“Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

1. note that Wells uses a strong expression, here: I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

A strong expression is not evidence.

2. note that the Romans can't be rulers "of this age". They didn't rule from the time when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

Can you explain that? Why "age" cannot include Paul's times (1st century CE)?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

- Revelation was not completed before the gospels (probable exception: gJohn).

Furthermore the birth in question is part of the original Revelation written soon after 70 CE), which was totally Jewish (the Christian additions happened later (up to 96 CE). That's according to my study: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

hence you have a pre-Christian text adoring Jesus as a celestial Lamb born in heaven.

Furthermore, the sign is in heaven (12:1), but the woman/mother is on earth (12:8), so the baby is caught up from earth to God in heaven (12:5).
That cannot be about Jesus.

but the text names him Jesus.

- The original layer (of the vision of Isaiah) was a strictly a Jewish text, which got Christianized progressively in the 2nd century by an orthodox Christian (who knew about the gospels) and then by Christian Docetists: all explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/100.html

a pre-Christian text mentioning a dying and rising Son of God? Sure that you are not a mythicist?

-The author did not say Jesus was "without father and mother". You are imagining things here.

the text says that he was "without mother and father, without genealogy, etc according to the order of Melchizedek" and Melkizedek was adored as an archangel in Qumran.

- 'slave' or 'bondservant'. There is nothing to say here that Jesus was not an earthly human. I do not know why you bring little children in your argument.

his being made directly slave excludes his being born as human being.

Paul also brought many bits of evidence (as already quoted by me in an earlier post) showing Jesus was an earthly human

but already adult, never a child just born.

[Giuseppe]

A strong expression is not evidence.

but a strong expression coming from G.A.Wells, not an ordinary guy in this field.

Can you explain that? Why "age" cannot include Paul's times (1st century CE)?

Because "age" means at least 100 years and by the time of Paul the Roman Empire had only 50 years, more or less.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

hence you have a pre-Christian text adoring Jesus as a celestial Lamb born in heaven.

The pre-Christian text (the original Jewish version) does not have 'Jesus'. Nothing says the Lamb is born in heaven.

but the text names him Jesus.

The text (Ch. 12) does not name Jesus as the son of the mother. And all the 'Jesus' in Revelation were added later by Christians to the Jewish text.

a pre-Christian text mentioning a dying and rising Son of God? Sure that you are not a mythicist?

The pre-Christian text (strictly Jewish) does not mention a dying and rising Son of God.

the text says that he was "without mother and father, without genealogy, etc according to the order of Melchizedek" and Melkizedek was adored as an archangel in Qumran.

The text says that Melkizebek was "without mother and father, without genealogy" and that Jesus was "according to the (priestly) order of Melchizedek", not like Melkizedek in every ways.

his being made directly slave excludes his being born as human being.

From where did you get "directly" in Philippians? It is not obvious and but that can be argued. Regardless, the rest of the hymn suggests Jesus as human on earth (2:8).

but already adult, never a child just born.

Hmm. But as a descendant of Israelites, and also said descendant of Abraham, Jesse and David, Jesus had to be born on earth, which is also implied in Galatians (from a woman).

but a strong expression coming from G.A.Wells, not an ordinary guy in this field.

There are many other not ordinary guys in this field (some using strong expressions), and Wells had many opponents of his mythicist theory when his first three books were published.
I remember attending a presentation of (in person) Carrier on his (not yet published) mythicist book. Carrier used very virulent strong expressions (with tons of expletives) against present and future detractors. Does that make him right? No, not for me and, as I observed, not to most his audience then.
Actually, the use of strong expressions often denotes trying to compensate for a weak position, or/and arguments or/and evidence, as for Carrier then, whose evidence he divulged for his new book were very weak (as like yours Giuseppe).

Because "age" means at least 100 years and by the time of Paul the Roman Empire had only 50 years, more or less.

From where did you get these 100 years? Anyway, Rome started to have an empire when it conquered Carthage in 146 BC. Do the math: that's more than 100 years.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith wrote:

Whom does Paul clearly put into that category, in your estimation, besides himself?

Peter, in Gal. 1.19, and in Gal. 2.8 if authentic, as I have taken it to be. And, of course, as you allow in the question, Paul insisted on his own status as an apostle.

Is Romans 16.7 clear about Andronicus and Junia?

I think Paul probably meant Andronicus and Junia are among the apostles, rather than they are noted by the apostles, but I realize that is disputable and disputed.

Is 1 Corinthians 4.9 clear about Apollos? Philippians 2.25 is clear about Epaphroditus, but is an apostle of the church at Philippi ("your") the same as an apostle of God or of Christ?

No, I don't think Paul wants to allow either Apollos or Epaphroditus the status of apostle of God or Christ. Epaphroditus is the apostle/messenger of the church of Philippi, not of God.

Is 1 Thessalonians 2.7 clear about Timothy and/or Silvanus, going all the way back to 1.1?

1 Thess. is an interesting case. I think Paul seems to include Timothy and/or Silvanus with himself as apostles because he's speaking loosely, or perhaps because it was an early letter and he did not yet see the potential danger of granting others of his co-workers (i.e., beyond the faithful Timothy) a title or status equal to his own.

Galatians 1.19 seems clear about Cephas, but that is the same verse that seems to imply that James, too, belongs to what is apparently a group, to judge from 1.17, of apostles whom could be visited at Jerusalem. Galatians 2.8 is clear about Peter, but I am not sure that verse is original to the text.

I take Gal. 2.8 to be Pauline, and I think Paul is deliberately putting James' status in question.

On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 9.5 Cephas seems to fall outside the group of apostles, just as he seems to fall outside the group of brethren of the Lord.

I would say this is the use of KAI to mean “and especially” or “and most importantly” as in “the Spartans and Leonidas” or “his disciples and Peter” in Mark 16.7. The individual after the KAI is being singled out as especially important, not necessarily excluded from the group(s) that preceded his mention.

(I am serious about these questions; they are not rhetorical; I have noticed before how difficult it is to determine exactly who is an apostle, according to Paul.)

I take what you say seriously, Ben, and I hope I have not given a different impression.

I'm not suggesting that there was some official list of who was and was not a real apostle in Paul's time, I'm just considering who Paul recognized as an apostle. I think many, outside of the churches Paul founded, probably did not consider Paul a real apostle. And some of the people Paul does not call apostles were considered apostles by others. I think Paul was very unwilling to admit that there are other apostles in the churches he founded. He can allow Andronicus and Junia in are apostles because he's writing to the Romans and he can grant them the title without undermining the authority he claims for himself in his own territory and because he cannot claim any special authority there himself, not having founded the church in Rome.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

I take what you say seriously, Ben, and I hope I have not given a different impression.

No, not at all. It is just that, after I wrote out the questions, it occurred to me that they could maybe sound like a list of rhetorical "gotcha!" questions, which was not at all the vibe I was going for. It being hard to convey tone of voice on a forum sometimes, I decided to play it safe and overexplain myself.

I think many, outside of the churches Paul founded, probably did not consider Paul a real apostle. And some of the people Paul does not call apostles were considered apostles by others.

To me 1 Corinthians 9.2 seems to imply this kind of situation.

[Irish1975]

Ben Smith wrote:

Is 1 Corinthians 4.9 clear about Apollos? Philippians 2.25 is clear about Epaphroditus, but is an apostle of the church at Philippi ("your") the same as an apostle of God or of Christ?

No, I don't think Paul wants to allow either Apollos or Epaphroditus the status of apostle of God or Christ. Epaphroditus is the apostle/messenger of the church of Philippi, not of God.

δοκῶ γάρ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις.

Unless Paul is using the royal “we,” which seems a stretch, it is clear to me that Paul is characterizing Apollos as an apostle in this verse. The preceding discussion of Apollos, over multiple chapters, is almost obsessive. Apollos is very much on Paul’s mind and I don’t think he would casually write something he didn’t mean. Yes, perhaps this is a case of him going overboard rhetorically in order to make his broader case against factionalism, but then we’re looking for his intentions rather than at his actual words. The plain reading of the passage is that he is referring to him as an apostle.

There is a related issue. I am skeptical of the standard construal of ἐσχάτους as a predicate adjective, ie, “God has exhibited us apostles as being last, etc.,” rather than as a modifier of “us apostles.” It seems more natural to render the (accusative) subject of the propositon as “us last apostles,” and the predicate, “as sentenced to death...” I’d appreciate hearing from Ben and other Greek readers on this point.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben Smith wrote:

Is 1 Corinthians 4.9 clear about Apollos? Philippians 2.25 is clear about Epaphroditus, but is an apostle of the church at Philippi ("your") the same as an apostle of God or of Christ?

No, I don't think Paul wants to allow either Apollos or Epaphroditus the status of apostle of God or Christ. Epaphroditus is the apostle/messenger of the church of Philippi, not of God.

δοκῶ γάρ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις.

....

There is a related issue. I am skeptical of the standard construal of ἐσχάτους as a predicate adjective, ie, “God has exhibited us apostles as being last, etc.,” rather than as a modifier of “us apostles.” It seems more natural to render the (accusative) subject of the propositon as “us last apostles,” and the predicate, “as sentenced to death...” I’d appreciate hearing from Ben and other Greek readers on this point.

It has to be predicate, right? The phrase is τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους. If it were attributive, it would be τοὺς ἐσχάτους ἀποστόλους, ἀποστόλους τοὺς ἐσχάτους, or τοὺς ἀποστόλους τοὺς ἐσχάτους. When the adjective falls outside the sequential article + noun construction, without an article of its own, it is in predicate position.

On another note, I have long read Apollos as being an apostle in 1 Corinthians, based mainly on that very verse you quote; but I am reconsidering as I digest what Ken has argued so far. Paul could be speaking of "us apostles" in the absolute sense, I think, without having to name any apostles in addition to himself beforehand, in the same way that a speech could begin, "We Americans," or the like, without having already necessarily named any Americans. I am not sure that is what is actually happening, but it seems like it could be. Maybe.

[Irish1975]

I see what you mean about the syntax. I suppose Paul is expressing a paradox similar to “the first shall be last.”

Paul could be speaking of "us apostles" in the absolute sense, I think, without having to name any apostles in addition to himself beforehand

It’s sometimes hard to know when Paul is moving on to a fresh discussion, or still on the same topic. But here he’s been talking a great deal about Apollos, right up to 4:6. I read 4:9 as a continuation of that.

[Ben C. Smith]

I see what you mean about the syntax. I suppose Paul is expressing a paradox similar to “the first shall be last.”

Paul could be speaking of "us apostles" in the absolute sense, I think, without having to name any apostles in addition to himself beforehand

It’s sometimes hard to know when Paul is moving on to a fresh discussion, or still on the same topic. But here he’s been talking a great deal about Apollos, right up to 4:6. I read 4:9 as a continuation of that.

Well, like I said, that has certainly been my understanding up to this point.