Ben C. Smith wrote:Peter Kirby wrote:May be overthinking it. The clearest connection that I can draw is to Doherty, whose arguments are plagiarized regarding 1 Cor 11.
Out of curiosity, how do you know that the author has plagiarized arguments by Doherty in particular? Did Doherty add something to the discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 (and I presume you mean the passage with the eucharistic words from that chapter, since that seems to be the only discussion on that link that I can find from 1 Corinthians 11) that other mythicists before him, like Wells, lacked? Or is it simply that the author appears to know Doherty in other respects? (I admit I have not read the whole page.)
Ben.
The particular invocation of Romans 8:32 and the emphasis on receiving "from the Lord" as an indication of "revelation" were most striking. The two treatments in general run in parallel and treat a similar list of issues, although R. G. Price has his own spin on things and contradicts Doherty in places. There are only so many ways you can go with these questions within the bounds of credibility, but it is still very hard to imagine that R. G. Price came to enunciate exactly and only these considerations on his own.
It's been a while since I read Wells. I do remember that he took exception to the translation "betrayed," but I don't know whether he invoked Romans 8:32 as the chief example against that translation or spoke much on the idea of "revelation" in the phrase "from the Lord." In any case, Doherty is more accessible these days, even if there are multiple places from which these arguments could have been derived.
All Doherty quotes from
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
R. G. Price wrote:A precise understanding of the wording here is critical. The first issue is the phrase "For I received from the Lord," which is an indicator of "revelation". That doesn't mean that Paul couldn't have received this information from some other oral tradition or from James or Peter, etc., and then here be passing it off as something that was known originally only to him, but the claim that he makes here is basically that this is information that is unique to him, which he received from "divine revelation", which would mean his imagination.
Earl Doherty wrote:When we balance 1 Corinthians 15:3 with Galatians 1:11-12, and take into account the picture Paul presents throughout his letters, we arrive at a compelling picture of an apostolic movement operating solely on divine inspiration. In such a context, Paul’s use of the verb paralambano can well mean “received through revelation.”
R. G. Price wrote:That this would in fact be the case is uncertain, because this type of ritual is exactly what one would expect to be the basis of an emerging cult, and thus it would not be unusual for a ritual such as this to be one of the first emerging parts of a tradition, around which other religious elements and imagery would coalesce, meaning that it would not be surprising, even if Jesus never really existed, if something like this ritual were not one of the first and oldest elements of the cult, existing even before Paul.
Earl Doherty wrote:Such a meal signified the union of the initiates with the god of the cult’s worship, and a sharing in his nature and saving act—usually an overcoming of death in some way. We know of myths that were attached to such cultic meals. The Sabazius cult observed a communal supper which symbolized the heavenly banquet of the blessed which the initiates could look forward to after death. The cult of Mithras had an origin myth which explained where its sacred meal had come from. After Mithras had slain the bull (the ‘salvific act’ in Mithraism), he and the sun god Helios sealed a covenant by dining together on loaves of bread—some say on the meat of the bull himself—and drinking from cups which contained water and wine mixed. The goddess Isis was looked upon as having personally established the mystery rites associated with her, and this included a sacred meal. None of these gods and their activities were regarded as based in identifiable history.
R.G. Price wrote:The second issue here is the word "betrayed". The word "betrayed" ties in to the narrative that we find in the Gospels, but more importantly it would seem to indicate some type of interaction that makes little sense outside of the Gospel narrative. However, "betrayed" is not actually an accurate translation here. Most English translations use the word "betrayed" in line 23 because of the fact that this word ties the passage back to the Gospel narrative, but a more accurate translation would be "delivered up", and this point is important, because Paul used the phrase "delivered up" in another instance to describe the act of God sacrificing his own son in Romans 8. [immediately quotes and bolds Romans 8:32]
Earl Doherty wrote:Translators have a tendency to use the terms “arrested” or “betrayed” (the latter alluding to Judas) in rendering “paradidomi” in this part of the verse. This, I would suggest, is governed by Gospel preconceptions. The verb means, in its basic sense, to “hand over” or “deliver up” and is a technical term in the context of justice or martyrdom. In the Gospel story it can take on the meaning of arrest or betrayal (as in Mark 14:21), but in Paul there is no need to see it this way. He uses the same verb in Romans 8:32: “He (God) did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”
R. G. Price wrote:Also, if Paul were discussing a real event that took place during Passover it seems that he would have mentioned Passover here instead of simply saying "on the night".
Earl Doherty wrote:As for the ‘narrative’ elements in verse 23 (“on the night of his arrest/betrayal”), there is nothing to prevent mythical stories from being set “at night,” especially ones involving death and sacrifice. And if the Corinthian Supper is observed after sundown (Paul does not specify), the origin myth would likely be placed at a corresponding time. But since so much of early Christian belief comes from scripture, it would not be surprising if this feature were dependent on Paul’s study of the writings. Unfortunately, he does not enlighten us, though 1 Corinthians 5:7 does link Christ’s sacrifice with Passover, whose meal is celebrated after dark.
In his other articles, Doherty is mentioned positively more frequently than anyone else:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... llowup.htm
Doherty - 6 times
Drews - 3 times
Remsberg - 2 times
Price - 2 times
Freke and Gandy - 1 time
Wells - 1 time
POCM.info - 1 time
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm
Doherty - 4 times
Wells - 1 time
The Wells reference is to an online article, not a book. All the references to Wells are in a list with others.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_ ... liest.html
Doherty is sometimes cited explicitly, e.g.: "Earl Doherty states that many New Testament scholars, including S. G. F. Brandon, C. K. Barrett, Jean Hering, Paula Fredriksen, S. D. F. Salmond, all interpret Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians 2 as referring to spiritual archons, not earthly ones."
Here is how Wells treats the 1 Cor 11 passage in his online article:
1. Translations represent Paul as speaking of the night when Jesus 'was betrayed' (1 Cor. 11:23), as if he were alluding to Judas, when the Greek has, not 'was betrayed' but 'was delivered'. Schmithals comments (in chapter 16 of his The Theology of the First Christians, a 1997 English translation, published in America, from the German of 1994) that 'Paul did not have in mind the betrayal by Judas at all, but rather was reaching back to the early Christian confessional tradition according to which God himself' -- the passive voice of 'was delivered' implies, as so often in the Old Testament and in early Christian literature, that God was the agent, while obviating any need to mention him directly -- "delivered" Jesus into the darkness of human guilt and of death (cf. Isa.53:6; Rom.4:25: 8:32; Gal.2:20)'
This features only one of the aspects of the passage that Doherty discusses, and that in a different way, with a different translation, and without the same emphasis laid particularly on Rom 8:32.