Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:

Flesh

"The range of meanings borne by this term in the Bible starts from the literal use denoting the material of which the human body is chiefly constructed, but quickly takes on other senses derived from the writers' understanding of the created order and its relation to God."


The Pauline Writings. The uniqueness of these in this regard is sufficiently indicated in that approximately two-thirds of the New Testament occurrences of flesh are found in them, almost half of these in Romans and Galatians. They may be considered in two broad categories.

Uses Akin to the Old Testament. Most of the uses found in the Old Testament are also present in the Pauline literature. There flesh can denote the physical flesh ( 1 Cor 15:39 ; 2 Cor 12:7 ) and, by extension, the human body ( Gal 4:13-14 ); humanity as a whole ( Rom 3:20 ; Gal 2:16 ); human descent ( Rom 1:3 ; 9:3 ); and human relationships ( Rom 4:1 ; 9:3-5 ). By this point the term acquires the transferred sense of that which is frail and provisional ( 1 Cor 1:26 ; Gal 1:16 ; Php 3:3 ). As transient, it is not the sphere of salvation, which is rather the sphere of the Spirit ...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/flesh/

So what? I read for Ro 1:3 "human descent". It's OK by me. Also OK for the same verse are "physical flesh" or "the human body" or "human relationship".

Cordially, Bernard

MrMacSon wrote:
Seed has a long history in the Judaism -eg. in Genesis 12:3 God is said to have said to Abraham:

• "all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name"

Bernard Muller wrote:

• So, what's the relevance of that? I don't read "seed" but this is about families of the earth.

• The relevance is this -

Bernard Muller wrote:
declared seed of Abraham in Paul's epistles:

• 2 Co 11:22: Paul & other apostles
  Gal 3:16: Christ
  Gal 3:29: Galatian converts
  Ro 4:16: Gentiles, Christians, and Jews
  Ro 9:7: Jews
  Ro 11:1: Paul

• ie. one big family of Jews, Galatian & other converts, Gentiles, pagans, etc

Definition for metaphor:

• a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object, [person], or action to which it is not literally applicable.

• a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract [such as a God].

Bernard Muller wrote:
You still did not explain why these statements ... would be metaphors.

What figure of speech?

"descendant of David", "seed of Abraham", "Descendant of Israelites", "Descendant of Jesse", "From the tribe of Judah", and "by flesh" are all metaphors.

---

Bernard Muller wrote:
Applied to a person? Sure Jesus was a person.

You are using equivocation of my introduction of 'person', as an attempt to clarify the application of metaphor to a character in a narrative, and you are trying to make my introduction of 'person' to be more than I intended: you are trying to reify it.

I guess I should have said

• "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object, [narrated character], or action to which it is not literally applicable."

Note "not literally applicable", Bernard.

---

Bernard Muller wrote:

• Man Jesus was not abstract.

That is a bare assertion* at the heart of these discussions, right? To which you are seeking to justify with the use of a mathematical formula?

A formula that requires good premises, right? true premises. ie. facts.

* an unsubstantiated assertion

---

Bernard Muller wrote: I was still thinking about Ben's case for "descendant of David" and "descendant of Jesse" being metaphorical or spiritual.

I made no case for those statements being metaphorical or spiritual. I allowed the possibility for the sake of discussing the odds. I personally am nearly 100% sure that these statements imply a belief in a literal human.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,

I know this result already: if A is an interpolation, then B is (likely) also one

I was rather careless about this statement of mine. I was still thinking about Ben's case for "descendant of David" and "descendant of Jesse" being metaphorical or spiritual.
About strictly interpolations, I already indicated one exception where "descendant of Jesse" would be independent of "descendant of David" if that later one was an interpolation and the former one NOT.
But let's say Paul wrote all (except one) statements implying historicity, then afterwards, an interpolator thought it would be a good idea to add one more.
That would make Paul's statements not dependent on that interpolation, and again going against what I wrote: "if A is an interpolation, then B is (likely) also one".
Of course, that can be generalized such as for 4 Paul's statements against 4 interpolations, with the same conclusion.
Which means that the condition "if A is an interpolation, then B is (likely) also one" is far from being always true.
The only time that would be true is when all the alleged Paul's statements are interpolations (that would be very hard to confirm decidedly by looking at each statement). I think I expressed that idea earlier on that thread.

Cordially, Bernard

Can you explain this a bit more?

For example, suppose that there are 20 total statements on this topic.

Is the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated... the same as the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)... in your view?

How absolute is this opinion (not just in terms of its 'certainty' but also in terms of it applying in 'extreme' cases like this ... and also in the idea that there is 'no' such difference, rather than a small difference... all of those three things)? And, if it is absolute (in any of those three senses - being certain about it, applying it to extreme cases, and counting absolutely 'no' difference in the conditioned probability, from having the other information), then can you say a little more about why it is absolute?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote: I was still thinking about Ben's case for "descendant of David" and "descendant of Jesse" being metaphorical or spiritual.

I made no case for those statements being metaphorical or spiritual. I allowed the possibility for the sake of discussing the odds. I personally am nearly 100% sure that these statements imply a belief in a literal human.

That "these statements imply a belief in 'a literal human' " opens a can of worms, too.

A belief by the early writers? A belief by later canonisers? Both? A belief in the times in-between?

iskander wrote:

iskander wrote:Context:
Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer , maestro and Santa.
From this people by sexual intercourse [ kata sarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.
NT verses chosen:
Romans 9:4They are descendants of Israel, chosen to be God's sons; theirs is the glory of the divine presence, theirs the covenants, the law, the temple worship, and the promises.
Romans 9:5 The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all , be blessed forever! Amen.
The Oxford Study Bible
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/books/ref ... 7QodT5QCOg
Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely.

Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely. Does Romans 9:4-5 still make it so?

In his affidavit, the lead gabbai, Rabbi Zalman Lipskier, wrote that “the real issue in dispute involves conflicting views on how our faith views the passing of the Grand Rebbe Schneerson and whether or not at this time he may be referred to publicly as the Messiah.”

http://forward.com/news/10348/lawsuit-o ... z48jd3YFwM

A messiah claimant who speaks differently but eats and drinks like any other man.

to Peter,

For example, suppose that there are 20 total statements on this topic.

Is the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated... the same as the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)... in your view?

I do not know if it is the same probability. I don't think there is any way to know.
About only the 20th statement being interpolated, that depends when, regarding conditioning. That statement can be dependent on Paul's genuine statements implying Jesus' historicity or from the gospels (but I do not see much trace about the later option).
Anyway, on what the alleged interpolation(s) depend(s) on, that does not matter. What counts is Paul's genuine statements, and without them being interpolated, I do not think we can make a case about interdependence, except they are dependent on the belief of the existence of an earthly human Jesus.
In any case, Paul's statements about Jesus' historicity could not have been influenced by later interpolations.

How absolute is this opinion (not just in terms of its 'certainty' but also in terms of it applying in 'extreme' cases like this ... and also in the idea that there is 'no' such difference, rather than a small difference... all of those three things)?

We are looking at potential options here:
a) The possibility of some interpolations were added to Paul's statements.
b) The possibility that all are interpolations, the second one conditioned on the first, the third one conditioned on the two first ones, etc.

Nothing about these potential alleged interpolations can be absolute, or even justified.
But "proving" all the 20 statements are interpolations (by analysing each one of them) has a much lower probability than the probability of "proving" one or a few of the 20 statements are interpolations.

And, if it is absolute (in any of those three senses - being certain about it, applying it to extreme cases, and counting absolutely 'no' difference in the conditioned probability, from having the other information), then can you say a little more about why it is absolute?

Nothing is absolute. Just options on the possibility of interpolations, more so that no statements about Jesus' historicity (as I listed them) can be demonstrated to be interpolation (or not showing historicity), even if they can be doubted by mythicists.

Considering that mess with relatively small probabilities for interpolations, either whole or partial, I think my method, even if not sophisticated, is the best for estimating the probability of Jesus' existence.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,

For example, suppose that there are 20 total statements on this topic.

Is the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated... the same as the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)... in your view?

I do not know if it is the same probability. I don't think there is any way to know.

Then I guess we're done here!

In any case, Paul's statements about Jesus' historicity could not have been influenced by later interpolations.

That wasn't the question. We are not asking about causal relationships within history, per se. We are asking about how we form our estimates of probability, based on other information.

Here was the question:

Is the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated... the same as the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)... in your view?

Please take another swing at it.

If your answer is "I don't know," then we're basically done, because that would mean that your argument has the conclusion, "I don't know" (what the probabilities are).

If you don't understand the question, explain what is unclear as best as you can.

to Peter,

Bernard Muller wrote:

Is the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated... the same as the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)... in your view?

Please take another swing at it.

If your answer is "I don't know," then we're basically done, because that would mean that your argument has the conclusion, "I don't know" (what the probabilities are).

If you don't understand the question, explain what is unclear as best as you can.

I'll try:
A) "the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated, conditioned on the other 19 being interpolated"
Answer: 100%

B) "the simple, unconditioned probability of the 20th statement being interpolated (without such information about the others)"
Answer: With the other 19 statements being thought NOT to be interpolated, the probability that the 20th statement is interpolated can vary greatly, according to the specific analysis of that 20th statement.

So overall, chances are that the probability for A) will be higher than the one for B).

I want to add something of importance not specific to your question but related to the topic:

HOWEVER, by detailed analysis of each statement thought to be an interpolation, "proving" the 20 (or 19 without counting the last one) statements are interpolations will have a much lower probability that just "proving" one or a few statements are interpolations.
Let's say we are 70% certain for each one of the 20/19 statements being an interpolation.
Then probability that ALL 20/19 are interpolations (by detailed analysis for each one) is 0.7^20 = 0.08% or 0.7^19 = 0.114%
And for your falling domino theory, you need ALL of the 20 to be interpolations.

But if only a few are interpolations among the 20 statements, then the overal resulting probability supporting the common targeted claim will still be close to 100% (a bit less because of possibility of interpretations not supporting that claim).

From that point of view, the probability of the B) option would be much greater than for the probability of the A) option.

Cordially, Bernard