Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:15 am
Paul, like Mark, must juggle all 4 Jesus at the same time - but in his texts Jesus 3 naturally draws most of the attention and plays the largest role - but no apologetic will want to admit that.
Jesus 4 is the first, and he comes with Jesus 3. Jesus 2 is the last, and he comes with Jesus 2. Or rather, the focus (of Chrestianity) was on Jesus 4 but he also got implemented via Jesus 3, just like Harry Potter is a very talented magician who saves the world but he gets implemented - like so many other heroes - via the stereotypical victim who never got a chance, was never loved, always despised, and so on: much like Jesus. And Jesus 2 is where the new focus must be, that of Christianity, and he gets implemented via Jesus 1

Of course, Paul doesn't come before Mark: Jesus is where the story begins, Christ is where the religion begins - and the gospels are about Jesus whereas the letters are about Christ. Even if Christianity had preceded Chrestianity then "Paul" never could have come first
This is where i struggle to completely get what you're saying which i might as well confess
Yeah, I can see Jesus 2 getting implemented by Jesus 1, but all these sources were taken or provided from groups (that what became) orthodoxy ended up opposing. They didn't have their own stuff and Paul gave them big fat nothing in that regard about Jesus

The lineage back to Jesus 4 is through any similarity that exists of what they got from their opponents, parables and some stuff in the gospels probably is the same, in the case of Paul I think it's quite large amounts that are similar. From a distance it might look the same, but it's not really identical.
What Paul changes I think is he swings the fearsome idea of God back in, one that scatters bodies of his opponents in the desert, and introduces religion on top of the previous spiritual movement that was saying God is love, the Father, etc not fear based. He tried to make it respectable outwardly when it was perfectly good as it was, i think that's why he fell out with the founders. In my humble opinion
You can do nothing but read the texts, and nothing but the texts. Statements like "he fell out with the founder" are not only completely irrelevant, they are hearsay, gossip, unsubstantiated nonsense and they likely were made in order to derail, disinform, "to fake news da f*ck out of everyone". So please, don't

Let's repet your pretty good summary, and while I removed some that didn't have to do with the definition, I added some that I thought did do so:

1.) The apologist Jesus. Jesus preaches 1 year how he will sacrifice himself for sin, fulfil Torah prophecies, and basically be very Messianic
2.) The Judaic Jesus. Jesus actually preached predictable Judaism, the Torah and that he was a human prophet like Moses (or the Messiah?)
3.) The non-Judaic Jesus. MLinssen's baby. Jesus is anti-Judaic and anti-Judean, wants to rip up the Torah
4.) The mystical Jesus. He's a spiritual Saviour but only in the sense that he'll bring salvation

Now what's the difference between 1 and 2 then? Of course they are very close

@Don, sorry man, going waaaaaaaaaay off topic here. Holler if you care

Jesus 4 is where the story starts, and for some stooopid reason that gets combined with Jesus 3 right from the start.
John takes Jesus 4 but only the anti-Judeanism of 3, not the anti-Judaism.
Marcion goes back to the source and throws the anti-Judaism back in, as well as the parables - so at that point we have Jesus 4 with 3, turned into a narrative, the mature version: it's all about IS, and how Xrhstos he is, and how frigging Xrhstos his / the Father is

Then, why don't we head straight to Paul? It will be a fun experiment, and demonstrate why he can't beat Mark to it.
Paul takes this "Jesus" and turns him into a "Christ", he creates an entirely new story from scratch because, errrrr, well that gives him all the freedom in the world. He invents the resurrection but doesn't put it to any use. He talks about the circumcision and how uncircumcision really is circumcision. He talks about Law and how rejection of the Law actually is very kewl because that, errrr, is predicted by YHWH so it must be good right, and somehow also fulfil the Law so screwing the Law is fulfilling the Law. Oh and then there's some food thingies as well, completely anti-Judaic but Paul goes back to his Judaic audience once again and keeps ramming that anti-Judaic garbage down their throats

See? Paul came before Mark, it is as clear as mud
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:59 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:25 pm But Paul "loosely" used Hos. 6:2 for the "third day" part of the equation (which is one third of the equation, in fact)
He don't use Hos 6:2 "loosely".
Hosea 6:2 is a verse that announces that it is after 3 days that God raises the dead. Not having the information in Isaiah 53, he went to Hosea. But it is very precise: on the third day Jesus is raised = Hos 6:2 "on the third day he will restore us".

How can it be more precise ?

Hos. 6:2 uses imagery of being "raised up," but it is about the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in 700's BCE (e.g., 6:11: "when I restore My people from captivity"), not the resurrection of an End Time Messiah figure. Same goes for Is. 53. I think Paul interpreting these passages to be about resurrection and an End Time Messiah figure and mixing them together and applying them to Jesus is an example of using the OT "loosely," just like Amos' "star" is about a Babylonian star god and Balaam's "star" is about David and not the Teacher of Righteousness or an End Time Messiah figure.

The star prophecy is applied to Jesus in Christianity and to the Teacher in the DSS.


No. The star prophecy is applied to a Messianic figure that will come to the end of the day : in the FUTURE.


Damascus Document
The star is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A star shall comeforth out ofJacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel (Num. xxiv, 17).

Damascus Document
The Stave is the Interpreter of the Law of whom Isaiah said, He makes a tool for His work (Isa. liv, 16); and the nobles of the people are those who come to dig the Well with the staves with which the 10 Stave ordained that they should walk in all the age of wickedness - and without them they shall find nothing - until he comes who shall teach righteousness at the end of days.

Florilegium
I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever] (2 Sam. vii, 13). I will be hisfather and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii, 14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time.


You make a lot of assumptions that you present as facts, that is not very serious.



Perhaps you have a better understanding of it than I do, but I gather this can be translated as "who came to Damascus" and refer to a past figure.

But in the Amos-Numbers Midrash the fact that the phrase 'who will come to Damascus' could also be translated 'who came to Damascus' has led some scholars to argue that in this case the interpreter of the law is a figure of the past as in CD 6:7 (where the interpreter is apparently the Teacher of Righteousness).


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover
... it has been argued that here the interpreter of the law is a figure of the past, not the future. This view turns partly on the fact that the title "interpreter of the law" is used ... in CD 6:7 with reference to a figure of the past -in fact the Teacher of Righteousness ... Furthermore, the participle used in CD 7:19 (הבא) is ambiguous, and the text could be "who came to Damascus" instead of "who will come to Damascus."


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

So maybe the future Messiah and the deceased (and now exalted) Teacher are the same person, the same way the deceased Jesus and the future "son of man" figure are thought to be the same person. This would explain why the future Messiah is called an interpreter of the law and one who will "teach righteousness at the end of days," because that was the Teacher's role when he was alive and will continue to be as the future Messiah, like Jesus.

And since I take Paul as saying that Jesus had a brother named James, it follows for me that Paul and the DSS sect were doing the same thing, applying various passages to a real person.
I don't read that James is a biological brother of Jesus in Galatians nor in any other Pauline epistles.



I read it that way though and also think Josephus' James passage is genuine. I'm familiar with arguments to the contrary, but this is the guess that seems best to me, and if the opposite works better for you, that's fine.

According to your historicist theory, Paul was in contact with the apostles who knew Jesus. The fact that he invokes nothing more than scripture and supernatural visions as a memory of Jesus shows that in fact oral tradition plays no role.
This is in contrast to the DSS, who give historical informations about the Teacher and apply it loosely and awkwardly to the scriptures.

But Paul seems to imply that he knows more information about Jesus than he cares to share because he says in 1 Cor. 15:3 that he taught what he thought was of "first importance" about Jesus (that he died, was buried and resurrected "according to the scriptures").

So it looks to me like Paul had other information about Jesus that he considered to be less important, things that weren't about his death, burial and resurrection "according to the scriptures." As he says in 1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2 and 2 Cor. 5:16, "we preach Christ crucified," "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" and "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer."

IBut in any case, this verse is an allusion to Psalm 2, a verse interpreted messianically before Paul, in Paul's time and after Paul.
There is no need to look for Pontius Pilate here.

Even if it is from Ps. 2, the OT can be applied to real people, and the rulers in Judea in Paul's time included Romans.

Again John2, please stick with Paul rather than on a dubious source that seems to YOU genuine. Thanks.

But Paul didn't exist in a vacuum. He says he knew Peter, and 1 Peter seems genuine to me so I take what it says into account to get a better understanding of Paul (like I do with the James passage regarding the "brother" issue). You can see it differently (and disregard the James passage) if that seems best to you, but it doesn't work for me.


To me, nothing sums up Christianity and shows its similarity to the Fourth Philosophy better than Mt. 23:9-10.
I don't understand why you invoke Matthew in the discussion about Paul's Jesus?



But the post that I mentioned Mt. 23:9-10 wasn't addressed to you and was meant as an extension of our discussion in keeping with the broader subject of this thread. (And Mt. 23:3, by the way, is a possible example of the NT Matthew being a translation from Hebrew as per Papias, since it may contain a translation error, as argued by Gordon in The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus.)

Testimonium flavianum ? What is the next step? The letter of Jesus to Agbar ? :roll:
Sorry to be cynical but the discussion is about Paul's Jesus.


I can take or leave the TF, as I said, but I think there could be something to Goldberg's idea that Lk. 24 was based on an original TF. Since I think the James passage is genuine, it follows that Josephus said something about Jesus previously, and Lk. 24 could be reflecting this in the same way Luke/Acts appears to have used Josephus in other cases.

A computer search of the New Testament on the vocabulary cluster “Jesus, man, deed” (᾿Ιησοὺς, ἀνήρ, εργ*), which are the first three major nouns of the Testimonium, reveals that only this passage of Luke shares this cluster. Upon closer examination, one finds this to be only the first indication of a series of location correspondences, nearly synonymous phrases occurring in analogous positions in each text.


https://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf
Last edited by John2 on Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by ABuddhist »

John2 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:09 am 1 Peter seems genuine to me
This is such a minority view that I was suprised that you are no Christian. Do you think that Peter was a fisherman from Galilee during his life?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

ABuddhist wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:49 am
John2 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:09 am 1 Peter seems genuine to me
This is such a minority view that I was suprised that you are no Christian. Do you think that Peter was a fisherman from Galilee during his life?

1 Peter doesn't say what Peter did for a living but I suppose he must have had some kind of job before following Jesus, and since the Galilee was a hotbed of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, it seems fitting to me if Jesus and his followers were from there, since I think Christianity is akin to the Fourth Philosophy.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

John2 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:09 am Hos. 6:2 uses imagery of being "raised up," but it is about the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in 700's BCE (e.g., 6:11: "when I restore My people from captivity"), not the resurrection of an End Time Messiah figure. Same goes for Is. 53. I think Paul interpreting these passages to be about resurrection and an End Time Messiah figure and mixing them together and applying them to Jesus is an example of using the OT "loosely," just like Amos' "star" is about a Babylonian star god and Balaam's "star" is about David and not the Teacher of Righteousness or an End Time Messiah figure.
The context is not important in a "pesher". This is very clear in the Qumran writings that you keep mentioning.
The Chaldeans in Habakuk become the Kittim (Romans) in the Habakkuk pesher for example.
They do not care about the context since it is a matter of reinterpreting the scriptures according to their time.

So no, when Paul makes a pesher of Hosea, he does it very specifically and respect what the texts says.
Hosea says that God will raise the bodies of the dead on the 3rd day. Jesus rises on the 3rd day. That is very specific. Not loosely.
Perhaps you have a better understanding of it than I do, but I gather this can be translated as "who came to Damascus"and refer to a past figure.
I don't know what translations you are using but most translators consider it a future tense verse.

Geza Vermes - THE COMPLETE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN ENGLISH
The star is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A star shall comeforth out ofJacob and a sceptre shall rise out ofIsrael (Num. xxiv, 17).

Florentino García Martínez - The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition
And the star is the Interpreter of the law, 19 who will come to Damascus, as is written: Num 24:13 « A star moves out of Jacob, and a sceptre arises 20 out of Israel ».

Most scholars also consider that it cannot be the teacher of R:

John J Collins - The scepter and the Star
A consensus developed that the figure expected at the end of days cannot be identified with the Teacher who played a role in the beginning of the community. Rather that historical Teacher (the quasi founder of the community) is referred to in this passage as the Interpreter of the Law and the eschatological teacher remains in the future. The expectation of "one who will teach righteousness at the end of days" is retained in the final redaction of CD, even though the career of the historical Teacher is clearly past. The document clearly envisages two teachers, one of whom was dead at the time of the final redaction and one who was still to come. It is gratu­itous to multiply teachers without cause, by identifying the Interpreter of the Law as yet a third figure who preceded the historical Teacher.



Moreover, the same "interpreter of the law" is announced at the end of the days. The end of the days is the future :

Damascus Document
The Stave is the Interpreter of the Law of whom Isaiah said, He makes a tool for His work (Isa. liv, 16); and the nobles of the people are those who come to dig the Well with the staves with which the 10 Stave ordained that they should walk in all the age of wickedness - and without them they shall find nothing - until he comes who shall teach righteousness at the end of days.

Florilegium
I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever] (2 Sam. vii, 13). I will be hisfather and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii, 14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time.
So maybe the future Messiah and the deceased (and now exalted) Teacher are the same person, the same way the deceased Jesus and the future "son of man" figure are thought to be the same person. This would explain why the future Messiah is called an interpreter of the law and one who will "teach righteousness at the end of days," because that was the Teacher's role when he was alive and will continue to be as the future Messiah, like Jesus.


This is very speculative since :

- No Qumran manuscript indicates that the teacher of R will resurrect and return,
- The eschatological and messianic figures are never identified with the teacher
- These messianic figures are never described as resurrected.

I think you are trying to read the life of the Teacher in the light of the life of Jesus. And that influences your reading of the manuscripts.
But Paul seems to imply that he knows more information about Jesus than he cares to share because he says in 1 Cor. 15:3 that he taught what he thought was of "first importance" about Jesus (that he died, was buried and resurrected "according to the scriptures").
So it looks to me like Paul had other information about Jesus that he considered to be less important, things that weren't about his death, burial and resurrection "according to the scriptures."
It's a strange deduction but it's not what I personally read in 1 Cor 15. I simply read that the primary thing he taught the Corinthians was that Jesus died and rose again. Of course he has other things to say about Jesus: his parousia, the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, etc.

As he says in 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:16, "we preach Christ crucified" and "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer."

Paul does not say here that they knew Jesus in his human body. When he says "according to the flesh", he is talking about their own flesh. They don't regard Jesus according to the flesh but according to the spirit. This is what he says in 2 Cor:5:16-17 :
16 So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!
And in Romans 8 :
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.And so he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.
11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it.
13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Moreover, the Corinthians can’t possibly have known personally Christ in his human body.

Even if it is from Ps. 2, the OT can be applied to real people, and the rulers in Judea in Paul's time included Romans.
Or Paul took up that Jewish tradition which established that Psalm 2 was a messianic chapter. And he used it for his little biography of Jesus.
Just as he did with Isaiah 53. To pick and choose from the messianic texts and claim to have discovered the mystery of the Messiah who was crucified to save mankind. And then go and preach the good news. A historical figure is therefore not necessary to explain Paul's Jesus.

And Paul never says anything about the Romans who supposedly killed his Messiah. If Jesus had existed and the Romans had killed Jesus, even if Paul had not known Jesus personally, it would be very surprising for him to have no resentment or regrets towards those who killed his Messiah.

He never says in his letters not to have any resentment towards those who killed Jesus. This should be one of the central themes of his letters if Jesus had existed. In fact, he says just the opposite since Paul asks Christians to submit to the authorities because they come from God.
All this is best explained if Jesus was considered by Paul as a person far away in time.

But Paul didn't exist in a vacuum. He says he knew Peter, and 1 Peter seems genuine to me so I take what it says into account to get a better understanding of Paul (like I do with the James passage regarding the "brother" issue). You can see it differently and disregard the James passage if that seems best to you, but it doesn't work for me.
Yes, but you are appealing to dubious texts that most scholars consider to be inauthentic to explain the Jesus found in Paul. I'm sorry, but I'll pass when you invoke such sources.

I can take or leave the TF, as I said, but I think there could be something to Goldberg's idea that Lk. 24 was based on an original TF. Since I think the James passage is genuine, it follows that Josephus said something about Jesus previously, and Lk. 24 could be reflecting this in the same way Luke/Acts appears to have used Josephus in other cases.
A computer search of the New Testament on the vocabulary cluster “Jesus, man, deed” (᾿Ιησοὺς, ἀνήρ, εργ*), which are the first three major nouns of the Testimonium, reveals that only this passage of Luke shares this cluster. Upon closer examination, one finds this to be only the first indication of a series of location correspondences, nearly synonymous phrases occurring in analogous positions in each text.
https://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

Id. The TF is considered to be at the very least as a partial interpolation. I'm not interested in invoking such dubious sources in a discussion of Paul's Jesus either.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:35 am
John2 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:09 am Hos. 6:2 uses imagery of being "raised up," but it is about the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in 700's BCE (e.g., 6:11: "when I restore My people from captivity"), not the resurrection of an End Time Messiah figure. Same goes for Is. 53. I think Paul interpreting these passages to be about resurrection and an End Time Messiah figure and mixing them together and applying them to Jesus is an example of using the OT "loosely," just like Amos' "star" is about a Babylonian star god and Balaam's "star" is about David and not the Teacher of Righteousness or an End Time Messiah figure.
The context is not important in a "pesher". This is very clear in the Qumran writings that you keep mentioning.
The Chaldeans in Habakuk become the Kittim (Romans) in the Habakkuk pesher for example.
They do not care about the context since it is a matter of reinterpreting the scriptures according to their time.

So no, when Paul makes a pesher of Hosea, he does it very specifically and respect what the texts says.
Hosea says that God will raise the bodies of the dead on the 3rd day. Jesus rises on the 3rd day. That is very specific. Not loosely.
BSB "Old Testament"

The Unrepentance of Israel and Judah

1 Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence.
3 So let us know—let us press on to know the LORD. As surely as the sun rises, He will appear; He will come to us like the rain, like the spring showers that water the earth.
4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraima? What shall I do with you, O Judah? For your loyalty is like a morning mist, like the early dew that vanishes.
5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth, and My judgments go forth like lightning.
6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,b and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
7 But they, like Adam, have transgressedc the covenant; there they were unfaithful to Me.
8 Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked with footprints of blood.
9 Like raiders who lie in ambush, so does a band of priests; they murder on the way to Shechem; surely they have committed atrocities.
10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing: Ephraim practices prostitution there, and Israel is defiled.
11 Also for you, O Judah, a harvest is appointed, when I restore My people from captivity.d

Septuagint (Brenton)

1. In their affliction they will seek me early, saying, Let us go, and return to the Lord our God; for he has torn, and will heal us;
2. he will smite, and bind us up.
3. After two days he will heal us: in the third day we shall arise, and live before him, and shall know him:
4. let us follow on to know the Lord: we shall find him ready as the morning, and he will come to us as the early and latter rain to the earth.
5. What shall I do unto thee, Ephraim? What shall I do to thee, Juda? whereas your mercy is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew that goes away. 6. Therefore have I mown down your prophets; I have slain them with the word of my mouth: and my judgment shall go forth as the light.
7. For I will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than whole -burnt-offerings.
8. But they are as a man transgressing a covenant:
9. there the city Galaad despised me, working vanity, troubling water.
10. And thy strength is that of a robber: the priests have hid the way, they have murdered the people of Sicima; for they have wrought iniquity in the house of Israel.
11. I have seen horrible things there, even the fornication of Ephraim: Israel and Juda are defiled;
12. begin together grapes for thyself, when I turn the captivity of my people.

Sefaria

1. “Come, let us turn back to the LORD: He attacked, and He can heal us; He wounded, and He can bind us up.
2. In two days He will make us whole again; On the third day He will raise us up, And we shall be whole by His favor.
3. Let us pursue obedience to the LORD, And we shall become obedient. His appearance is as sure as daybreak, And He will come to us like rain, Like latter rain that refreshes the earth.”
4. What can I do for you, Ephraim, What can I do for you, Judah, When your goodness is like morning clouds, Like dew so early gone?
5. That is why I have hewn down the prophets,-d Have slain them with the words of My mouth: And the day that dawned [brought on] your punishment.-e
6. For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.
7. But they, to a man, have transgressed the Covenant. This is where they have been false to Me:
8. Gilead is a city of evildoers, Tracked up with blood.
9. The gang of priests is Like the ambuscade of bandits Who murder on the road to Shechem, For they have encouraged depravity.
10. In the House of Israel-h I have seen A horrible thing; Ephraim has fornicated there, Israel has defiled himself.
11. (Even Judah has reaped a harvest of you!)-i When I would restore My people’s fortunes,

Chabad.org

1 Come and let us return to the Lord, for He has torn and He shall heal us; He smites, and He will bind us up.
2 He will revive us from the two days, on the third day He will set us up, and we will live before Him.
3 And let us know, let us strive to know the Lord: like the dawn whose going forth is sure, and He will come to us like rain, like the latter rain which satisfies the earth.
4 What shall I do for you, Ephraim? What shall I do for you, Judah? For your loving-kindness is like a morning cloud and like the dew that passes away early.
5 Because I have hewed by the prophets, I have put them to death because of the words of My mouth; now will your verdicts come out to the light?
6 For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
7 But they, like Adam, transgressed the covenant; there they betrayed Me.
8 Gilead is a city of workers of them that work iniquity, who lurk to shed blood.
9 And as a man gathers fish, so do bands; a gang of priests murder on the way in one group, for they devised a plot.
10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing: there, harlotry [is found] in Ephraim; Israel has become defiled.
11 Judah, too, there is a harvest appointed to you, when I will return the backsliding of My people.

Some people like to take it all out of context so they can ram it into some context of their own.
Heinous, really
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:18 am Some people like to take it all out of context so they can ram it into some context of their own.
Heinous, really
Paul is rolling over in his grave.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by nightshadetwine »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:29 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:18 am Some people like to take it all out of context so they can ram it into some context of their own.
Heinous, really
Paul is rolling over in his grave.
I agree with you that Paul is likely referring to the passage in Hosea. Christians like Paul had no problem taking passages out of context and applying them to Jesus. John Granger Cook has an article about this called "Raised on the Third Day According to the Scriptures: Hosea 6:2 in Jewish Tradition":
Scholars have long assumed that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:3–5 derives from tradition. The closest verse in the entire Hebrew Bible and Septuagint to the formulation in1 Cor 15:4 is Hos 6:2. Although Jesus uses Jon 2:1 in a simile for resurrection in Matt 12:40, the verse does not explicitly mention rising from the dead... Beginning with the Septuagint and continuing throughout patristic and rabbinic exegesis, Hos 6:2 was interpreted for the most part as a clear reference to resurrection. Paul and the tradition he quoted appear in the midst of this interpretive trajectory whose force encourages the scholar to believe that Hos 6:2 was what he had in mind in 1 Cor 15:4... Probably around the time of the Septuagint version of Hosea, the apocalyptic interpretation of 6:2 began to emerge. Although Paul does not explicitly cite Hosea, it is the only text in the Septuagint that can justify his claim that Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) was “according to Scripture.” The trajectory from the Septuagint through Paul, Aquila, Symmachus, the targum and rabbinic tradition implies that readers of Hos 6:2 viewed it as a clear reference to the resurrection of the dead.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:40 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:29 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:18 am Some people like to take it all out of context so they can ram it into some context of their own.
Heinous, really
Paul is rolling over in his grave.
I agree with you that Paul is likely referring to the passage in Hosea. Christians like Paul had no problem taking passages out of context and applying them to Jesus. John Granger Cook has an article about this called "Raised on the Third Day According to the Scriptures: Hosea 6:2 in Jewish Tradition":
Scholars have long assumed that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:3–5 derives from tradition. The closest verse in the entire Hebrew Bible and Septuagint to the formulation in1 Cor 15:4 is Hos 6:2. Although Jesus uses Jon 2:1 in a simile for resurrection in Matt 12:40, the verse does not explicitly mention rising from the dead... Beginning with the Septuagint and continuing throughout patristic and rabbinic exegesis, Hos 6:2 was interpreted for the most part as a clear reference to resurrection. Paul and the tradition he quoted appear in the midst of this interpretive trajectory whose force encourages the scholar to believe that Hos 6:2 was what he had in mind in 1 Cor 15:4... Probably around the time of the Septuagint version of Hosea, the apocalyptic interpretation of 6:2 began to emerge. Although Paul does not explicitly cite Hosea, it is the only text in the Septuagint that can justify his claim that Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) was “according to Scripture.” The trajectory from the Septuagint through Paul, Aquila, Symmachus, the targum and rabbinic tradition implies that readers of Hos 6:2 viewed it as a clear reference to the resurrection of the dead.
:cheers:

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 11:6
Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, each one has to provide a sign or a miracle; the other said, not each one has to provide a sign or a miracle. The one who said he did objected to the one who said he did not: Is it not written, Ezekias said to Isaias, what is the sign? He told him, that is different since he was occupied in reviving the dead. He shall revive us after two days; on the third day He will lift us up and we shall live before Him
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 5:2:2
HALAKHAH: Just as the resurrection of the dead brings life to the world, so rains bring life to the world. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from here (Hos. 6:2–3): “He will resurrect us after two days, on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live before Him. We shall know, we shall pursue to know the Eternal, like morning his appearance is well-based.”
Deuteronomy Rabbah 28:12
The Rabbis say: Great is the rainfall, for it is counted as equivalent to the revival of the dead. Whence this? For it says, “And he shall come unto us as the rain, and in the latter rain that waters the earth” (Hos 6:3). What does Scripture say immediately before this? “After two days he will revive us” (6:2). Therefore the Rabbis have inserted [the prayer for rain in the benediction of] the revival of the dead, because it is equal in importance to it.
Esther Rabbah 9:2
Jonah, as it is stated: “Jonah was in the innards of the fish three days and three nights” (Jonah 2:1). And the dead will live only after three days, as it is stated: “On the third day He will raise us” (Hosea 6:2)
Targum Jonathan on Hosea 6:2
He will give us life in the days of consolations that will come; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall live before him.
Cook, John G. Raised on the Third Day According to the Scriptures: Hosea 6:2 in Jewish Tradition (pp. 188-211) Brill, 2019
"... In its original context, there is little reason to doubt that Hos 6:2 is a reference to the restoration and healing of Israel, and not the resurrection of the dead. In later interpretation, however, probably beginning with the LXX and culminating in the targumic translation, the text was taken to describe the resurrection. W. Edward Glenny notes that for “early readers of the LXX, who were reading Hosea 6:2 in its context, the verse would be understood first of all to refer to the Lord’s restoration of his people, Israel, to himself and the nation’s resurrection back to life after a period, hopefully short (‘the third day’), of his chastisement of them.” He also admits, however, that the combination of “the third day,” “we will rise up” and “we will live” “suggest the resurrection of the dead in Hosea 6:2.” This implies that early readers of the LXX could have interpreted 6:2 to refer to resurrection, and this is reflected in later Jewish interpretation of the passage ..."
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

You can do nothing but read the texts, and nothing but the texts. Statements like "he fell out with the founder" are not only completely irrelevant, they are hearsay, gossip, unsubstantiated nonsense and they likely were made in order to derail, disinform, "to fake news da f*ck out of everyone". So please, don't
I advise you my friend to read the Odes, absorb them, live and breath them
Then read such lines as:
So they died, all those who were lacking because it was not to be for them,to give the Word so they might remain

That quite 1 John-ish, they went out from us because they were not of us... etc

The Pauline side of it then is
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire an occasion, that in which they boast, they may be found even as we. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ's apostles.. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I am more so
This is the split right here, and the Odes are on the other side. Simple, straight reading of the texts

The account of Odes community speaks of a split/separation in lots of places and they might well have used words similar to your quote above themselves
It's not a massive stretch to think they are referring to the apostle here and his party, why not?
In other words, the Odes is from the apostle's opponents...wouldn't that be a hell of a source? That's my reading of the Odes I might be wrong
but it is based on something. I have not done an exhaustive study of this, but it's an initial observation
Post Reply