
6) You are imparting your projection of "here" on the text which it never states.
If Jesus suffers "outside the city", and the Christians have to go out a "city" found "here", then the "city" where Jesus doesn't suffer is this earth, and Jesus suffers "outside" the earth, i.e.: in heaven.

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:57 am
7) The reason for mentioning Melchizedek and placing Jesus in the "order of Melchizedek" has to do with Second Temple Judaic reverence for Melchizedek of the time. Placing him in that order makes Jesus of extreme importance, because Melchizedek was (such as the Melchizedek scroll in the DSS). Also, Iosif Kryvelev (who was a mythicist) demonstrated in 1987 that there is no evidence that Jesus was ever identified as Melchizedek. The arguments are 100% conjecture.
But even I agree with you and Kryvelev that Hebrews doesn't say that Jesus is stricto sensu Melkizedek. Hebrews says only that Jesus shares a feature with Melkizedek that is not an eucharistic episode, that is not, according to you, the absence of genealogy. So, what is the Jesus's feature shared with Melkizedek ? I have the answer: the absence of genealogy.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

perseusomega9
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:12 am

Chris Hansen wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:33 am
. In short, interpolation theses have absolutely no justification.
While I whole heartedly agree that any hypothesis of an interpolation at any given point sans manuscript evidence is speculation (which doesnt mean it's wrong), I fail to see why accepting the manuscript as uninterpolated isn't also considered speculative. It's assuming near complete fidelity in the transmission of the autograph.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7608
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:12 am

At any case, Chris, while a lot of things said here by me are not new for me in a discussion with a historicist, I thank you because during the discussion with you, I have matured this genial idea:

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:43 am
I start from the assumption that there are no historicist or mythicist smoking gun in Paul, but only that his general silence about the HJ has to be explained.


May I never boast,” Paul said, “except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Galatians 6:14)

He was saying that the glory of the cross supercedes everything. These words about the “world crucified” have to be interpreted literally, to mean that by the cosmic cross the Pleroma (and Paul with it) was divided from the matter. Hence we find here the same function of Limit for Horos or Stauros. A “world crucified”, i.e. separated from upper heavens, requires by need a cosmic cross in heaven, not an earthly humble cross. This doesn’t prevent Paul from using the wood of Isaac to “portray” the cross for poor Galatians.

It allows me to answer to Neil, who asked me about the presence of Horos or celestial Stauros in Paul. I have found it. :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

perseusomega9
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:27 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:20 am
But even I agree with you and Kryvelev that Hebrews doesn't say that Jesus is stricto sensu Melkizedek. Hebrews says only that Jesus shares a feature with Melkizedek that is not an eucharistic episode, that is not, according to you, the absence of genealogy. So, what is the Jesus's feature shared with Melkizedek ? I have the answer: the absence of genealogy.
You're leaving out the whole problem of Jesus supposedly not being in the priestly line. If he's not a priest, how can he offer up a sacrifice? By being in the same priestly tradition of MK, a priestly role that precedes Moses and Aaron.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7608
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:42 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:27 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:20 am
But even I agree with you and Kryvelev that Hebrews doesn't say that Jesus is stricto sensu Melkizedek. Hebrews says only that Jesus shares a feature with Melkizedek that is not an eucharistic episode, that is not, according to you, the absence of genealogy. So, what is the Jesus's feature shared with Melkizedek ? I have the answer: the absence of genealogy.
You're leaving out the whole problem of Jesus supposedly not being in the priestly line. If he's not a priest, how can he offer up a sacrifice? By being in the same priestly tradition of MK, a priestly role that precedes Moses and Aaron.
we are saying the same thing. MK is magically in a priestly tradition without be descendant of Moses and Aaron, in virtue of his being without genealogy, etc. By sharing with him the absence of genealogy, Jesus can be himself in a priestly tradition.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

perseusomega9
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:54 am

I think you're over emphasizing that point though. The simpler matter is how the author of Hebrews is responding to critics of his temple theology about Jesus and how Jesus can't offer sacrifice in the temple because he's not a Levite.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7608
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Top suspects that could have invented the historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:56 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:54 am
I think you're over emphasizing that point though. The simpler matter is how the author of Hebrews is responding to critics of his temple theology about Jesus and how Jesus can't offer sacrifice in the temple because he's not a Levite.
Ok but then why is MK able to be a priest without be a levite? The same problem of Jesus is transposed on MK.

A plausible answer is : because he is privileged from not having genealogy at all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply