The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

[neilgodfrey]

It is far more probable that it was Paul who first preached Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, because in his lifetime such doctrine would have been utterly baffling to most Jews, including the messianists.

Why would the resurrection have been baffling to most Jews?

Isaiah 26:19-21

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.

20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,
and shut your doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until the fury has passed by.

21 For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity,
and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,
and will no more cover its slain.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

2 Maccabees 7:9-11

[9] And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
[10] After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
[11] and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again."

And if we are inclined to think that Baruch did not introduce the idea among his fellow Jews for the very first time after 70 CE. . . .

2 Baruch 30:2-5

2 Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again. And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they shall come forth, and a multitude of souls shall be seen together in one assemblage of one thought, and the first shall rejoice and the last shall not be grieved. 3 For they know that the time has come of which it is said, that it is the consummation of the times. 4 But the souls of the wicked, when they behold all these things, shall then waste away the more. 5 For they shall know that their torment has come and their perdition has arrived.'

2 Baruch 50:2-5

2 For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead,
[Which it now receives, in order to preserve them].
It shall make no change in their form,
But as it has received, so shall it restore them,
And as I delivered them unto it, so also shall it raise them.

3 For then it will be necessary to show the living that the dead have come to life again, and that those who had departed have returned (again). 4 And it shall come to pass, when they have severally recognized those whom they now know, then judgment shall grow strong, and those things which before were spoken of shall come.

[Solo]

It is far more probable that it was Paul who first preached Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, because in his lifetime such doctrine would have been utterly baffling to most Jews, including the messianists.

Why would the resurrection have been baffling to most Jews?

Isaiah 26:19-21

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.

20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,
and shut your doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until the fury has passed by.

21 For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity,
and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,
and will no more cover its slain.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

2 Maccabees 7:9-11

[9] And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
[10] After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
[11] and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again."

And if we are inclined to think that Baruch did not introduce the idea among his fellow Jews for the very first time after 70 CE. . . .

2 Baruch 30:2-5

2 Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again. And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they shall come forth, and a multitude of souls shall be seen together in one assemblage of one thought, and the first shall rejoice and the last shall not be grieved. 3 For they know that the time has come of which it is said, that it is the consummation of the times. 4 But the souls of the wicked, when they behold all these things, shall then waste away the more. 5 For they shall know that their torment has come and their perdition has arrived.'

2 Baruch 50:2-5

2 For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead,
[Which it now receives, in order to preserve them].
It shall make no change in their form,
But as it has received, so shall it restore them,
And as I delivered them unto it, so also shall it raise them.

3 For then it will be necessary to show the living that the dead have come to life again, and that those who had departed have returned (again). 4 And it shall come to pass, when they have severally recognized those whom they now know, then judgment shall grow strong, and those things which before were spoken of shall come.

It would be baffling because the idea of a resurrection effected in the past and having salvific consequences for the present was unknown in Judaism before Paul, AFAIK. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Jiri

[neilgodfrey]

It is far more probable that it was Paul who first preached Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, because in his lifetime such doctrine would have been utterly baffling to most Jews, including the messianists.

Why would the resurrection have been baffling to most Jews?

Isaiah 26:19-21

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.

20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,
and shut your doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until the fury has passed by.

21 For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity,
and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,
and will no more cover its slain.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

2 Maccabees 7:9-11

[9] And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
[10] After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
[11] and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again."

And if we are inclined to think that Baruch did not introduce the idea among his fellow Jews for the very first time after 70 CE. . . .

2 Baruch 30:2-5

2 Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again. And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they shall come forth, and a multitude of souls shall be seen together in one assemblage of one thought, and the first shall rejoice and the last shall not be grieved. 3 For they know that the time has come of which it is said, that it is the consummation of the times. 4 But the souls of the wicked, when they behold all these things, shall then waste away the more. 5 For they shall know that their torment has come and their perdition has arrived.'

2 Baruch 50:2-5

2 For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead,
[Which it now receives, in order to preserve them].
It shall make no change in their form,
But as it has received, so shall it restore them,
And as I delivered them unto it, so also shall it raise them.

3 For then it will be necessary to show the living that the dead have come to life again, and that those who had departed have returned (again). 4 And it shall come to pass, when they have severally recognized those whom they now know, then judgment shall grow strong, and those things which before were spoken of shall come.

It would be baffling because the idea of a resurrection effected in the past and having salvific consequences for the present was unknown in Judaism before Paul, AFAIK. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Jiri

So the idea of a resurrection of the body or the idea of a resurrection into a new spirit body would not have baffled Jews who either subscribed to or knew of their fellows who subscribed to the above teachings in their books.

We also know that some Jews believed that Isaac was actually slain by Abraham and resurrected all within a span of minutes and that the blood of Isaac had an atoning value for the sins of all subsequent generations of Jews.

We also know that the blood of past martyrs was believed by some Jews to have salvific or atoning value for others of their nation.

So given that such views were part and parcel of the mosaic of Second Temple Judaism I don't see any reason to subscribe to the bias of most Christian-led scholarship in this area that anachronistically assumes Christianity originated as something utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings of the day.

[Thor]

So the idea of a resurrection of the body or the idea of a resurrection into a new spirit body would not have baffled Jews who either subscribed to or knew of their fellows who subscribed to the above teachings in their books.

I find it difficult to believe Jews would have been baffled. But perhaps the difference between resurrected bodies and a resurrected Messiah should not be interpreted as representations of the same. The Messiah described in Isaiah ( Cyrus ) is a very different concept from the later concept of Messiah known as Jesus. It makes it difficult to say Jesus resonates with the Christ found in Isiah.

[Solo]

It would be baffling because the idea of a resurrection effected in the past and having salvific consequences for the present was unknown in Judaism before Paul, AFAIK. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Jiri

So the idea of a resurrection of the body or the idea of a resurrection into a new spirit body would not have baffled Jews who either subscribed to or knew of their fellows who subscribed to the above teachings in their books.

Looks to me, Neil, that you want to argue past my point. It was not the idea of a suffering Messiah or a priestly Messiah or a supernatural Messiah they would have found baffling. It would have been the idea that Messiah lived in the past and was resurrected to usher God's earthly creation to some ethereal kingdom in the air. And then of course there was the cross which I am leaving out because Paul says it was "offensive" to Jews, not "baffling".

We also know that the blood of past martyrs was believed by some Jews to have salvific or atoning value for others of their nation.

So given that such views were part and parcel of the mosaic of Second Temple Judaism I don't see any reason to subscribe to the bias of most Christian-led scholarship in this area that anachronistically assumes Christianity originated as something utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings of the day.

I did not say Christianity originated as something "utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings" . Nor do I actually know anyone in the field of NT studies who would argue that. Ironically it is the opposite that seems to be in the academic vogue of the apologists at the moment - Jewish Jesus and Judaism in Paul. I would like to see a reasoned argument supported by some evidence, against the view that Paul's teaching (as opposed to the "new perspective" on Paul by N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn) was radically different in some crucial aspects from what we know of the Jewish thought of his era, to wit:

1) the law has been fulfilled by the salvific death of the Son of God
2) the spirit of this Son of God, resurrected from the dead, enters physical bodies of those who are worthy of him
3) the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (or the secret of its meaning revealed through Paul) heralds the advent of the last days
4) the kingdom of God actualizes in the spiritual realm only ! ( or as a spiritual body, 1 Cor 15:44).

If you can provide some of that, I would be much obliged.

Best,
Jiri

[neilgodfrey]

It would be baffling because the idea of a resurrection effected in the past and having salvific consequences for the present was unknown in Judaism before Paul, AFAIK. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Jiri

So the idea of a resurrection of the body or the idea of a resurrection into a new spirit body would not have baffled Jews who either subscribed to or knew of their fellows who subscribed to the above teachings in their books.

Looks to me, Neil, that you want to argue past my point. It was not the idea of a suffering Messiah or a priestly Messiah or a supernatural Messiah they would have found baffling. It would have been the idea that Messiah lived in the past and was resurrected to usher God's earthly creation to some ethereal kingdom in the air. And then of course there was the cross which I am leaving out because Paul says it was "offensive" to Jews, not "baffling".

I thought the points I raised were pertinent to the argument and/or carried very strong implications for the argument. What you are saying now is giving me a slightly different perspective on your original point as I understood it. I am baffled by the commonplace claim that Jews would have found the idea of resurrection (of the body) baffling or repulsive.

You are adding a lot more now to your original claim. But if the arguments of Matthew Novenson (as one recent author of note) have any weight then all the ideas of Paul about the Messiah were very Jewish in the way they address the Messiah. The points you list were all part and parcel of the sorts of ways Jews debated such things as the Messiah in the Second Temple era. Paul himself claims to be a Jew so obviously not all Jews were baffled by his ideas.

All of Paul's arguments in his epistles for his view of the Christ are apparently reasoned along the lines of typical Jewish debate with typical Jewish assumptions. Especially his argument about seed of Abraham etc in Galatians. I simply don't see what is so "baffling" about Paul's Messiah given what we know of Jewish beliefs about Isaac and martyrs and dying messiahs and agents and hypostases of God. It's a claim I hear often enough but rarely see defended. It seems to be to be assumed and that was why I responded.

According to Alan Segal and Paula Fredriksen and others, what some Jews (obviously not all Jews) found to be offensive in Paul's teaching was not the idea of a crucified Messiah per se but the point that the crucified messiah clearly did not deliver the Jews from their material/worldly suffering. N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence.

We also know that the blood of past martyrs was believed by some Jews to have salvific or atoning value for others of their nation.

So given that such views were part and parcel of the mosaic of Second Temple Judaism I don't see any reason to subscribe to the bias of most Christian-led scholarship in this area that anachronistically assumes Christianity originated as something utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings of the day.

I did not say Christianity originated as something "utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings" . Nor do I actually know anyone in the field of NT studies who would argue that. Ironically it is the opposite that seems to be in the academic vogue of the apologists at the moment - Jewish Jesus and Judaism in Paul. I would like to see a reasoned argument supported by some evidence, against the view that Paul's teaching (as opposed to the "new perspective" on Paul by N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn) was radically different in some crucial aspects from what we know of the Jewish thought of his era, to wit:

There is an ambiguity here. I take your point. Yes, there is a strong emphasis on the Jewish provenance of Jesus, but at the same time there is a stress that what distinguished Christianity per se -- via Paul -- really was something non-Jewish as you yourself seem to be saying here.

[neilgodfrey]

I would like to see a reasoned argument supported by some evidence, against the view that Paul's teaching (as opposed to the "new perspective" on Paul by N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn) was radically different in some crucial aspects from what we know of the Jewish thought of his era, to wit:

1) the law has been fulfilled by the salvific death of the Son of God
2) the spirit of this Son of God, resurrected from the dead, enters physical bodies of those who are worthy of him
3) the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (or the secret of its meaning revealed through Paul) heralds the advent of the last days
4) the kingdom of God actualizes in the spiritual realm only ! ( or as a spiritual body, 1 Cor 15:44).

If you can provide some of that, I would be much obliged.

Best,
Jiri

Where do you believe these ideas of Paul originated if not from a Jewish milieu?

Why can we not use Paul as evidence of what was part of the mosaic of Jewish thought of the day?

Are not the writings of Paul part of the corpus of Jewish writings of the era?

Are not these specific ideas separate from the question of a resurrected figure applying his atoning blood to the sins of his people -- which we know was a Jewish idea from the writings quoted earlier?

[Solo]

You are adding a lot more now to your original claim. But if the arguments of Matthew Novenson (as one recent author of note) have any weight then all the ideas of Paul about the Messiah were very Jewish in the way they address the Messiah. The points you list were all part and parcel of the sorts of ways Jews debated such things as the Messiah in the Second Temple era.

Irepeat: whatever common points Paul may have had with the sectarian Jewish ideas about the Messiah, he, TMK,was the only one claiming that the mechanics of the coming of the Messiah involved a spiritual resurrection that has already happened as witnessed by himself and his co-workers. Yes ? No ? This is a very important point to me because a lot of my interpretation of Paul, Mark and the connection between the originators of the two literary forms of the NT hinges on it. So, I would be really grateful if anyone can talk me out of it before I make a fool of myself in public.

Paul himself claims to be a Jew so obviously not all Jews were baffled by his ideas.

Oh, please, do give me a break, Neil ! ...but on a point of fact Paul was baffled by his own productions testifying unwittingly to the dissociative mental process that has sponsored them.

2 Cor 4:8-9 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

The persecution of course relates to the mysterious persecution "within" ( 2 Cor 12:7).

All of Paul's arguments in his epistles for his view of the Christ are apparently reasoned along the lines of typical Jewish debate with typical Jewish assumptions. Especially his argument about seed of Abraham etc in Galatians. I simply don't see what is so "baffling" about Paul's Messiah given what we know of Jewish beliefs about Isaac and martyrs and dying messiahs and agents and hypostases of God. It's a claim I hear often enough but rarely see defended.

A typical Jewish debate it certainly was not, since at least on five occasions Paul's theological stance on Jesus Christ vis-a-vis the Law earned him forty lashes less one, i.e. the traditonal near-max (as per Deu 25:2) imposed by the Law.

According to Alan Segal and Paula Fredriksen and others, what some Jews (obviously not all Jews) found to be offensive in Paul's teaching was not the idea of a crucified Messiah per se but the point that the crucified messiah clearly did not deliver the Jews from their material/worldly suffering. N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence.

which contradicted Deu 21:23, where a "hanged man is accursed of God" and his burial has to be quick so as not to defile the land by the sight of him. So again, Paul got generally either a very cool or a very hot reception from the Jews who were schooled in the tanakh. So he would naturally gravitate to the God-fearers among the Gentiles who would not have had nearly as vehement legalist objections to his artful interpretations of the Jewish scripture.

We also know that the blood of past martyrs was believed by some Jews to have salvific or atoning value for others of their nation.

So given that such views were part and parcel of the mosaic of Second Temple Judaism I don't see any reason to subscribe to the bias of most Christian-led scholarship in this area that anachronistically assumes Christianity originated as something utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings of the day.

I did not say Christianity originated as something "utterly alien from certain Jewish teachings" . Nor do I actually know anyone in the field of NT studies who would argue that. Ironically it is the opposite that seems to be in the academic vogue of the apologists at the moment - Jewish Jesus and Judaism in Paul. I would like to see a reasoned argument supported by some evidence, against the view that Paul's teaching (as opposed to the "new perspective" on Paul by N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn) was radically different in some crucial aspects from what we know of the Jewish thought of his era, to wit:

There is an ambiguity here. I take your point. Yes, there is a strong emphasis on the Jewish provenance of Jesus, but at the same time there is a stress that what distinguished Christianity per se -- via Paul -- really was something non-Jewish as you yourself seem to be saying here.

I personally do not feel at all uncomfortable with the idea that the resurrected redeemer of Christianity originated as Paul's unsuccesful import of an essentially pagan concept into messianic sectarian Judaism. Paul certainly would not have seen it that way (since it came via revelation) and believed I am sure that his salvation schema was genuinely and purely Jewish, something that apparently confuses Tom Wright, E.P. Sanders and others.

Best,
Jiri

[neilgodfrey]

You are adding a lot more now to your original claim. But if the arguments of Matthew Novenson (as one recent author of note) have any weight then all the ideas of Paul about the Messiah were very Jewish in the way they address the Messiah. The points you list were all part and parcel of the sorts of ways Jews debated such things as the Messiah in the Second Temple era.

Irepeat: whatever common points Paul may have had with the sectarian Jewish ideas about the Messiah, he, TMK,was the only one claiming that the mechanics of the coming of the Messiah involved a spiritual resurrection that has already happened as witnessed by himself and his co-workers. Yes ? No ? This is a very important point to me because a lot of my interpretation of Paul, Mark and the connection between the originators of the two literary forms of the NT hinges on it. So, I would be really grateful if anyone can talk me out of it before I make a fool of myself in public.

This is a different question now from your original one as I understood it. Asking if Paul's ideas were unique to Paul is a different question from asking if they were conceptually baffling to Jews of the day.

Paul himself claims to be a Jew so obviously not all Jews were baffled by his ideas.

Oh, please, do give me a break, Neil ! ...but on a point of fact Paul was baffled by his own productions testifying unwittingly to the dissociative mental process that has sponsored them.

What is wrong with the suggestion? Was Paul a Jew or not? Was he immersed in Jewish thought or not? Was he one case-study of Jewish thought or not?

I don't know what evidence you are thinking of as the basis of your "point of fact". I certainly don't see how the following quote supports your "point of fact" if that's what it was meant to do.

2 Cor 4:8-9 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

The persecution of course relates to the mysterious persecution "within" ( 2 Cor 12:7).

Surely I think many would read chapter 12 as quite a different topic from the one in chapter 4.

All of Paul's arguments in his epistles for his view of the Christ are apparently reasoned along the lines of typical Jewish debate with typical Jewish assumptions. Especially his argument about seed of Abraham etc in Galatians. I simply don't see what is so "baffling" about Paul's Messiah given what we know of Jewish beliefs about Isaac and martyrs and dying messiahs and agents and hypostases of God. It's a claim I hear often enough but rarely see defended.

A typical Jewish debate it certainly was not, since at least on five occasions Paul's theological stance on Jesus Christ vis-a-vis the Law earned him forty lashes less one, i.e. the traditonal near-max (as per Deu 25:2) imposed by the Law.

How do you conclude that the lashes were the reward for his theological arguments?

According to Alan Segal and Paula Fredriksen and others, what some Jews (obviously not all Jews) found to be offensive in Paul's teaching was not the idea of a crucified Messiah per se but the point that the crucified messiah clearly did not deliver the Jews from their material/worldly suffering. N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence.

which contradicted Deu 21:23, where a "hanged man is accursed of God" and his burial has to be quick so as not to defile the land by the sight of him. So again, Paul got generally either a very cool or a very hot reception from the Jews who were schooled in the tanakh. So he would naturally gravitate to the God-fearers among the Gentiles who would not have had nearly as vehement legalist objections to his artful interpretations of the Jewish scripture.

So you agree with N.T. Wright's interpretation, yes?

I personally do not feel at all uncomfortable with the idea that the resurrected redeemer of Christianity originated as Paul's unsuccesful import of an essentially pagan concept into messianic sectarian Judaism. Paul certainly would not have seen it that way (since it came via revelation) and believed I am sure that his salvation schema was genuinely and purely Jewish, something that apparently confuses Tom Wright, E.P. Sanders and others.

Best,
Jiri

What do we mean by "messianic sectarian Judaism" and what is the evidence that such a thing existed in the Second Temple era?

What pagan precedents of a "resurrected redeemer" might Paul have known about?

[neilgodfrey]

So, I would be really grateful if anyone can talk me out of it before I make a fool of myself in public.

One good guarantee against making a fool of oneself is to avoid dogmatism.