Lena Einhorn's ideas

[archibald]

Yes. It seems to me to be at least as plausible as almost any of the theories.

[archibald]

archibald

Maybe it is simply inherent in the role of "Rebel, the archetype" to combine in one figure:

- a vision of a better world if the rebellion succeeds, with
- a gritty realism about what needs to be done to "make the world safe for" whatever the vision is

Religion is the playground of the archetypes, after all.

Oh sorry, when I agreed with you, I may have misunderstood. My brain was, at the time, in or closer to 'Jesus may have existed' mode.

When you say archetype, are you hinting in the other direction?

It could work either way, imo.

[archibald]

If you meant the latter, and were using the word archetype in a non-historical or mythical sense, I might disagree. Religion, especially a new cult or group, is more the playground of the deluded average Joe, imo (or possibly the deluded charismatic Joe). New ones, started by real people (usually men perhaps, but not always) have been emerging almost annually (if that is not an overstatement or understatement) somewhere or other, possibly since the start of recorded world history.

Furthermore, it seems to me that when new cults say they had a founder who lived recently, they usually did or can reasonably be taken to have had (allowing for exceptions). If true, I would consider this a relevant, 'common as muck' prior probability at the outset of any analysis of likliehoods about existence.

In this case, it does depend on taking Paul to be close to events and talking about a man, both of which I am relatively comfortable with, even if open to alternatives.

[Paul the Uncertain]

archibald

It could work either way, imo.

Yes. I was thinking only about the "How could a man of violence be remembered as an icon of peace & love?" piece of the puzzle. I think of the term archetype within a Jungian framework, if that helps.

Mark could have recognized and abstracted out a dominant archetype in a real person's biography, or instead have constellated a realistic fictive character around the myth-waiting-to-be-written archetype that Mark carried inside his head (as we all do carry it and others around in our heads).

In other words, that notion of archetype is neutral toward the historicity problem. Nevertheless, you did identify an issue as a problem for a particular historicist theory. The mechanism of archetypal abstraction-or-projection seems to be innate to our species. Thus, what might seem like paradoxical combinations of traits are, for humans, par for the course. That, in turn, may influence estimates of how well a chosen hypothesis explains the observed data.

Looking at this from a "newborn cult" angle, what makes somebody "charismatic?" Maybe Jung's model isn't your cup of tea, but whatever the answer is, it is some kind of psychological phenomenon, IMO.

Furthermore, it seems to me that when a new cult says it had a founder who lived recently, they usually did or can reasonably be taken to have had (allowing for exceptions). If true, I would consider this a relevant, 'common as muck' prior probability at the outset of any analysis.

In this case, it does depend on taking Paul to be close to events and talking about a man, both of which I am relatively comfortable with, even if open to alternatives.

Yeah, I end up about 2:1 a priori favoring Paul writing about a contemporary man who, Paul thinks, has visited him and some other folks despite having died (in the natural sense) not long before. So far, the available evidence hasn't budged that much for me, so I'm still at 2:1, historicist, but wide open to change.

[maryhelena]

archibald

It could work either way, imo.

Yes. I was thinking only about the "How could a man of violence be remembered as an icon of peace & love?" piece of the puzzle. I think of the term archetype within a Jungian framework, if that helps.

Mark could have recognized and abstracted out a dominant archetype in a real person's biography, or instead have constellated a realistic fictive character around the myth-waiting-to-be-written archetype that Mark carried inside his head (as we all do carry it and others around in our heads).

In other words, that notion of archetype is neutral toward the historicity problem. Nevertheless, you did identify an issue as a problem for a particular historicist theory. The mechanism of archetypal abstraction-or-projection seems to be innate to our species. Thus, what might seem like paradoxical combinations of traits are, for humans, par for the course. That, in turn, may influence estimates of how well a chosen hypothesis explains the observed data.

<snip>

A man of violence, a man of war = A Davidic prototype.
A man of peace and love = A Joseph prototype.

Rather than run with the idea that individuals are complex characters and can thus display both violence and love.....(after all, such an argument as a tool for historical research into the NT story gains nothing at all) perhaps consider the idea that the gospel figure of Jesus is a composite literary figure. That way opens up the discussion to an historical approach rather than a purely NT interpretive approach.

A composite literary figure reflecting two historical figures; two historical figures that display or reflect the two elements, violence and peace, as primary characteristics of their historical roles.

A prominent man of war was the last Hasmonean King and High Priest. Executed by the Romans in 37 bc.

Antigonus II Mattathias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

• Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

A prominent man of peace was Philip the Tetrarch - who, re Josephus, died around 33/34 c.e. after ruling 37 years in a land outside of Judea.

• Josephus Ant.18.ch.4.par.6
  
  6. About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy.

These two historical figures, I would suggest, are the two prototypes used by the gospel writers in the creation of their literary, composite, Jesus figure.

Why? Well now, that is the million dollar question.....

----------------------------------------

Philip died, re Josephus, at Julius - Bethsaida Julius - the place where the gospel story says the early disciples of Jesus came from....

Of course, Josephus could be telling his own story re Philip.........his own view or interpretation of the man and that man's history - but at least it is a story attached, surrounding, an historical man....

[Jax]

One more thought before I hit the sack.

This idea that a pacifist or non-politically partisan Jesus would be an oddity during a time of troubles.

I think this can be taken too far. As someone who lived, from age 12 onwards, in Belfast, in the middle of 'The Troubles', I can say that not only is there PLENTY of room in day to day life for such people, but that in fact, troubles can throw them up, as a reaction, (Google 'The Peace People').

This is actually one of the reasons that I think Paul is writing to people after the wars of the 1st century BCE. It would have struck home with people worn down with war and death.

Ok but you presumably have that as at least partly a ploy.

What I was alluding to, perhaps as a counterfoil to all the 'alternative' speculation I am happy to indulge in, I am, equally, and without naivety, still not averse to the idea that there was a sincere and non-violent 'sage type' at the start of all this.

Such people, if there is division all around, can get caught in the crossfire (or 'cross' fire as the case may be) precisely because they are in the middle, an unpopular place in a fight. Or, they can be on the fringes of one side and be mistaken for a hardliner or lumped in with those more extreme.

Just sayin'.

I don't understand the highlighted.

I was guessing that you had opportunist Paul preaching a (relative) peacenik because it would play well with his audience.

I read that at least at one time, Einhorn suspected that 'Paul' was actually 'Jesus'. Which would at least explain how he fits into her thesis.

If he wasn't Jesus, I'm wondering how else he could fit into her thesis? On the face of it, not very readily, I think.

Ah! While it seems obvious that Paul is after money, I doubt that it is his whole focus.

Reading his letters (see http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 117#p82117) I get the impression that he is elaborating on a theme that others had before him and that he is preaching it to people that are receptive to that message. I also get the feeling that he believes at least part of that message himself and is therefore not a conman in that regard but rather someone who sees a way to benefit financially from a situation that is already there.

If I am right about Paul being part of the conflicts in Greece during the 1st century BCE then the one war that I think he probably was in was the Liberator's war of 43-42 BCE. In that conflict Cassius and Brutus fled to Greece and Asia Minor to raise armies there to confront Mark Antony and Octavian. A large part of those armies would have been raised from people local to that area from money raised from the cities that Cassius and Brutus plundered there.

Paul mentions in one letter that he is in Syria and Cilicia, both prime areas of troop recruitment for the Liberators.

Problem is that the Liberators lost.

In this fight you have Roman armies fighting Roman armies with the Liberators army heavily reinforced with non-Romans recruited locally (Asia Minor and Syria mostly). After the conflict you would have the Romans on the losing side absorbed into the armies of Antony and Octavian but the non-Romans left to fend for themselves in northern Greece with no paycheck as it were. If Paul were in this situation he may have suddenly found himself in Thessalonica (the war took place nearby in Philippi), broke, wondering were his next meal was coming from. Not only that but also in competition with all of the other dismissed non-Roman combatants that were just as stranded and broke as himself. Indeed much of his correspondence talks of his humble situations and thanks the receivers of those letters for their support. Some of his Roman war buddies may have settled in the area as it is at this time that Roman veterans were being colonized in the area in areas like Philippi and Troyas. That and quite a few of them would have been settled in Thessalonica.

Right off of the bat you have three cities, all in northern Greece in the area of the battle of Philippi, related to Paul in his letters.

At first anyway, I think Paul is just trying to survive an unfortunate situation any way that he can, mainly by tapping into those that he knew in that area that were better off than himself.

It's a theory anyway.

[archibald]

Yes. I was thinking only about the "How could a man of violence be remembered as an icon of peace & love?" piece of the puzzle. I think of the term archetype within a Jungian framework, if that helps.......

....Looking at this from a "newborn cult" angle, what makes somebody "charismatic?" Maybe Jung's model isn't your cup of tea, but whatever the answer is, it is some kind of psychological phenomenon, IMO.....

....Yeah, I end up about 2:1 a priori favoring Paul writing about a contemporary man who, Paul thinks, has visited him and some other folks despite having died (in the natural sense) not long before. So far, the available evidence hasn't budged that much for me, so I'm still at 2:1, historicist, but wide open to change.

Ah. Psychology. Fascinating can of worms. Where would we stop?

Plus, we'd arguably have to look at our own psychology, not least why we are all consumed by a puzzle that cannot be solved.

But now I at least see where you were coming from.

Regarding what makes someone 'charismatic', yes we could look at in from a Jungian point of view, or from some other psychological angle, and we could also see what sociologists and anthropologists say (in fact I have done some perusing along those lines).

As to my own position on the spectrum of belief in this matter, I fluctuate, or rather I don't settle. I'm mostly close to the middle, neutral position. Most of the time I lean towards at least some sort of historicity (there being numerous versions) while still holding on to the fence as it were. Occasionally, but not as often and not as far, I lean slightly in the other direction.

I think it's fair to say that neutrality is arguably the stance that is actually most warranted. If it weren't for the pesky ape curiosity with which I am infected, I might be able to leave it at that, but there's this annoying 'wanting to know' thing.

I'd say more but I need to work.

[archibald]

It's a theory anyway.

And not a bad one, imo. 'Paul', it seems, arrived into events with some sort of .... interesting, probably non-Judean background or other.

Perhaps the part that is slightly hard to imagine is the partly sincere/believing Paul. It doesn't seem to fit the rest. But I'm not saying it's at all inconceivable.

[Jax]

It's a theory anyway.

And not a bad one, imo. 'Paul', it seems, arrived into events with some sort of .... interesting, probably non-Judean background or other.

Perhaps the part that is slightly hard to imagine is the partly sincere/believing Paul. It doesn't seem to fit the rest. But I'm not saying it's at all inconceivable.

There is no real reason to suspect that Paul is non-Judean; if not an interpolation, he says as much in his letters, and Damascus, while a Greco/Roman city, had a large Jewish population.
During the Hellenistic period Jewish mercenaries were well respected for their fighting ability and were plentiful. This makes it very possible that Paul might have been a soldier for hire. It helps to remember that employment opportunities weren't as plentiful then as today. Brigandage for instance was high on the list job opportunities back then.

A partly sincere (maybe even wholly) and believing Paul isn't that much of a stretch for me. As I said, he seems to just be continuing a theme that he picked up somewhere.

As for the money, it occurs to me that maybe he was just trying to get back home.

[Paul the Uncertain]

archibad

Perhaps the part that is slightly hard to imagine is the partly sincere/believing Paul. It doesn't seem to fit the rest. But I'm not saying it's at all inconceivable.

"Reconciliation of opposites" rears its head again. This one isn't peculiar to depth psychology, though, there is a common phrase for it, "Doing well by doing good."

There is also that fatal moment in Antioch where Paul calls Rocky a hypocrite, and Paul is proud of it. With the H-word thus in play, Paul invites suspicion that he is a hypocrite. The mechanism for that flirts with depth psychology (Shadow projection in Jung-speak), but it, too, has its own common phrase, "Who points a finger at someone else points three fingers at himself."

Elsewhere, Paul says that for the sake of the mission, he makes himself all things to all people, as suits his current audience. Hmm, isn't that what Paul complains that Peter-Cephas did, to play the Gentile with the goyim, and the Jew with fellow Jews?

How bad is that, as character "flaws" go? Or maybe the better question is how rare it is. Not especially rare, IMO, and maybe not all that bad, either. We may not respect the person who "goes along to get along," but the evidence is strong that we elect a lot of them to our legislatures, congresses and parliaments.

Finally, I don't see any reason why a true believer couldn't also be an effective salesman. Of course, an effective salesman doesn't have to be a believer at all. Many of us have a sore spot about being lied to or "played," and so may be inclined to attribute too quickly to dishonesty behavior that might better have been explained by Walt Whitman:

Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)