Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:38 pm The question is not whether Jesus, Paul, Socrates, Alexander the Great, are literary figures -- of course they are, by definition: anyone delineated for us in literature is by definition a literary figure.

The question is whether there is historical evidence for literary figures having a historical existence outside that literature. Historians have methods for arriving at such conclusions. Biblical scholars find that those methods do not work for the figures they need to be historical so they devise other methods that have no place in the works of other historians.

And that is where biblical academic opposes science

At the university we always had to start with a thesis, and to describe the methods used - and then we'd find out how our thesis would turn out.
Anything between 100% right and 100% wrong would be a good outcome, because boxes would have been ticked off, progress made, and something would have been learned that could be used to continue, to build another thesis on top of this research

In biblical academic, no one works that way: it is unacceptable that the result of the research is not in line with the thesis - as the thesis always and always is built on the premise that Jesus existed, that something was factual, really happened




Where science engages in doing research via applying proven methods to a presumed thesis, biblical academic leads to doing research via applying presumed methods to a predetermined thesis.
Where science leads to an establishment of any degree of certainty about the initial thesis, biblical academic leads to an establishment of 100% certainty about the initial thesis.
Where science results in an adjusted thesis, biblical academic results in an adjusted method - hence why biblical academic is the only "science" in the world that doesn't produce a different thesis at the end of having done research, but instead produces a different method at the end of having done research

And thus biblical academic produces varying methods as a result of research, such as the various criteria of xyz - because it is not the methods that are fixed but (the outcome of) the thesis. Which naturally is completely unscientifical

Doing research essentially is performing a function with two variables; a fixed one - namely the methods - and a variable one - namely the thesis. The outcome may vary with the thesis.
Doing biblical academic, so to say, is performing a function with two variables; a fixed one - namely the thesis - and a variable one - namely the methods. Because the outcome may NOT vary with the thesis, so the variable part needs to be offset to the only other variable, namely the methods

John2 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:57 pm

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:37 am
But he gives us a very good clue to try to do so: his source for Jesus is the OT. So let's be pragmatic and be satisfied with this information.

First of all, if i believe him, and I have no reason not to, then the life of Jesus is in the scriptures so we don't necessarily need to search for a man who died recently and to invoke an inaccessible hypothetical oral tradition from Jesus’ relatives or disciples.

Do you think the same thing about the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls? His followers believed his life and death were predicted in the OT. Did they create a fictional Teacher by using the OT, or do you think the Teacher was real and his followers applied the OT to his life and death?

Although the comparison is interesting and relevant at first glance, I am not convinced that the two cases are so similar.

The life of the teacher of righteousness in the manuscripts is loosely based on the scriptures when we read the pesharim.
But unlike Paul, it is evident that the members of the sect sought to interpret his life through scripture, rather than the other way around. Some of the verses they use, for example, are really vague, far-fetched or completely off topic.

In Paul, we do not have this kind of thing since the life of Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Servant of Isaiah 53. Paul does not insert any historical or external elements to the scriptures when he describes the life, the death and the resurrection of Jesus. .

The life of the teacher in the manuscripts contains many details that seem historical and outside the scriptures.

He's described as a character who :

- founded a sect
- had disciples
- interpreted scriptures for his disciples
- was persecuted by a designated enemy (the wicked priest)
- and apparently died from it.

These are details that lead to the conclusion that he was certainly a historical figure.
And this is the kind of detail that is missing from Paul's letters.

I remain cautious, however, about the historicity of the teacher. There are some elements that are doubtful : he was apparently considered as celestial (after his death?) by the sect if it is indeed him that is mentioned in the hymn of self-glorification.
The apocryphon of Levi announces a messianic eschatological priest who is very similar to the teacher (and to the servant of Isaiah).

But to answer your question, if I am to compare the historicity of Jesus in Paul and the historicity of the teacher in the manuscripts, then I think there is a better chance that the teacher was a historical figure than Jesus.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:49 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 6:16 am Apart from the detailed exegesis of Pauline texts, I have real problems with the idea that Paul believed in a Jesus crucified on earth maybe centuries ago.

It would seem to require that Paul believed that the death of Jesus had radically changed the basis on which God' people should relate to God, but God had waited generations before revealing to anyone that this change had occurred. If one wishes to argue for such a delay, then IMO the onus is to provide positive evidence. It is not prima-facie the obvious way to read Paul.

Andrew Criddle

I don't see any problem.
The death and resurrection of Jesus are not the finality of the forgiveness of sins, it’s only one step of the processus.
Otherwise, the work of the apostles and the Parousia would be for nothing, wouldn't it?

The Death/resurrection is the beginning of the mystery, the first fruits of it (Romans 16:25-26).
Once the mystery is revealed, the apostles must preach the gospel (the good news) to the whole world.
Thanks to the apostles, those who believe in Christ will be saved.
But it is the Parousia and the Last Judgment that will be the fulfillment of Jesus’s mission.
It is only at the time of his Parousia that Jesus will judge men and that Christians will be resurrected.

Therefore, it makes sense that the death/resurrection was a mystery revealed much later to these apostles since it is not the finality.

I see three steps in Paul's theology:

1/ Jesus sacrifices himself to save humanity and rises in heaven. (Isaiah)

2/ This mystery is revealed to few chosen ones, the apostles who must spread the good news to the world (Isaiah). Those who believe will be saved.

3/ Jesus will come in glory to judge men and this way, the sin of Adam will definitively forgiven since it is only at that time that living and dead Christians will be resurrected to be in communion in heaven with Christ (Isaiah & Daniel - 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 / 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

All of this comes from a special interpretation of the scriptures. Paul associates the suffering servant with the Son of Man in Daniel (the servant dies to save men, the Son of Man will come in glory, the kingdom will be given to him, and the dead will rise in heaven).

The revelation of the past is sometimes recounted long after the fact. If we rely on Jewish tradition, we have the example of the story of Adam which was revealed centuries later to Moses.
So, no, I don't see any problem with the secret of Jesus' death being revealed long after the supposed events.
Especially since I assume that this sacrifice never took place, it’s a myth based on the interpretation that Paul and his fellow apostles had of the Book of Isaiah.

You may doubt whether Colossians is genuinely Pauline. But does your argument work for Colossians 2:14 ?

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross. paraphrase

Does it make sense to say that the charges against us have been set aside by the death of Christ, but God has for generations not bothered to tell anyone ?

Andrew Criddle
Andrew

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:28 am You may doubt whether Colossians is genuinely Pauline. But does your argument work for Colossians 2:14 ?

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross. paraphrase

Does it make sense to say that the charges against us have been set aside by the death of Christ, but God has for generations not bothered to tell anyone ?

Andrew Criddle
Andrew

Yes, it makes sense because it is the mystery hidden for centuries but now revealed that saves the pagans.

This is exactly what it says in Romans 16:25-26 :

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

And I don't think invoking logic to study this fanciful letters is the best thing to do.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:54 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:28 am You may doubt whether Colossians is genuinely Pauline. But does your argument work for Colossians 2:14 ?

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross. paraphrase

Does it make sense to say that the charges against us have been set aside by the death of Christ, but God has for generations not bothered to tell anyone ?

Andrew Criddle
Andrew

Yes, it makes sense because it is the mystery of the cross hidden for centuries but now revealed that saves the pagans.

This is exactly what it says in Romans 16:25-26 :

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

I don't think hidden for long ages can mean hidden for a few centuries.
If you were arguing that Paul saw the death of Christ as a primeval event then this might support it. But IIUC you accept that Paul regarded the death of Christ as occurring after the time of David which is too recent to be long ages past.

(I have doubts whether this passage at the end of Romans is Pauline, and in any case I think it refers to the eternal plan of God which has now happened and can be understood by exegesis of the prophetic scriptures. I may be wrong, it is a difficult passage, but it isn't talking about a post-Davidic secret event centuries ago now revealed.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:10 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:54 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:28 am You may doubt whether Colossians is genuinely Pauline. But does your argument work for Colossians 2:14 ?

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross. paraphrase

Does it make sense to say that the charges against us have been set aside by the death of Christ, but God has for generations not bothered to tell anyone ?

Andrew Criddle
Andrew

Yes, it makes sense because it is the mystery of the cross hidden for centuries but now revealed that saves the pagans.

This is exactly what it says in Romans 16:25-26 :

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

I don't think hidden for long ages can mean hidden for a few centuries.
If you were arguing that Paul saw the death of Christ as a primeval event then this might support it. But IIUC you accept that Paul regarded the death of Christ as occurring after the time of David which is too recent to be long ages past.

There are 1000 years between the time of David and the time of Paul. I think this verse can refer to a 1000 year separation very well.


Moreover, the pauline epistles are not historical documents.
Paul claims that Jesus is pre-existent while being a son of David.

The author of 4 Ezra claimed that the Messiah was a son of David while also being pre-existent.

These texte are not really historical documents

I may be wrong, it is a difficult passage, but it isn't talking about a post-Davidic secret event centuries ago now revealed.)

I think the opposite. Paul repeatedly tells us that the mystery of Christ has been hidden for centuries. So was his crucifixion.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:54 amThis is exactly what it says in Romans 16:25-26 :

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

Actually, Rom 16:25 is:

25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the age began,

Wouldn't that take the mystery back to Adam?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 2:32 pm
25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the age began,

Wouldn't that take the mystery back to Adam?

Not necessarily.

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past χρόνοις αἰωνίοις

αἰωνίοις =

age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting (https://biblehub.com/greek/166.htm)

But indeed, the term tends to mean eternity. If this verse refers to Jesus, and it's obvious that it is about him, then it tends to go in line with the idea of pre-existence that we find in Paul.

The idea that Jesus is pre-existent and at the same time a "son of David" (after 10th century BCE) is contradictory, but it's not the only one.

• Jesus was born of a woman and son of David but yet Jesus only had the appearance of a man and was not a man (Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7)

• Jesus is pre-existent but he is a son of David (like the Messiah in 4 Ezra)

• Jesus is the son of God and the son of David

Result: Either Paul is doing theology without any historical rigor/logic since he makes Jesus a son of David while at the same time he presents him as having only the appearance of a man, as being the son of YHWH and as having existed even before the foundation of the world.

In this case, the davidic lineage is only a reference Isaiah 11:1, a very common messianic prophecy in second temple judaism.
How could the Messiah not be a son of David when Isaiah 11 is the messianic chapter of reference at the time of the second temple. And that Paul uses Isaiah as the main inspiration for his Messiah ?
It doesn't matter if Jesus is pre-existent and not really a man. Paul doesn't care about this kind of logical detail, does he?

Either Romans 1:3 is an anti-marcionite interpolation.

If we have to consider one of these 2 verses as an interpolation, i choose Romans 1:3 rather than Romans 16:25 because the idea that Jesus is pre-existent, a hidden mystery and has existed since ancient times is found in several places in his letters and the deutero-pauline epistles.
Unlike his Davidic lineage.

And the best possible interpretation of Romans 16 is that the mystery of Jesus is very old and has only now been revealed to men through the apostles who had a revelation in the scriptures. Son of David or not.

So I rather think that Romans 1:3 is authentic but that Paul "contradicts" himself (according to our modern understanding of his letters which we try to interpret as historical documents).
But to consider as historical documents the theological letters of a man who claims that his Messiah died, rose in heaven and communicates with him through visions is not really the best idea.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:11 pm The idea that Jesus is pre-existent and at the same time a "son of David" (after 10th century BCE) is contradictory, ...

...Result: Either Paul is doing theology without any historical rigor/logic since he makes Jesus a son of David while at the same time he presents him as having only the appearance of a man, as being the son of YHWH and as having existed even before the foundation of the world.

In this case, the davidic lineage is only a reference Isaiah 11:1, a very common messianic prophecy in second temple judaism.
How could the Messiah not be a son of David when Isaiah 11 is the messianic chapter of reference at the time of the second temple. And that Paul uses Isaiah as the main inspiration for his Messiah ?
It doesn't matter if Jesus is pre-existent and not really a man. Paul doesn't care about this kind of logical detail, does he?

Mark seems to notice the problem:

12:35-37 Jesus responded, as he taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? For David himself said in the Holy Spirit,

‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.”

Therefore David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?”

This is one of the reasons why, as happy as I am to accept that Mark knows Paul's letters, I don't think that Mark is some kind of cheerleader for Paul.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:42 am I don't think that Mark is some kind of cheerleader for Pau

• Which Paul: Marcion Paul, Markan Paul, Orthodox Paul?

• Does the Markan Paul collection that Price plumps for and circulated with the Markan text deprecate the second-temple?

Cf. "Marcan Priority and the Pauline Collection - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley. 15FEB2023