Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[andrewcriddle]

chapter 5 is a relatively short chapter arguing that the infrequency of references to the Historical Jesus in Paul and other epistles does not imply that the authors did not believe in a historical figure.

I see ex-Professor Casey's point.

There are many Soviet pictures where people who used to be in the picture have now vanished. Does that mean they never existed? Of course not.

There are many North Korean webpages where there is now no mention of Kim Jung Un's uncle. Does that mean he never existed? Of course not.

Doherty produces many examples of places in the Epistles where Paul seems to be deliberately leaving no room for Jesus to have acted.

Perhaps Jesus was subject to Communist style airbrushing from history by early Christians.

I'm sure ex-Professor Casey will complaining that I am strawmanning his arguments. Hard to avoid strawmanning people who are clutching so many straws...

Casey argues that in the ancient world (where writing letters was more hard work than posting messages on the Internet) a writer would only mention things that both he and the readers already knew if there was a real reason to do so.

Andrew Criddle

[beowulf]

Jesus would have prayed in the style of his culture and with the passion of the departing. Part of his prayer would have been easily heard by his tired companions before falling sleep.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfF6-TkAnBM
Shema

[JoeWallack]

Casey argues that in the ancient world (where writing letters was more hard work than posting messages on the Internet) a writer would only mention things that both he and the readers already knew if there was a real reason to do so.
Andrew Criddle

JW:
Paul tells us his Gospel was to the Gentiles. They would not have known anything about Jesus. They would have been interested in his life. Andrew (I know you are presenting Casey), you need a plausible explanation for why. Doherty's is that Paul did not know about Jesus' life. By definition, that is plausible (Paul does not talk about Jesus' life because he does not know about it). You need to concede that Doherty has a point here (not one that proves MJ, just one that doubts HJ) and look for your own plausible reason such as Paul is selling the significance of Jesus' death and leaving the story of Jesus' life to historical witness to Jesus ("I decided only to speak of Christ crucified.").


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[beowulf]

Paul's Nine Letters to the Churches

Indeed. Paul would not waste time and effort repeating what was already well know to believers and risk irritating them in the process.

Paul said enough in his epistles to give life to 2000 years of history and a widely preached Gospels.

[JoeWallack]

Jesus would have prayed in the style of his culture and with the passion of the departing. Part of his prayer would have been easily heard by his tired companions before falling sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfF6-TkAnBM
Shema

JW:
You've stumbled onto a wonderful irony here that I'll explain to you. For the last 2,000 years it's traditional for Jews to cite the Shema when being murdered by Christians. The point of the Shema is to proclaim that God is One. Since the Christians would not know the original language of the Bible they would not know what was being said which was intended as pointing out that worshiping Jesus as a god was clearly forboden idol worship repeated multiple times and the worst possible sin in the original Bible.

Your made up scenario would fit well with Jesus the Jew citing the Shema before he was murdered by non-Jews. (Historically though this tradition was created for Christian murder, an irony that "Mark" would have really appreciated).


Joseph

ErrnacyWiki

[beowulf]

Jesus would have prayed in the style of his culture and with the passion of the departing. Part of his prayer would have been easily heard by his tired companions before falling sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfF6-TkAnBM
Shema

JW:
You've stumbled onto a wonderful irony here that I'll explain to you. For the last 2,000 years it's traditional for Jews to cite the Shema when being murdered by Christians. The point of the Shema is to proclaim that God is One. Since the Christians would not know the original language of the Bible they would not know what was being said which was intended as pointing out that worshiping Jesus as a god was clearly forboden idol worship repeated multiple times and the worst possible sin in the original Bible.

Your made up scenario would fit well with Jesus the Jew citing the Shema before he was murdered by non-Jews. (Historically though this tradition was created for Christian murder, an irony that "Mark" would have really appreciated).


Joseph

ErrnacyWiki

This post is off topic and also it is antichristian , Being antichristian is as bad as being anti-Semitic and islamophobic and homophobic and racist .

[beowulf]

Jesus would have prayed in the style of his culture and with the passion of the departing. Part of his prayer would have been easily heard by his tired companions before falling sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfF6-TkAnBM
Shema

JW:
You've stumbled onto a wonderful irony here that I'll explain to you. For the last 2,000 years it's traditional for Jews to cite the Shema when being murdered by Christians. The point of the Shema is to proclaim that God is One. Since the Christians would not know the original language of the Bible they would not know what was being said which was intended as pointing out that worshiping Jesus as a god was clearly forboden idol worship repeated multiple times and the worst possible sin in the original Bible.

Your made up scenario would fit well with Jesus the Jew citing the Shema before he was murdered by non-Jews. (Historically though this tradition was created for Christian murder, an irony that "Mark" would have really appreciated).


Joseph

ErrnacyWiki

This is off topic and also it is antichristian , Being antichristian is as bad as being antisemitic and islamophobic and homophobic and racist .

[Adam]

However, this whole Sarah & Hagar section is very complex, and in my must-be-wrong point of view, interpolated.

If the christians are the children of the promise, the Jews are the children of bondage. The Jews have suddenly become the children of Hagar! Those who believe are the sons of Abraham (3:7). Hagar we are told is Mt Sinai (where the Jews received the law which is their bondage), which corresponds to the present Jerusalem! Jerusalem being where James and crew abide. But the Jerusalem above is free. Bondage/slavery is one of those frequent ideas in Galatians, 2:4, 4:3, 9, 24, 25, 5:1. I think it's a crucial rewriting of theology, which reflects—at least for me—Paul's transference of god's patronage onto the Jesus believers.

If "The Devil made me do it!" was going to be my original response to my blunder in reading Hjalti's "Mk 12:9" as "13:9" by my error and thinking it would fit as the misunderstanding I saw, at least I am covered somewhat by errors other have made in this thread. No, the quote attributed to me "Adam" here is simply part of DCHindley's text. Nor did DCH mention spin's error when quoting it. I wouldn't have expected him to, as both of DCH's posts are deep into important theology and exegesis. Bravo!

[stevencarrwork]

Casey argues that in context 'days of his flesh' must mean Jesus' earthly life.
The passage in Hebrews 5:7-9 cannot mean that Jesus was heard in the sense that God delivered him from having to suffer death. This interpretation is incompatible with the rest of Hebrews. The passage may mean that Jesus was heard in the sense that God strengthened him to face death.
Casey argues (IMO plausibly) that Jesus in Mark prays aloud at a little distance from the disciples who hear the beginning of Jesus' prayer before going to sleep.

Andrew Criddle

So they were not asleep when the prayer was made.... Even if 'Mark' says he found them once more sleeping when he prayed the second time, implying they were sleeping the first time.

Well, Casey's claim is as ad hoc if ever anything was- straight out of the Gleason Archer playbook.

And Casey produces an ad hoc claim that the prayer in Gethsemane was heard, when the Gospels themselves portray a Jesus who resigned himself to his prayer not being heard.

That one was out of the Norman Geisler playbook.

Mind you, even the most desperate fundie would feel a little shame at saying that God answers prayer, but he answers a different prayer to the one you make.

If Casey wants to twist the meaning of the Bible to make it fit his preconceptions, then he can't expect to be taken seriously.

So far we have seen nothing except ad hoc rationalisations intended to harmonise Biblical passages - just like any fundie would produce.

[stevencarrwork]

Casey argues that in the ancient world (where writing letters was more hard work than posting messages on the Internet) a writer would only mention things that both he and the readers already knew if there was a real reason to do so.

Not that one again....


So Paul talks about Abraham, Isaac, Sarah, Adam etc etc, but not anything about Jesus....

Because all these Christians already knew everything, even if they were neophytes.

SO Paul claims that the Law and the Prophets testified to this new righteousness, because his readers already knew that Jesus had testified to it, so there was no need to list him.

This is just plain laughable.

But Casey might be right.

All he needs is evidence that these Christian converts in Corinth etc, already knew all these Gospel stories that Paul never mentions.

And as Casey put 'evidence' in the very title of the book,we can now get him on the Trades Description Act.