A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by robert j »

Peter Kirby wrote:This really just leaves 1 Cor 11:23-27 to be considered. And what I can think about there, is the combined facts of (a) the Mithras-Apollos banquet as the institution of the ceremonial meal of the Mithraists [just god-to-god] and (b) the very founding-myth-esque motif of it, rampant in full-blast mythology (why do we do this? because, the Lord said so--better than 'I said so'), and (c) Doherty's suggestive argument that it is a received revelation by Paul from the Lord. If so then I'm just about ready to think it's a mystical vision-type thing, where Paul 'saw' and 'heard' the Lord and these exact words, which he writes down here. As much as I know that the "Do this in memory of me" doesn't make that much literalistic sense, as what the Lord had said that night (no disciples to hear it -- hence why, then, Paul needs to hear it from the Lord?), I'm not sure the author cared that much, and it could be this kind of visionary thing that was the germ of the developed mythology. Thus, while some have suggested an interpolation here (not just 'mythicists', mind you), I don't believe it's necessary to see it as one to reconcile it with a non-HJ view of the text....

Still, it's one of the things I think about. Don't know long I've spent thinking just about 1 Cor 11:23-27, wondering if there might be a HJ in there somehow after all. It's to be taken seriously.
I think the answer is more mundane. The uptight Paul was very uncomfortable with the behavior he heard about when the congregation got together to share in the body and blood of Christ --- drunkenness, greediness, ignoring the needy. Evidently Paul had introduced a meal ritual before. But Paul believed the Corinthians were being extremely disrespectful. (1 Cor 10:16-17 and 11:17-22).

That just wouldn’t do. Paul needed to restore some semblance of order, so he created and instituted the rituals he described in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 --- and he told the Corinthians that it all came from the Lord. And on top of that, he threatened them --- and even blamed some sickness and death among them as a result of their sloppy practice of his previously instituted meal ritual. (11:27-34).

IMO, it was about Paul’s authority, and his prudish and conservative Jewish sensibilities in a clash of cultures with the rambunctious and sophisticated Greco-Roman Corinthians.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby »

toejam wrote:E.g. What is the likelihood that all of your "probably nots" would fall in line?
This is a mathematical question, and the question is what kind of mathematical model we would construct to answer the question. (Sorry! ;) )

There is only one real, completely direct way to do this. There are ten items, so there would be ten items in the chain rule:

[1] P( A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J ) = P( A ) * P( B | A ) * P( C | A, B ) * P( D | A, B, C ) * P( E | A, B, C, D ) * P( F | A, B, C, D, E ) * P( G | A, B, C, D, E, F ) * P( H | A, B, C, D, E, F, G ) * P( I | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H ) * P( J | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I )

Now my "Probably Not" statements were, of course, statements about these values:

[2] P( A ), P( B ), P( C ), P( D ), P( E ), P( F ), P( G ), P( H ), P( I ), P( J )

Notice that these are different expressions. The expressions that we need are conditional probabilities that are conditional on all the others, in a chain, in order to apply the multiplication chain rule. The only way to reduce the terms of [1] to be expressed in terms of [2] is to assume conditional independence of the individual probabilities involved, but that seems not only unjustifiable but intuitively wrong.

This is where Carrier goes off the rails. He's scared of combining multiple statements to form a theory, because he's scared that forming multiple conclusions will amass into a huge ball of improbability and shove his theory into unlikely-land. Now that is true, when the probabilities involved can be assumed to be conditionally independent. But it is not necessarily true if they are not conditionally independent. In that case, it depends on what we believe about the relationships between the individual statements.**

Analogy interlude. Suppose you had a theory about a black box that spits out colored balls, which are always colored black or white. But suppose that these colored balls are so tiny and fragile that they will disintegrate on measurement, using up the material to get a reading from the instruments. Suppose further that your instruments could give you only a "Probably Black" (x>70%), a "Probably Not Black" (x<30%), or a "Non Liquet" (30% >= x >= 70%). This is all that you have to work with. Now you want to make a theory about your black box. You see it spit out:

Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Probably Black, Non Liquet, Probably Not Black, Probably Black, Probably Black

You record 1 Probably Not Black, 1 Non Liquet, and 10 Probably Black.

You go over to your fellow research scientist and you present your results. You say:

"We have to apply the chain rule. When I do so, I get approximately 0.85^10 * 0.5^1 * 0.15^1, or a 1.476558% chance of them all being black."

Your colleague asks, "And the 'probably black' balls? What are the odds that they are all in fact black?"

"We have to apply the chain rule. When we do so, I get approximately 0.85^10, or a 19.68744% chance of all the 'probably black' balls being black."

Your colleague asks, "Hmm. I'm not so sure. Have you considered that there might be a relationship at work, a common influence that could mean that one such reading makes another such reading more likely, because it is indicative of the underlying influence, which seems more likely with the greater consistency of the results, indicating that the box is biased or perhaps even has a law at work here?"

You say, "maybe, but how would we model that hunch mathematically?"

And the answer there is that you would start with a null hypothesis and see whether it is likely at all. If it is not likely at all, then you at least can suspect that there is some kind of principle at work here. Then you can take every principle at work that has been suggested and try to compare them to see which is the better scientific explanation, which hypothesis better fits the result without becoming too ad hoc.

"Let's start with the null hypothesis that the machine spits out balls just like any other ordinary marchine" your colleague says.

You say, "I'm sorry, I think we forgot something." Your colleague asks, "what's that?" You say, "we need a control group." Your colleague says, "Of course! We'll find the appropriate control group and then test the null hypothesis using a statistical p-value test of the significance of the results!"

So you go out and get a greyish-black box. This black box is roughly just like the first one in every respect, except that it doesn't have one significant trait in common. And you set it up and let it rip and observe.

PN, PB, PN, PN, PN, NL, NL, NL, NL, NL, NL, NL, NL, PN, PN, PB, PB, NL, NL, PN, PN, PN, NL, PN, PN, PN, NL, PN, PN, PN, NL, NL, NL, PB, NL, PB, PN

16 PN (probably not), 16 NL (non liquet), and 5 PB (probably black). Okay let's make our table.

PNNLPB
Test Group1110
Control Group16165

Now your colleague says, "hey, what if we combined the categories of PN+NL, and then set that against the category of PB, just to see what happens?"

And you say, "sure, let's give that a shot then."

PN or NLPB
Test Group210
Control Group325

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 1.9E-05. The result is significant at p < 0.01.

Anyway I feel that I am rambling, and I haven't answered your specific question, but I am indicating the general way in which the question is a good one but that the answer is not nearly as simple as it may seem. The first thing to observe is that there is a phenomenon that exists here (if we can confirm that), and then to seek an explanation (and to compare the ones we can come up with).

That the original letter writer had no HJ in mind seems to me to be one hypothesis with explanatory power, particularly for this phenomenon. And this is not the only reason why I'd suggest the hypothesis anyway, so it's definitely worth investigating, despite the difficulty of understanding mathematically or scientifically the exact probability that should be assigned to the conjunction of the hypotheses of several individual interpolations.

(PS--If we did a control group here, it would be all the other verses in the letters of Paul. Or, maybe, just the "Not-Completely-Useless-MJ" passages. Or maybe they'd both be test groups against the control group that had neither. I guess... this is why I don't like to use mathematical arguments that start with very human judgments. They get very confusing, so most people aren't really following them, and it's all starting from hunches anyway, so trusting the human brain seems just as valid as brain+quite possibly pseudoscience.)

** You do get one saving grace. Your theory is no more likely than your ---least--- likely single assumption. This makes it easier to think about, without going crazy with math. Identify the weakest necessary assumption and ask how likely it is. That sets the upper bound for the likelihood of the entire theory. Why?

[1] P( A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J ) = P( A ) * P( B | A ) * P( C | A, B ) * P( D | A, B, C ) * P( E | A, B, C, D ) * P( F | A, B, C, D, E ) * P( G | A, B, C, D, E, F ) * P( H | A, B, C, D, E, F, G ) * P( I | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H ) * P( J | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I )

Just let P( A ) be your least likely assumption and its probability. All the other terms are less than 1. So P( A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J ) < P( A ). So identifying the weakest component of the hypothesis and proving it to be unlikely is an excellent, simple way to reject a hypothesis as unlikely.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Clive »

Many many years ago I spent hours and hours listening to Pentecostal preachers. They have a style rarely seen now - the televangelists do not do this, a cof e sermon no way. It would involve say a passage from Paul , a verse from revelation, a couple of gospels, jumping to Hebrews and revelation, to exodus, to the psalms, the Prophets, Kings...

I would follow the preacher by also jumping with him to the various verses and reading them as he preached about them. Most of a congregation was able to do this, people would help each other find the verses - it is the word of God!

Of course Christ was with Moses! He never was historical!

He was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, rent the veil in two, caused darkness over the face of the earth, met satan, met Elijah, allowed Thomas to touch him!

Why do we not allow the Xians to say what they mean? Isn't that anthropology 101?

http://www.dake.com
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Peter Kirby »

An article:

http://www.bibleexposition.net/2015/04/ ... hians.html
Christ. This is the most frequent title of the Lord in I Corinthians (as in most of the Epistles), occurring sixty-two times. It occurs alone forty-four times; “Christ Jesus” occurs six times; “Jesus Christ” occurs twice; and the full title “Lord Jesus Christ” occurs ten times. “Christ” identifies the Lord as the Messiah, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Lord. Paul applies the title “Lord” to Jesus fifty-nine times. The full title “Lord Jesus Christ” occurs ten times; “Lord Jesus” occurs six times (5:4 [2]; 9:1; 11:23; 12:3; 16:23). The title ''Lord” alone is applied to Jesus forty-two times in the Greek text (1:31; 3:5; 4:4, 5, 17; 6:13 [2], 14, 7:10, 12, 17, 22 [2], 25 [2], 32 [2], 34, 35, 39; 9:2, 5, 14; 10:9, 21 [2], 22; 11:11, 23, 26, 27 [2], 32; 12:5; 14:37; 15:58 [2]; 16:7, 10, 19, 22).

Maran (Aramaic for “Lord”). This title is found in the watchword Maranatha (I Cor. 16:22). The phrase can be interpreted as a prayer, “Our Lord come,” or as a promise of the second coming, “Our Lord comes.” Either view makes good sense. The term demonstrates that the Lord Jesus was called “Lord” by the Aramaic-speaking church before the gospel moved to Gentile lands.

Jesus. It is used alone in only one passage (12:3) in a set phrase for either confession or repudiation. The other uses are all in combination with other titles, as mentioned above.

Son. Paul teaches that believers are called into the fellowship of God's Son (1:9). When all the universe is brought into subjection to God, the Son also will be subjected, that God may be all in all (15:28). This does not mean that the Son is less than God, but that the Son will bring to a triumphal conclusion the mediatorial office which He now holds.

Power of God. Once the Lord Jesus is called “the Power of God” (1:24). He is the One who has created the universe and now sustains it (Col. 1:16-17). The message about the Lord Jesus is the power to save (Rom. 1:16).

Wisdom of God. In the same passage (1:24) the Lord Jesus is called “the Wisdom of God.” He has made foolish the wisdom of men (1:27), and He is Himself the Wisdom which all believers need (1:30).

Our Passover. The Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of all the typical teaching in the Old Testament concerning the necessity of blood sacrifice. Just as the lamb was sacrificed to avert the judgment of God in Old Testament times, so the Lord Jesus sacrificed Himself as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) to deliver all believers from the judgment of God. Thus He is “Our Passover” (5:7).

The Rock. One passage identifies the Lord Jesus with the great image of the Rock, which occurs throughout Scripture. He is “the Rock” for all God's people, whether in Old Testament or New Testament times (10:4).

The Last Adam. The first man, Adam, was created by the Lord as a living soul, but he soon forfeited life; “the Last Adam” is a life giving Spirit, since eternal life flows through Him to every believer (15:45).
This is the same kind of general atmosphere that you breathe in the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and Philo (and some DSS and NHL texts) where we hear about beings that are not necessarily "historical." Expressions such as Wisdom of God and Power of God and Son (of God) are actually found in other texts. Metaphors are freely applied as names, such as Our Passover and The Rock. None of this proves the interpretation, but it does create an impression on the reader.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:[The question is vastly complicated because there have been several textual corruptions in the text of Paul. As I have started to write on my blog, however, a detailed study of the textual corruptions of Paul may in fact be one of the better arguments for seeing no-HJ in Paul, rather than an argument for seeing one. After all, we should be surprised that so many passages with _objective indicators of absence_ (Marcion's text of Paul) also happen to be the same passages tabulated as supposed proofs of the HJ view of Paul's Jesus. I've calculated by some napkin math that roughly 90% of the passages that Bernard Muller, for example, likes to catalog for his proof of an HJ view in Paul, were among the passages absent in Marcion's text of Paul. I intend to write more on this, and it is what chiefly distinguishes me from some of the more apologetical (ie seeking to provide a defense that will likely be accepted by the ones targeted for reading it) investigators of the non historicity of Jesus (who seem to prefer any consensus position as long as they think that they can bring it into their views), in that I know that a lot of people don't like to claim any interpolations, let alone many, but I am not afraid to make the suggestion, based on the evidence and indications that are available to us today. I don't feel obliged to do backflips over the "sperm of David," for example, when that sperm was injected there by a second century interpolator, who may indeed have believed in the virginity of Mary ("the descendant of David according to the flesh," the same phrase frequently employed in discussions regarding the virginity of the mother of Jesus in later Christian writers). One of the criteria that is useful here, besides manuscript evidence and indicia interna and the text of Marcion's Paul, is the criterion of the development at the time of the Gospel of Mark. Some of these interpolations "leapfrog" over the beliefs present in the Gospel of Mark (where Jesus is *not descended from David*, and he is *not* in gJohn and *not* in Epistle of Barnabas). Scholars puzzle over these "leapfrogs" briefly but then brush them off due to their unfailing belief in the received text.
One problem here is that Marcion seems to have included (some form of) 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. Which (if authentic) probably requires Pauline belief in a historical Jesus.

I'm dubious about using absence in Marcion as strong evidence for interpolation in canonical Paul without also using presence in Marcion as strong evidence for authenticity of canonical Paul.

Andrew Criddle
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Ulan »

outhouse wrote:
Ulan wrote:. He is feeding all of Israel in the desert.
Rhetorical mythology Paralleling the Emperors feast. Not likely a historical event with a core, unless he stole a small basket of fish. I doubt it.
Got a pointer for Philo parallels (Det.):
XXXI. (115) Now these energies are especially the food of the soul, which is competent to give suck, as the lawgiver says, "Honey out of the rock, and oil out of the solid Rock,"{37}{deuteronomy 23:13.} meaning by the solid rock which cannot be cut through, the wisdom of God, which is the nurse and foster-mother and educator of those who desire incorruptible food; (116) for it, as the mother of those things which exist in the world, immediately supplies food to those beings which are brought forth by her; but they are not all thought worthy of divine food, but only such are honoured with that as do not show any degeneracy from their parent; for there are many which a scarcity of virtue, which is more terrible than a scarcity of meat and drink, has destroyed; (117) but the fountain of divine wisdom is borne along, at one time in a more gentle and moderate stream, and at another with greater rapidity and a more exceeding violence and impetuosity. When, therefore, it descends gently it sweetens after the manner of honey, but when it comes on swiftly the whole material enters like oil into the light of the soul. (118) This rock, Moses, in another place, using a synonymous expression, calls manna the most ancient word of God, by which appellation is understood, something of the most general possible nature, from which two cakes are made, one of honey and the other of oil, that is to say, two different systems of life, exceedingly difficult to distinguish from one another, both worthy of attention, at the very beginning instilling the sweetness of these contemplations which exist in the sciences, and again emitting the most brilliant light to those who take hold of the things which are the objects of their desire, not fastidiously, but firmly, and scarcely by means of unremitting and incessant perseverance. These then, as I have said before, are they who ascend up upon the strength of the earth.
So, what Paul calls Christ is the Logos in Philo, and the water is Sophia.

Or also All2:
(86) Moreover, the soul falls in with a scorpion, that is to say, with dispersion in the wilderness; and the thirst, which is that of the passions, seizes on it until God sends forth upon it the stream of his own accurate wisdom, and causes the changed soul to drink of unchangeable health; for the abrupt rock is the wisdom of God, which being both sublime and the first of things he quarried out of his own powers, and of it he gives drink to the souls that love God; and they, when they have drunk, are also filled with the most universal manna; for manna is called something which is the primary genus of every thing. But the most universal of all things is God; and in the second place the word of God. But other things have an existence only in word, but in deed they are at times equivalent to that which has no existence.
It's funny what is made here of the text of the OT. No hint of taking things literal.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse »

Ulan wrote: Got a pointer for Philo parallels (Det.):
Not really apples to apples.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Peter,
I do not know if I follow you well, but what are you trying to prove, by Marcion's Pauline epistles not having allusions to a Jesus born from human/earthly father or mother, the original epistles (truly written by Paul before the fall of Jerusalem) did not have a HJ in them?
How can you demonstrate the original pre-70 Pauline epistles were without any HJ born from humans?
Certainly, Marcion's eradication of any Jesus as born from a human/earthly father or mother makes a lot of sense and can be shown, in most cases, through the writings of Tertullian or others.

About the Last Supper, Tertullian commented on it a lot in Luke's version (AM, IV, XL), including about the body & blood of Jesus, without ever saying that passage was not in Marcion's gospel. So I assume Marcion kept the corresponding passage in 1 Corinthians.
That would show that Marcion had to accept that a (instant) docetist human-looking adult being could have a body and blood, even if Tertullian accused Marcion to feature the earthly Jesus as being a phantom.

AM, V, VIII “In like manner, when treating of the gospel (seems to refer to Marcion's), we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom;”

Another problem on that issue is 'Hebrews' which has Jesus as a member of the tribe of Judah (7:14).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:One problem here is that Marcion seems to have included (some form of) 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. Which (if authentic) probably requires Pauline belief in a historical Jesus.
Yes I just read it again, and Tertullian makes two quotes here, one which makes it clear that "the Lord" stood there (not quoted in BeDuhn).
It will not come
amiss to pay attention to the shorter epistles as well: there is
savour even in brevity. The Jews had slain their own prophets.
I may ask, What is this to the apostle of your other god, your god
supremely good, who you say does not condemn the sins even of
his own people, and himself in a sense puts those same prophets
to death by destroying their credit? What wrong has Israel com-
mitted in his sight if it has killed those whom he too has rejected,
if it has anticipated him in passing hostile judgement upon them?
But, <you object,> Israel sinned in the sight of their own God.
Rebuke of iniquity has to be the act of him to whom belongs the
one who has suffered the wrong: certainly of anyone rather than
the opponent of the sufferer. And besides, he would not also have
burdened them with the charge of the Lord's murder as well, in
saying, Who both killed the Lord, and their own prophets—although
'their own' is the heretic's addition.
I'm dubious about using absence in Marcion as strong evidence for interpolation in canonical Paul without also using presence in Marcion as strong evidence for authenticity of canonical Paul.
That's very close to being a non sequitur really. They are not quite the same thing, because changes made to the text before Marcion had published it could obviously become part of Marcion's text, but Marcion's text can help us consider what changes may have been made after.

On the other hand, yes, Marcion's text is inherently of high value as a witness, of course, and we shouldn't brush off readings attested by this early witness lightly.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:I do not know if I follow you well, but what are you trying to prove
Nobody's proving anything here. We're just exploring the evidence and interpretations, as they seem fit.
Bernard Muller wrote:Another problem on that issue is 'Hebrews' which has Jesus as a member of the tribe of Judah (7:14).
We need to abandon a slavish dependence on the opinions of our predecessors, as if showing them to be in error proves anything other than that error. Hebrews is not by Paul and needs its own thread, wherever that discussion may lead.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply