Why the Doherty scenario is more probable than the Wells scenario

[TedM]

I don't see Paul denying that Jesus was on earth. Rather I see him referring to Jesus as a man in the flesh about 90 times.

That's hard to explain away, and Doherty attempts to do so by applying a false expectation -- ie what should we expect Paul to have said if the GOSPEL JESUS were true. He also attempts to explain it by applying creative interpretations to the 'historical passages', claiming interpolation of some of them, and pointing to other 'celestial' passages as supportive to his case.

I'm not saying he is wrong. But I'm asking what should we expect to have happened if Jesus were a man who was crucified and then proclaimed the Messiah by some that said he was resurrected?

You are saying we should expect Paul to be embarrassed if Jesus were a man crucified. I'm saying he wouldn't be. How could Paul be embarrassed by his personal Savior? Interestingly - you say that the Jews and pagans thought Jesus was a human. Doesn't that hurt your case? Wouldn't they know whether Paul was talking about a human or not?

[Giuseppe]

Interestingly - you say that the Jews and pagans thought Jesus was a human. Doesn't that hurt your case? Wouldn't they know whether Paul was talking about a human or not?

(Apart from the fact that for Paul, Jesus was yes a man but a celestial man), I say that the Jews and Pagans thought that the Jesus of Paul was a human (crucified merely in Judea) in virtue of the same reason you think that the Jesus of Paul was a human. Not because they (or you, for that matter) had independent evidence of the earthly crucifixion of that man, but only because they had heard Paul preach a «crucified Christ». Only for that.

[Giuseppe]

You are saying we should expect Paul to be embarrassed if Jesus were a man crucified. I'm saying he wouldn't be.

More precisely, I am saying that, if Jesus was a man crucified, then Paul would have conceded to who is not Christian that the death could be seen as embarrassing. He didn't concede even that, because the Jesus of which he is talking about is not the same Jesus of which the his enemies think that he is talking about.

[Giuseppe]

what should we expect to have happened if Jesus were a man who was crucified and then proclaimed the Messiah by some that said he was resurrected?

We should expect:

• at least, a minimal reference to the place of death

• at least, a minimal recognition that the death is embarrassing -without considering it really as such -, at least in the eyes of who is still not Christian.

• at least, more respect shown by Paul about the Pillars, if they were really leaders established by Jesus or simply Jesuses of their own right.

• at least, a minimal reference to the precise time of the death

[TedM]

I say that the Jews and Pagans thought that the Jesus of Paul was a human

I think it is more reasonable to assume that they knew what kind of man Paul was talking about -- surely Paul would have made that very clear to them.

I think it is unnecessary to state the obvious when it comes to the crucifixion being embarrassing. But the fact that he mentions it being a 'stumbling block' shows that he knew Jews had a problem with it. But if you want further concession - Paul writes in Gal 3:13:

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

That shows that he knows it is viewed by others negatively. Of course that's just common sense too.

We should expect:
at least, a minimal reference to the place of death I don't see why you expect this. In any case we have Rom 9:33, and Hebrews 13:12.
at least, a minimal recognition that the death is embarrassing -without considering it really as such -, at least in the eyes of who is still not Christian. 1 Cor 1 (stumbling block) and Gal 3:13
at least, more respect shown by Paul about the Pillars, if they were really leaders established by Jesus or simply Jesuses of their own right. No need to assume this
at least, a minimal reference to the precise time of the death. I also don't see why you expect this -- his audience surely knew the background story. Paul wasn't writing for us, he was writing for them. While not definitive, it seems more likely than not that it happened recent to his conversion in 1 Cor 15, since it is clear the faith itself was so new..And if the gospels were making it all up, choosing to place him so recent in history could have created unnecessary conflict with those who believed it happened long ago. Why make it harder to convert them?

[Giuseppe]

I say that the Jews and Pagans thought that the Jesus of Paul was a human

I think it is more reasonable to assume that they knew what kind of man Paul was talking about -- surely Paul would have made that very clear to them.

are you so sure? Paul says that he preached only the crucified Christ. To the outsiders.

I think it is unnecessary to state the obvious when it comes to the crucifixion being embarrassing.

but not in Paul.

But the fact that he mentions it being a 'stumbling block' shows that he knew Jews had a problem with it.

but he makes it clear that the Jews had in mind not the same crucified Christ meant by him. One of which it is impossible a priori to have embarrassment.

But if you want further concession - Paul writes in Gal 3:13:

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

That shows that he knows it is viewed by others negatively. Of course that's just common sense too.

it is not show of embarrassment by Paul, sorry. The "common sense" doesn't work in this case. Unless you want to reason as an outsider and believe that Paul had in mind an earthly crucifixion.

We should expect:
at least, a minimal reference to the place of death I don't see why you expect this. In any case we have Rom 9:33, and Hebrews 13:12.

the fact that the cult of Dionysos comes from Thrace doesn't make him historical. The fact that the cult of Mithras comes from Persia doesn't make him historical.

at least, a minimal recognition that the death is embarrassing -without considering it really as such -, at least in the eyes of who is still not Christian. 1 Cor 1 (stumbling block)


and Gal 3:13

Sore, above I have proved the contrary just basing on these verses.

at least, more respect shown by Paul about the Pillars, if they were really leaders established by Jesus or simply Jesuses of their own right. No need to assume this

how, of grace, can you claim so?

at least, a minimal reference to the precise time of the death. I also don't see why you expect this -- his audience surely knew the background story. Paul wasn't writing for us, he was writing for them. While not definitive, it seems more likely than not that it happened recent to his conversion in 1 Cor 15, since it is clear the faith itself was so new..And if the gospels were making it all up, choosing to place him so recent in history could have created unnecessary conflict with those who believed it happened long ago. Why make it harder to convert them?

1 Peter 1:20 says that the Lamb was chosen (presumably: to be killed immediately, since only for that function a Lamb is chosen) before the creation of the world.

The fact that you are historicist only because you heard someone preach a "crucified Christ" proves that it is not necessary even a First Gospel to euhemerize on the earth a crucified Christ. Mere historicist (Pagan or Jewish) hearsay is sufficient.

[robert j]

I don’t intend to get involved in this thread, at least for now, beyond this post (there are other threads I need to get back to when time allows).

I would preface my comments with an acknowledgement that I have great respect for Earl Doherty and his work. I credit Doherty with providing very significant influence on my early studies of Christian origins. That said, there are a few significant issues in which I disagree with Doherty.

Earl Doherty wrote:

One could point to the same deficiency in the view of G. A. Wells. We get no sense from the early Christian (non-Gospel) record that their Jesus was looked upon as having been a prophet, a teacher, a miracle-worker. Nothing ties him to an earthly career. Even if that career had taken place in the obscure past and not within recent memory, we would expect, in principle, that something, teachings, miracles, prophecies, would in some measure be attributed to him. Yet the documents are silent. (Paul's couple of "words of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians—7:10-11 and 9:14—are on insignificant topics compared to the great ethical teachings, and are often regarded by scholars as directives he believes he has received directly from Christ in heaven.)

(my bold original cursive)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/BkrvEll.htm

Our earliest extant “early Christian (non-Gospel) record” of Jesus consists of Paul’s letters.

To think that Jesus, in Paul’s letters, should have been looked upon as a prophet, a teacher, or a miracle worker is only an assumption, even with a Jesus Christ understood by Paul as having been on earth sometime in the obscure past.

Paul’s Jesus did not need those attributes ---

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him having been crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Paul’s Jesus fully satisfied the needs of Paul’s evangelizing work among the Gentiles. The knowledge of the long-secret mystery of the redemptive and salvific death of Jesus Christ (derived from Deuteronomy and Isaiah 53) brought to the Gentiles the opportunity to accept faith in that salvific death. That faith, according to Paul, brought redemption from the law and allowed the adoption as Sons of God and redemption from sin. And that faith, according to Paul, would also allow the faithful to participate in the imminent Parousia and to escape the terrible wrath of God that was coming soon to those without faith (Joel 2).

Paul didn’t need a human prophet, teacher, or miracle worker --- but he did need a figure with human attributes. In Paul’s letters, one finds descriptions of the necessary characteristics of a pre-existing spiritual figure that could provide men with salvation and redemption from the law ---

… He emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. And having been found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:7-8)

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, that He might redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the divine adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:4-5)

In order for a pre-existing heavenly spiritual being existing in the form of God to undergo a salvific and redemptive death on behalf of men, that being needed to have ‘standing’. That is, that figure had to suffer as a man in order to effectively redeem the sins of men. That figure needed to have come in the likeness of a man under the law so he could redeem those under the law. Paul provided his Jesus Christ figure with the necessary characteristics so that faith in the sufferings of that being could effectively provide salivation and redemption for men that might believe.

[TedM]

Giuseppe I found nearly the entire response from you to be using a type of logic that I can't understand.

For example, you say you would expect a mention by Paul of Jesus' place of death. I gave 2 examples. Instead of addressing those, you used an inverse argument about 2 mythical figures. They have nothing to do with Paul or with your expectation.

And re embarrassment - you seem to expect that Paul would be embarrassed about a historical Jesus being crucified. it is clear that Paul recognized that a crucified Messiah was a problem for Jews - that many were embarrassed by it. But that isn't enough for you. You expect Paul to be embarrassed about what happened to his Savior and Lord. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I'll stop there. I"ve made all the points I wanted to make. It doesn't prove historicity. Rather, it sets up what I think is a reasonable set of expectations for how Christianity could spread from a human founder.

Take care, Ted

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe I found nearly the entire response from you to be using a type of logic that I can't understand.

For example, you say you would expect a mention by Paul of Jesus' place of death. I gave 2 examples. Instead of addressing those, you used an inverse argument about 2 mythical figures. They have nothing to do with Paul or with your expectation.

The sense was that the two passages quoted by you refer to the place of provenance of the Jesus cult, not to the place of provenance of Jesus the man. Hence the analogy with Mithras and Dionysos.

And re embarrassment - you seem to expect that Paul would be embarrassed about a historical Jesus being crucified. it is clear that Paul recognized that a crucified Messiah was a problem for Jews - that many were embarrassed by it. But that isn't enough for you. You expect Paul to be embarrassed about what happened to his Savior and Lord. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I am sorry that you are not describing precisely the my view. I say that Paul "recognized that a crucified Messiah was a problem for Jews - that many were embarrassed by it", only it was not the crucified Messiah of which he was talking about. If Paul had said/confirmed/shown that the Jews were embarrassed about the same crucified Messiah of which he, Paul, was talking about, then yes, I can concede you a point. Is it clear now what is the my view?

I'll stop there. I"ve made all the points I wanted to make. It doesn't prove historicity. Rather, it sets up what I think is a reasonable set of expectations for how Christianity could spread from a human founder.

Take care, Ted

I praise you, Ted, as a very kind interlocutor. I like a lot the discussion. It is rare something of the kind, even in this forum. Thank you.

[TedM]

Thanks Guiseppe. All the best, Ted