Christ Staked --- kata tas graphas

[spin]

I am too fixated on actual evidence and tradition.

With your latest foray (Mark=Paul=Jesus and the unfalsifiable "gospel"-derived-from-בשר) you've already invalidated your claim here above. This is evidence-free anachronous conjecture. History frowns on arguments based on where the horse bolted to after you shut the gate as an indication of what the horse did in its corral.

[Peter Kirby]

And clearly I've wasted my time. :-/

Oh well, I took the bait.

I don't believe we have proof of a scripture that had the pre-Christian interpretation of a prediction of a crucified Messiah. We do have some examples of scriptures that were stretched by Christian interpretation to mean that, but that's common knowledge to anyone who's read the New Testament. There is the possibility of such a pre-Christian interpretation, but apart from some disputed points of weak or circumstantial evidence, there's no proof (either way). It also does not cohere with the dominant perspectives of a victorious regal messiah, although it may somewhat gel with the two-messiah concept (if applied to the first) that does have some attestation (in the DSS, I think).

The only point of quoting Carrier was to point out that this situation obtains on either hypothesis, earthly crucified Messiah and celestial crucified Messiah. If the crucifixion is a 'stumbling block', then it is one for both.

I may have interjected that argument into some other point made by robert j that I don't necessarily understand correctly.

But I'm not really inclined to go fishing for references for another couple hours after a chilly reception of the last salvo... hope you understand.

[Stephan Huller]

With your latest foray (Mark=Paul=Jesus and the unfalsifiable "gospel"-derived-from-בשר) you've already invalidated your claim here above. This is evidence-free anachronous conjecture. History frowns on arguments based on where the horse bolted to after you shut the gate as an indication of what the horse did in its corral.

Ummm. I am the only person to ever argue that "gospel"-derived-from-בשר? Really? Just me. I take the hit for Mark = Paul (Paul says that 'Christ speaks through me' and was understood as such by various groups). Fine won't mention that here any more. But the idea that "gospel"-derived-from בשר is 'foundationless.' We could continue to discuss this in the other thread if you'd like.

[Stephan Huller]

The only point of quoting Carrier was to point out that this situation obtains on either hypothesis, earthly crucified Messiah and celestial crucified Messiah. If the crucifixion is a 'stumbling block', then it is one for both.

Fine I accept the explanation. Works for me.

[Peter Kirby]

For the record I value your contributions to the forum, Stephan, and your insights are always fresh -- and thus minimally tainted by inherited preconceptions. Most writers in this field cannot claim anything close! Moreover I'm glad you mostly avoid the politics of the subject, something both theist and atheist presentations often simply wallow in. Overall I believe you are on a very firm footing to reach sound conclusions, even if I may disagree with some particulars.

[Stephan Huller]

I love you too and everyone at the forum ... except for Pete and avi.

[spin]

With your latest foray (Mark=Paul=Jesus and the unfalsifiable "gospel"-derived-from-בשר) you've already invalidated your claim here above. This is evidence-free anachronous conjecture. History frowns on arguments based on where the horse bolted to after you shut the gate as an indication of what the horse did in its corral.

Ummm. I am the only person to ever argue that "gospel"-derived-from-בשר? Really? Just me. I take the hit for Mark = Paul (Paul says that 'Christ speaks through me' and was understood as such by various groups). Fine won't mention that here any more. But the idea that "gospel"-derived-from בשר is 'foundationless.' We could continue to discuss this in the other thread if you'd like.

I said that "gospel"-derived-from-בשר is unfalsifiable. Nothing more. But it's enough.

However, what I should have added, if we assume the unfalsifiable, בשר, as see in the Hebrew bible and translated as forms of the verb ευαγγελιζω or a feminine noun, is still nothing more than a message/announcement delivered as news. Again there is no contribution to the notion of a written life of Jesus or any extensive text regarding Jesus that you are so set in your heart on.

[toejam]

I think if Paul had said "the celestial crucifixion was a stumbling block to Jews" then I think it's closed case in favor of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis. But the fact that Paul never specifically describes the crucifixion as having happened in a celestial realm leaves Carrier's argument a bit thin IMO. If someone said to you "the boy's parents couldn't believe that he was suspended from school because he was always well behaved at home", that natural reading is that this event happened on Earth. But hey, if one wants to get technical, one could always appeal to the "possibility" that the suspension happened in The Sims.

[maryhelena]

I think if Paul had said "the celestial crucifixion was a stumbling block to Jews" then I think it's closed case in favor of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis. But the fact that Paul never specifically describes the crucifixion as having happened in a celestial realm leaves Carrier's argument a bit thin IMO. If someone said to you "the boy's parents couldn't believe that he was suspended from school because he was always well behaved at home", that natural reading is that this event happened on Earth. But hey, if one wants to get technical, one could always appeal to the "possibility" that the suspension happened in The Sims.

Good point.

Maybe I missed something in this thread - why would a celestial crucifixion be a stumbling block to Jews? Maybe it could be argued, in view of the fact that Paul did not qualify his statement, that such a celestial crucifixion was not a stumbling block for Jews - that the only crucifixion that could be a stumbling block for Jews was the actual reality of a flesh and blood crucified messiah figure....

Yes, obviously, some Jews, re the gospel story, found a crucified messiah figure acceptable and developed a positive theology/philosophy from this negative situation - but, re Paul, many Jews faced a stumbling block over the crucifixion.

[Peter Kirby]

It's good to see skepticism of the Couchoud (and the ersatz "Carrier-Doherty") hypothesis alive and well, particularly in the non-HJ camp. I've been in some circles where it dominates the discussion entirely.

At best I think this throws a rut in the whole "well why doesn't Paul say his cross was put in the ground a little crooked and that his mother played bingo every other saturday and that his lineage through David was only on his stepfather's side" kind of argument... there is a little bit of the assumption that Paul is writing to an audience that shares a _few_ assumptions, anyway, at least. (Or, if we swing that way, that the pseudepigraphic Pauline epistles are for an audience with like assumptions.)