Peter Kirby wrote:(3) (c) 1 Clement
Before on this blog I have presented my partition hypothesis regarding 1 Clement. However, I have not presented it formally and know of nobody who’s suggested it before (so perhaps I really should present it formally at some point). In any case, the letter refers to the apostles being appointed by Christ. There’s only one passage that comes close to saying anything regarding a historical Jesus:
42:1 The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God. 42:2 Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God.
However it isn’t really a clear reference, is it? If the apostle Paul, who did not know Jesus on earth, could say regarding the institution of the Lord’s supper the words “I received from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23), then how are we to say that 1 Clement means anything other than the appointment of apostles by Christ through revelation?
I think you missed 1 Clem.32:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html
- For from him [Abraham] have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah.
On the face of it, 1 Clement (which refers to Paul and his letters) seems to indicate a historical Jesus. The question comes down to whether "according to the flesh", which is used often by Paul, can be used of non-historical or non-earthly beings as well. Carrier believes that early Christians thought that God had taken King David's sperm and put it into a cosmic sperm bank (ETA I've quoted Carrier's reasoning on this in my next post below), though AFAIS the usage of "according to the flesh" doesn't seem to support this. The Text Excavation website has a page on its usage here:
http://www.textexcavation.com/accordingtotheflesh.html
Peter Kirby wrote:(3) (d) Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas, written between 70 and 135 AD, almost certainly does not have any historical information regarding Jesus handed down to him. The centerpiece of the text is the very model of Crossan’s “prophecy historicized,” as the author explicitly works out the attributes of Jesus from the scriptures. (While Barnabas 4:14 might appear to quote Matthew 22:14, it quotes something absent from the critical text of the Gospel of Matthew, which should lead us to think that some other source is being quoted with a scriptural formula here.)
I think you missed Barnabas Chapter 5:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html
- The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him? Since looking upon the sun which is to cease to exist, and is the work of His hands, their eyes are not able to bear his rays. The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted His prophets to the death.
I've highlighted examples of "in the flesh" above. It might be argued that Barnabas has in mind Jesus crucified in the lower heavens, then coming to earth to dwell. But the idea that he 'came in the flesh' to earth after being in the flesh in the lower heavens and killed and resurrected in glory (if Barnabas belonged to that particular group of proposed mythicists) seems to be at odds. Barnabas would need to be a member of yet another different group of mythicists.
Most importantly, before we can determine what
else the above passages might be referring to, it would be good if we can agree to what they
appear to be saying. A key part of that is determining the range of usage of "according to the flesh" and "in the flesh". I think it can be taken for granted that it can refer to beings on earth. If that is the most likely reading, then much of the rest (Christ being placed in time and space by appointing the apostles, which both letters above state, for example) would follow. It would be a shame if the readings got drowned out by a chorus of "perhaps this" or "perhaps that".