Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: As I explained on my website Christ is said to be from the seed of Abraham. According to Paul, human Jews are also from the seed of Abraham, and Paul even said he is himself from the seed of Abraham.
Also, Paul said the allegedly pre-existent Jesus became from a woman, as a Jew.



Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, the beauty of understanding the prose these communities wrote in, is in that we see the point and general context they were trying to make.

Pauls communities text make it perfectly clear the theological point they were trying to emphasize. We as following the general academic historicity more then mythicist who pervert it. Do not have to defend this position. They have never made a decent case for it to begin with. Its a failed avenue.

Only by cherry picking text out of context can one imagine this failed path.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Paul can write what he writes for the most part with full knowledge of an historical Jesus, but he can also write what he writes for the most part without any such knowledge, just a series of legends with no actual historical core; most of Paul falls into the non liquet category; only a handful of passages may tilt one way or another.



Ben.

Agreed.

But in context Pauls focused on the different theology the mans crucifixion generated and how different people accepted and rejected said theology.


I doubt his community had any real direct eyewitness testimony of any kind.

His context was far removed from any Aramaic Galilean, and firmly planted in Diasproa Hellenistic perverted Judaism.

outhouse wrote:One of the classic mistakes is to think Paul authored these text by himself Ben.

Most were a community effort which is also why many amateurs seem to find so may interpolations and redactions, They don't understand the nature of the text.

The epistle header often speaks of the direct co authors involved. It does not mean there were no indirect authors involved.

How much was his hand or even a scribe doing the actual writing is unknown

I am cognizant of all of these issues, and have made up my mind on very few of them.

to Ben,

just a series of legends with no actual historical core;

What evidence do you have for the existence of this series of legends?
Furthermore the allusions to a human Jesus in the Pauline epistles do not have any legendary items in them. It is just about a normal man when on earth:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html

On this "series of legends", it seems to me you are basing your ultra skeptical and anti-historicist beliefs on just a slim unevidenced possibility of their existence.

Yes, it is possible that the circumstances of the composition of Marcion's gospel got transmitted orally. Now... what is your evidence that this is the case? Possibility does not equal probability until you mount a viable argument for it.

What evidence do you have explaining it is not the case?
With Irenaeus being around 20 around 160 AD (or maybe sooner), then he had to know through Christians in their 50's, about gMarcion appearing on the scene (around 130 AD) when gLuke was already known to exist.
Also see http://historical-jesus.info/62.html

Cordially, Bernard

to outhouse,

Bernard, the beauty of understanding the prose these communities wrote in, is in that we see the point and general context they were trying to make.

Paul's communities text make it perfectly clear the theological point they were trying to emphasize. We as following the general academic historicity more then mythicist who pervert it.

Are you saying that the epistles and the gospels were the product, for each case, of the collective efforts of a local community?

Do not have to defend this position.

Why not?

They have never made a decent case for it to begin with. Its a failed avenue.

What is your position anyway (with some details)?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

just a series of legends with no actual historical core;

What evidence do you have for the existence of this series of legends?
Furthermore the allusions to a human Jesus in the Pauline epistles do not have any legendary items in them. It is just about a normal man when on earth:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html

I am not arguing that they are legends; I am somewhere between the non liquet stage and the stage at which Paul is regarded as having been influenced by some degree of eyewitness testimony, remember? I am saying that "Paul thought Jesus was human" is not dependent upon eyewitness testimony. Without some kind of argument, hopefully based on eyewitness testimony of some kind, you cannot tell whether you are dealing with legend or fiction or history or a mixture of them all.

This is my full quote, which you snipped above:

Ben C. Smith wrote:IOW, yes, Paul can write what he writes for the most part with full knowledge of an historical Jesus, but he can also write what he writes for the most part without any such knowledge, just a series of legends with no actual historical core.

Do you see there how I am not committing to either side, how I am leaving it open? The "for the most part" is there because, as I have mentioned, a case can be made for Paul knowing eyewitnesses to an historical Jesus. I am not yet fully convinced by that case, but it is more than nothing. I do not have to present positive evidence for legend or for historicity in order to leave the question open. But you evidently do not want to leave it open, and that means that you will have to be the one to present the positive evidence. Sorry, but for you to ask the same of me at this stage is improperly to shift the burden of proof.

On this "series of legends", it seems to me you are basing your ultra skeptical and anti-historicist beliefs on just a slim unevidenced possibility of their existence.

In this case I am not being skeptical of historicity; I am being skeptical of knowing one way or another. Do you see the difference?

Yes, it is possible that the circumstances of the composition of Marcion's gospel got transmitted orally. Now... what is your evidence that this is the case? Possibility does not equal probability until you mount a viable argument for it.

What evidence do you have explaining it is not the case?

I have no evidence for or against the proposition. I am not the one making a positive claim. For me, the external evidence so far is a wash when it comes to determining whether the Marcionite gospel preceded Luke or whether Luke preceded the Marcionite gospel. Nobody demonstrably contemporary with Marcion's alleged act of mutilation (such as Justin) gives us any clues. Tertullian actually says that the Marcionites accused the proto-orthodox (for lack of a better term on short notice) of adding to the gospel, and the proto-orthodox accused the Marcionites of taking away from the gospel. That is the state of the external evidence as I see it so far: "you said" versus "I said".

That is why I rely on the internal evidence. If I were to find solid external evidence (based on more than assumptions and ecclesiastical necessity), I would pay it some close attention. I have asked you for such external evidence, and your response is: "What evidence do you have explaining it is not the case?" Even though I am not claiming that there is any external evidence leaning one way or another.

With Irenaeus being around 20 around 160 AD (or maybe sooner), then he had to know through Christians in their 50's, about gMarcion appearing on the scene (around 130 AD) when gLuke was already known to exist.

Did he? Where does he tell us about these Christians who knew about Luke before Marcion came along with something else? Where does he give us anything besides bare assertions on the matter? He may have known such Christians and heard about the mutilation from them. He also may not have. What can you give me to help me decide?

I mean, look, when Irenaeus tells us that he himself heard Polycarp, and then recounts things that Polycarp is supposed to have done (such as run away from Cerinthus in a bathhouse), I pay attention; I really do. Such accounts may yet be lies or false memories or what have you, but at least I have an actual claim to evaluate. But what is to be done when Irenaeus simply asserts that Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke, removing all that was written respecting the birth of the Lord and setting aside a great deal of his teaching? How does he know this? Does he tell us? He may be old enough to have received concrete information, but did he?

My father is old enough to have been a contemporary of JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe... but that does not make him a witness to it.

Ben.

Specifically about about Galatians 1:11-12, Bernard wrote ---

Bernard Muller wrote:Paul said he got his gospel from above, that is Jesus then allegedly in heaven, and not from man.

No. The context leads one to the genitive here (as does the Greek). Paul wrote in Gal 1:12 that the gospel he preached came from a revelation "OF" Jesus Christ, not "FROM" Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to more clearly state the nature of his revelation, as he claimed it to be. In Gal 1:15-16, Paul wrote that it was God that revealed "the son of him in me".

Bernard Muller wrote:to MrMacSon,

Bernard, the beauty of understanding the prose these communities wrote in, is in that we see the point and general context they were trying to make.

Paul's communities text make it perfectly clear the theological point they were trying to emphasize. We as following the general academic historicity more then mythicist who pervert it.

Are you saying that the epistles and the gospels were the product, for each case, of the collective efforts of a local community?

That's not me, that's outhouse (who, though still simply posting bare assertions, has slightly improved the 'quality' of his simple assertions)

Ben sniped by Bernard wrote:he can also write what he writes, for the most part, without any such knowledge, just a series of legends with no actual historical core.

Bernard Muller wrote:What evidence do you have for the existence of this series of legends?
Furthermore the allusions to a human Jesus in the Pauline epistles do not have any legendary items in them. It is just about a normal man when on earth:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html

Ben C. Smith wrote: I am not arguing that they are legends; I am somewhere between the non liquet stage and the stage at which Paul is regarded as having been influenced by some degree of eyewitness testimony, remember? I am saying that "Paul thought Jesus was human" is not dependent upon eyewitness testimony. Without some kind of argument, hopefully based on eyewitness testimony of some kind, you cannot tell whether you are dealing with legend, or fiction, or history, or a mixture of them all.

This is my full quote, which you snipped above:

Ben C. Smith wrote:IOW, yes, Paul can write what he writes for the most part with full knowledge of an historical Jesus, but he can also write what he writes, for the most part, without any such knowledge, just a series of legends with no actual historical core.

This goes to the issue of primary sources - contemporaneous other sources - being the ultimate sources; and that there are none for the Pauline narratives ie. there is no suitable information that corroborates the assertions in the Pauline (or other NT) texts..


See the recent post on *Ethopoeia - 'character-making' rhetoric* (which I think is relevant to a lot of the NT [& other theology])


This also goes to the point that robertj makes in the next post after Ben's -

robertj wrote: Paul wrote in Gal 1:12 that the gospel he preached came from a revelation "OF" Jesus Christ, not "FROM" Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to more clearly state the nature of his revelation, as he claimed it to be. In Gal 1:15-16, Paul wrote that it was God that revealed "the son of him in me".

Galatians 1 (RSV)

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel.

12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

and

15 ..when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to/in me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood..

Note the assertion in Gal 1:15 that Paul claims to have been set "apart before [he] was born, and had [been] 'called' .. through his grace" ...

... that is at odds with the assertion of Paul supposedly having been Jew who previously had persecuted Christians.

.

robert j wrote:Specifically about about Galatians 1:11-12, Bernard wrote ---

Bernard Muller wrote:Paul said he got his gospel from above, that is Jesus then allegedly in heaven, and not from man.

.. Paul wrote in Gal 1:12 that the gospel he preached came from a revelation "OF" Jesus Christ, not "FROM" Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to more clearly state the nature of his revelation, as he claimed it to be. In Gal 1:15-16, Paul wrote that it was God that revealed "the son of him in me".

Moreover, whether Paul claims he got the revelation (i) from above or (ii) "of Jesus Christ" is not 'evidence of Jesus Christ'.