For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[IanS]

No, I didn't agree to more than it being A poem. As I was saying, even in bible studies circles there isn't even a consensus that Paul didn't write it himself, although it's the majority opinion that he probably didn't. Hell, suspiciously they don't even all agree upon how it would be broken into lines as a poem. And no, there isn't really any evidence of it anywhere outside Paul's letters.

I'm just sidestepping that discussion, for the scope of discussing the really important part either way: so what? Paul still transmits it to his faithful either way as a lesson. Not only he doesn't disagree with it (and we know he goes on and on about how stuff is wrong when he disagrees,) but it's something he expects his flock to agree with and take to heart.

IF it was a "well known hymn" among the early Xian churches, it just makes it a stronger argument. Then it's not only something that Paul agrees with, but we actually have a creed that his followers agreed upon too.

OK, so just to be clear on this (because otherwise someone here will probably try to make mischief with any apparent disagreement between you and I on this point) - although you first replied to CraigB saying the following -

Craig, yes, it's a poem. BUT let's finally address the big fat elephant in the room: so what? What difference does it make?

- you did not actually mean to say you agreed with CraigB when he said that the passage in Phillipians is "well known" (CraigB's words) to be just a poem or hymn. But to the contrary you are now clarifying that to say (quote) "... even in bible studies circles there isn't even a consensus that Paul didn't write it himself, although it's the majority opinion that he probably didn't. Hell, suspiciously they don't even all agree upon how it would be broken into lines as a poem. And no, there isn't really any evidence of it anywhere outside Paul's letters." ...


OK separate point now - when I looked at the pages that CraigB linked to make his first dismissal of Phillipians 2: 5-11, where he said it was well known to be just a "hymn", all I could see from his link was what appears to be a Christian site trying deny the words of Phillipians 2: 5-11, by suggesting that people have written (who?) to speculate that (a) it might be a "hymn" or "poem" of some sort, and/or that (b) it might be a later copyists interpolation.

But what did not appear to be given in CraigB's link was any convincing argument or evidence to support any claim of it being summarily dismissed as merely (quote) a "well known" hymn or poem, or a later interpolation.

As far as I could see, what they appear to be doing in CraigB's link, is to simply trying to dream up some way of dismissing what many Christians might regard as a very uncomfortable passage in one of Paul's letters. I.e. "uncomfortable" for anyone who believed that Paul's letters are good evidence of a HJ.

It is in fact, of course, also very clear evidence of Paul himself implicitly denying the famous passage in Galatians 1-18:2-10 where it is said that Paul had met the actual brother of Jesus - "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother" - because if Phillipians is correct so that Paul did not believe Jesus was a human being, then of course he could not have ever meant that "James" was the actual family brother of Jesus.

Last point - my only interest in any of the threads here, HJ threads or any other threads, is only ever to see if we can between us all, arrive at some credible consensus of answers and explanations for things. I'm not interested in, and never trying to, "score points" or catch people out on whatever they may say.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ian, let's put it this way: I'm not God. I know, I know, it may come as a surprise to many, but I'm not God

And by that, I mean I don't need theologians to interpret if I actually mean "black" when I say "white"

When I say "yes, it's a poem."... I mean exactly that. If I had also meant to say "pre-existing" or "well known" or "hymn", I would have used one or more of those words.

Partially because I don't know any of that, but also because of scope. Odin knows I ramble and go roundabout a lot, but occasionally I try to stick to the point, and not go into irrelevant details. And the fact is that none of that matters for the question I was asking. The question being: so what? Regardless of whether it's pre-existing, or well known or a hymn, the fact remains that Paul quotes it in support of a message he's giving to his followers.

It's like when I quote Vince Ebert again about the scientific method. The fact remains that I obviously agree with his summary. One can't just go, "oh, that's not what Hans Mustermann believes, it's just a well known quote from someone else." So it is a quote, but the rest of the message makes it amply clear that I agree with it. In fact that I'm using it because I think it summarizes my point better than any wording I could come up with myself off the top of my head. One can't just remove it purely because it's a quote.

Same for Paul. Regardless of whether or not that poem is a hymn that his followers know all too well, or regardless of whether or not it's written by someone else, Paul uses that quote to give a message to his followers. If it's a hymn of his church only makes it even harder to dismiss, but regardless, no matter what it is, it can't be dismissed just because it's (possibly) a quote. And possibly a quote from himself at that. Or maybe not. But none of that offers a way around the actual question I was having.

That said, it MAY be an interpolation, but then again most of the text may or may not be a later interpolation. I'd like to see some actual lexical or style support for that idea, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody managed to make much of a case for that.

I'd also add that interpolations usually follow the views of the ones interpolating. People add stuff that makes a point they'd like the text to make -- see the endings (yes, plural) to Mark as an example -- not stuff that contradicts their point. IF we were to find a version of Paul's letters from a gnostic sect, it would make sense to look out for stuff making a more gnostic and less earthly point. But that's not the case. The copies we have are from the mainstream church. It's less likely that interpolations would add stuff that contradicts their doctrine.

Interpolations also generally try to fit in. Maybe they still end up sticking out like a sore thumb, like the TF for example, but I think they don't aim to stand out as a forgery. I think it's somewhat less likely that someone would add a poem in the middle of a prose letter, if they were adding stuff.

 

[dejudge]

It is clear that the Jesus in the letters under the name of Paul was a fiction character [the Lord from heaven, the last Adam, God Creator who resurrected on the third day].

In effect, everything about the Jesus character never ever happened.

The Pauline Fiction Jesus never had any disciples/apostles yet in the letters under the name of Paul it is claimed Paul was seen of the fiction Jesus after he was raised from the dead and that he met apostles of the same fabricated Lord from heaven [God Creator].

The letters under the name of Paul are not historical accounts of Jesus---they utter fiction.

Examine the non-historical writings attributed to Paul.


Romans 6:9

For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him

In the fiction called Epistles of Paul Jesus was the firstborn of the dead and was seen by hundreds of people at once after the resurrection.

The letters under the name of Paul must be non-contemporary fiction since it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been resurrected and seen alive with Paul or over 500 persons.

All the letters under the name of Paul were fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd century -3rd century and after at least "Antiquities of the Jews attributed to Josephus, Acts of the Apostles, the short gMark, "The Apology" attributed to Aristides, "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin, " and "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus 175-180 CE.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, at least some parts are later interpolation, that much is certain.

As for the 1 Corinthian 15:5-8 appearance, while it is likely an interpolation, it may not mean what some think it means anyway. The verb ὁράω also was VERY used in its metaphorical meaning of perceiving with the mind, rather than actually seeing with the eyes. Or in the sense of "to know" (similar to the English usage of see, as in, "I see what you did there" when someone does a pun.)

So here's a scenario: Peter is the first to have the coin drop that the messiah "prophecised" in phrases out of context in the OT had already come. Jesus "reveals himself" to Peter not in person, but in the scripture that Peter studies. Over time, he convinces 500 other people to join that sub-cult, to "know" in their mind that Jesus had already come and saved them. And his brother James is the last one to let himself be convinced. Which is presumably why Peter is an apostle. And presumably those 500 are all the believers that Peter managed to convert, by the time Paul has his own revelation.

This also fits another oddity: Paul tells us that he had his revelation, and didn't confirm it with anyone, but went straight into Arabia and preached about Jesus the messiah. Then he comes back, shacks up with Peter briefly, but Peter and the gang have nothing more to add to what Paul already knew. In fact, Paul feels qualified to lecture Peter later about how Xianity worked.

All that is strange if we're talking about a physical man, his best buddy and his biological brother. Surely they must know a LOT more about Jesus than Paul hallucinated about a Jesus he never actually met, AND about whom he learned from no human source at all. In fact, Paul would know pretty much nothing about Jesus, while they'd know everything. (Assuming that we don't believe in divine visions from Jesus telling Paul everything he needs to know.)

But it's not strange at all if Paul and Peter stumbled upon the same paragraphs in the OT to invent a heavenly Jesus that neither of them had actually met. In fact, it's possible that Paul, with a 3 years head start in preaching abroad and arguing about that messiah, not to mention being a lot more obsessive about it, had found more such pieces of the Jesus puzzle in the OT than Peter did. It's entirely possible that he actually IS the one qualified to teach a thing or two to Peter.

 

[Craig B]

Something I said appears to have been misunderstood. I did not intend it to be understood that the Kenosis Hymn is

merely (quote) a "well known" hymn or poem, or a later interpolation.

in the sense of previously well known, as if it was in an anthology or hymnary already published. I meant that it is well known to scholars who study Paul's works, to be a hymn or poetic work. Cos that's what it looks like. I have never stated it's a later (post-Pauline) interpolation, as far as I recall. A few people think that, but it's a minority view, though perhaps not an impossible one. I don't think the evidence is sufficient to justify that position however.

Last point - my only interest in any of the threads here, HJ threads or any other threads, is only ever to see if we can between us all, arrive at some credible consensus of answers and explanations for things. I'm not interested in, and never trying to, "score points" or catch people out on whatever they may say.

It's really very, very nice of you to say that. Who would have thought otherwise? But presumably you're entitled to any reason you like to contribute to these threads, as long as you don't infringe the rules; and you can score points till you're blue in the face if you want.

 

[Mcreal]

The Jesus character was no different to myth/fiction characters of the Greeks/Romans.

or the Egyptians, or the Assyrians.​

dejudge cited part of the Letter on the Council of Nicaea:

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Anathematize - transitive verb - to pronounce an anathema upon; to denounce, deplore, condem, or curse

'one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority'

'heretics anathematized by the church leaders'​

Let's look at the Letter on the Council of Nicaea more fully:

It was a 'Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese.'

It was "read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable"

It refers to both belief in "aforetimes" and "times past", but also to "from the time we 'recollect' ourselves" -

"we have held aforetime ... this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we 'recollect' ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching"​

4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:—

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.​

Sections/Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 discuss 'essence'. eg. -

5. ..they professed, that the phrase "of the essence" was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term "One in essence", peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.

6. In the same way we also admitted "begotten, not made"; since the Council alleged that "made" was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness ...

7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is "one in essence" with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because "one in essence with the Father" suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begot Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father ...

The latter sections appeal to the Emperor again, and anathematizing, and shows some circularity of justification -

8. ... according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the forementioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words 'not in Scripture', from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, "out of nothing", and "once He was not", and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.

9. Moreover to anathematize "Before His generation He was not", did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.

10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.

11. ... on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published.

There are a few contradictions there. Aspects read like establishing a new faith, while insinuating it as long-held, rather than warding off heretics.

 

[IanS]

Ian, let's put it this way: I'm not God. I know, I know, it may come as a surprise to many, but I'm not God

And by that, I mean I don't need theologians to interpret if I actually mean "black" when I say "white"

When I say "yes, it's a poem."... I mean exactly that. If I had also meant to say "pre-existing" or "well known" or "hymn", I would have used one or more of those words.

How do you know it IS a poem?

You are stating it as if there is no doubt that it certainly is a "poem", though you just said yourself that "even in bible studies circles .... suspiciously they don't even all agree upon how it would be broken into lines as a poem. And no, there isn't really any evidence of it anywhere outside Paul's letters.".

By saying "bible studies circles" I assume you mean people who study the bible, and that would surely include almost entirely Christians and bible scholars etc., as opposed to any substantial number of non-Christians who were not interested in the bible or religious faith. If those people (e.g. practising Christians and biblical scholars) cannot agree that the structure or form of the phrasing is clearly identifiable as what anyone should properly describe as a "poem", as if to mean some sort of poetic florid language that was not supposed to taken as literally a true statement of what the writers words actually say, then how is that you can know it is indeed a "poem"?

When that explanation is offered saying "it is a poem", which is the explanation being offered here as a claim to say that the words do not mean what they actually say, then that is a claim which is denying that the writer actually meant to say that which he very clearly does say (stressing it several times in that one passage). That is an attempt to introduce the concept of it being a "poem", in order to deny what the words of the passage say ... as if to say "oh well, it's just a poem, so we do not have to take it's words literally, so it was not really what the writer meant to write".

It sounds to me as if that whole argument that says it's a poem, is an attempt to hand-wave the passage away, simply by introducing the word "poem". That is - if we call it a poem, then we can claim that it can be safely ignored. But I don't think that sounds like an honest argument or defence against the words of that passage at all. And certainly not if it is not actually a "poem" that was known from before Paul's time.


On a separate point which someone else commented upon - when I stressed earlier that any such defence of saying that the claimed "poem" must surely be a claim to say that it was actually known to be something that did not originate in that letter with Paul, but actually something which came from some earlier writer who Paul was simply quoting or paraphrasing or whatever, what I am saying is that - it cannot be a defence to say that passage is a poem, if the passage originated with "Paul" in that letter.

Because in that case, if "Paul" is the author of that passage, then those are his own words describing what he himself says about Jesus (and what he also says, other people must accept as the truth about Jesus) ...

... it would be a different matter if "Paul" was just quoting a well known poem from some other earlier writer of their time ... if he were just doing that, then we might conclude that the actual words were not originally "Paul's" words anyway.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Bible studies is a very specific academic discipline. Basically it's like history, but ignores most of the modern historical method. See, Ehrman. They do some good work at tracking textual variations between manuscripts, style analysis and such. And yes, most are religious folks, but there is the odd atheist in it here and there.

As for the rest, I don't rightly understand what you want from me. I've already said that it having a rhythm doesn't remove the fact that Paul writes it to his followers as a lesson to take to heart. Or that if it were a hymn, then that actually makes it even harder to dismiss, since religious hymns reflect church beliefs and are used to reinforce such beliefs. So, no, I don't think it can be handwaved away.

How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in that no, I'm not saying it can be handwaved away?

Also, no, I'm not saying that it's some metaphorical flowery language. Paul doesn't DO pointless metaphoric poetry. EVERYTHING he writes is arguing or conveying some point or another. Which is amply clear in Philippians too, if one reads the rest of the page, as opposed to just googling for some apology site. Which is really what leads me to my "so what if it's a poem?" question. It's not some random inclusion, but an integral part of the message that Paul is giving to his flock.

And unsurprising, because paper was very expensive at the time. IIRC (but I could be wrong) a single page was something like 100$ in modern purchasing power. They didn't DO the Tolkien thing of filling a page with just some Hobbit song that bears zero relevance to anything before or after it. Even epic poems aren't anywhere near as roundabout and flowery as modern paperback novels, and letters even less so.

I would also add, to further that point, that Paul's epistles are not just letters. Simple letters tended to be far less long and wordy. The epistle format was actually very popular at the time, as a way to basically write what we'd nowadays call a paper on a topic. Except nowadays you'd call a paper something like "A Study Of Ethical Frameworks And Their Importance In Sub-Culture Communities", while back then you'd call it the epistle of Eugnostos to someone or another or to nobody in particular. And then actually proceed to discuss some philosophy or doctrine issues and try to support a point (even if occasionally by sophistry rather than logic), rather than asking how are the kids and how was the vacation in Damascus.

Paul's epistles are somewhere in between. He addresses various concerns and incidents, but expands on them and makes a whole paper out of it. He's giving a message. Occasionally he gives New Rules like an ancient Bill Maher And so on. He's not just writing some cutesy

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Jesus has raised
And so will you! ​

poetry on a postcard. He's actually trying to make a point.

 

[IanS]

Bible studies is a very specific academic discipline. Basically it's like history, but ignores most of the modern historical method. See, Ehrman. They do some good work at tracking textual variations between manuscripts, style analysis and such. And yes, most are religious folks, but there is the odd atheist in it here and there.

As for the rest, I don't rightly understand what you want from me. I've already said that it having a rhythm doesn't remove the fact that Paul writes it to his followers as a lesson to take to heart. Or that if it were a hymn, then that actually makes it even harder to dismiss, since religious hymns reflect church beliefs and are used to reinforce such beliefs. So, no, I don't think it can be handwaved away.

How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in that no, I'm not saying it can be handwaved away?

Also, no, I'm not saying that it's some metaphorical flowery language. Paul doesn't DO pointless metaphoric poetry. EVERYTHING he writes is arguing or conveying some point or another. Which is amply clear in Philippians too, if one reads the rest of the page, as opposed to just googling for some apology site. Which is really what leads me to my "so what if it's a poem?" question. It's not some random inclusion, but an integral part of the message that Paul is giving to his flock.

And unsurprising, because paper was very expensive at the time. IIRC (but I could be wrong) a single page was something like 100$ in modern purchasing power. They didn't DO the Tolkien thing of filling a page with just some Hobbit song that bears zero relevance to anything before or after it. Even epic poems aren't anywhere near as roundabout and flowery as modern paperback novels, and letters even less so.

I would also add, to further that point, that Paul's epistles are not just letters. Simple letters tended to be far less long and wordy. The epistle format was actually very popular at the time, as a way to basically write what we'd nowadays call a paper on a topic. Except nowadays you'd call a paper something like "A Study Of Ethical Frameworks And Their Importance In Sub-Culture Communities", while back then you'd call it the epistle of Eugnostos to someone or another or to nobody in particular. And then actually proceed to discuss some philosophy or doctrine issues and try to support a point (even if occasionally by sophistry rather than logic), rather than asking how are the kids and how was the vacation in Damascus.

Paul's epistles are somewhere in between. He addresses various concerns and incidents, but expands on them and makes a whole paper out of it. He's giving a message. Occasionally he gives New Rules like an ancient Bill Maher And so on. He's not just writing some cutesy

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Jesus has raised
And so will you! ​

poetry on a postcard. He's actually trying to make a point.

OK... ok, I hear you . And I apologise if I seem to be pressing this issue unnecessarily in the last 2 or 3 replies . But I do want everyone here to be clear that we cannot just say that the passage definitely is a poem, as if that were known as a matter of certainty. Because it's clearly not a certainty at all.

I'm just trying to make sure the force of that passage in Phillipians is not diminished by anyone thinking or saying that if it is merely a "poem" or hymn, then we need not take the words of that passage too seriously or too literally. Because any conclusion or dismissal like that would be a serious mistake (or more likely it would be an attempt at a hand-waving excuse).

It might be a different matter if that passage was known to have been written as a poem or hymn long before the time of Paul, such that Paul was just quoting it to his readers for some reason. In that case it might just about be possible to claim that perhaps Paul did not really believe what the words said (although in that case why would he have ever included it and stated in that very clear way? ... even telling the faithful that it's what they should believe as the truth about Jesus?).

But afaik, that is not the case? Afaik, it's not claimed to be known as a poem written by someone else before Paul's time. It's not claimed that Paul was merely quoting someone else's words?

If in fact it is agreed, or even grudgingly accepted by Christians (or anyone else, e.g. bible scholars), that the words are clearly those of "Paul" himself, then it actually makes no difference whether it's a "poem" or not (which is something I believe I pointed out many pages back).

So as far as I can tell from that particular passage, that does actually look like a "dead stop" for the HJ arguments here which have been claiming (in all these many HJ threads) that Paul's letters show that Paul believed Jesus to be a human being and that he had an actual family brother named "James". And that, if correct, would be a rather important (not to say absolutely "killer") point right through the very heart of the HJ argument ... namely - if in that passage Paul does say that Jesus was in fact not a human man, then that is an end to any more claims that Paul's letters support the case for a HJ.

As I said before, there may be some way around that passage and that conclusion (i.e. concluding a non-human Jesus), but certainly not by anyone merely saying that the passage appears to be in the form of a poem or hymn.

 

[Craig B]

So, no, I don't think it can be handwaved away.

How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in that no, I'm not saying it can be handwaved away?

More times! You need to say it more times!

Because any conclusion or dismissal like that would be serious mistake (or more likely it would be an attempt at a hand-waving excuse).

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

OK... ok, I hear you . And I apologise if I seem to be pressing this issue unnecessarily in the last 2 or 3 replies . But I do want everyone here to be clear that we cannot just say that the passage definitely is a poem, as if that were known as a matter of certainty. Because it's clearly not a certainty at all.

Well, until we can invent a time machine, very few things are certain, and even more so in a field where we have exactly zero external confirmation of anything. Where's the Flash when you need him, eh? He can go back in time

That's why Carrier proposes the whole Bayesian thing, so we can at least have a less shaky basis when we say that something is probably so.

That said, it's kinda like that "Roses are red..." thing I came up with in the last message. Even if you write it on a single line, it still kinda looks like a poem. Short sentences, compared to my usual roundabout style, about the same size, etc. Might well be a poem.

But, of course, that just illustrates the other caveat. Just because it's a poem in the middle of that message, doesn't mean I quoted it from somewhere else. And it most certainly wasn't well known to anyone before I wrote it

 

[Craig B]

That's why Carrier proposes the whole Bayesian thing, so we can at least have a less shaky basis when we say that something is probably so.

That's a good point. Why don't you apply the Bayesian thing to the possible poem à la Carrier? And them we can more accurately, or less shakily, assess the probability that these verses of Philippians are a poem, or not.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Because my point was all along that it makes no difference either way. So I'm not going to waste much effort on something that's completely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[IanS]

Well, until we can invent a time machine, very few things are certain, and even more so in a field where we have exactly zero external confirmation of anything. Where's the Flash when you need him, eh? He can go back in time

That's why Carrier proposes the whole Bayesian thing, so we can at least have a less shaky basis when we say that something is probably so.

That said, it's kinda like that "Roses are red..." thing I came up with in the last message. Even if you write it on a single line, it still kinda looks like a poem. Short sentences, compared to my usual roundabout style, about the same size, etc. Might well be a poem.

But, of course, that just illustrates the other caveat. Just because it's a poem in the middle of that message, doesn't mean I quoted it from somewhere else. And it most certainly wasn't well known to anyone before I wrote it

Ha ha (smiles), yep, OK .

 

[Craig B]

Because my point was all along that it makes no difference either way. So I'm not going to waste much effort on something that's completely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

No, don't do that if you don't want to, but you previously wrote

Well, until we can invent a time machine, very few things are certain, and even more so in a field where we have exactly zero external confirmation of anything. Where's the Flash when you need him, eh? He can go back in time

That's why Carrier proposes the whole Bayesian thing, so we can at least have a less shaky basis when we say that something is probably so.​

So I thought it might be an interesting exercise. Personally I'm not sure that the question is entirely irrelevant, but I will say that it's not completely conclusive, although the issue is certainly worth noting.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, for me it is irrelevant, which makes it not worth the effort, but as always I'm open to the arguments to the contrary.

In the meantime, I'm ok with it being a poem. And I'm ok with it not being a poem, if you want to go the not-poem route. Hell, it might get Ian off my case, if nothing else Paul still includes it in a point he's making to his flock either way.

What would be more relevant is whether or not it's a later interpolation, but that's orthogonal to its being a poem or not.

 

[IanS]

Well, for me it is irrelevant, but as always I'm open to the arguments to the contrary.

In the meantime, I'm ok with it being a poem. And I'm ok with it not being a poem, if you want to go the not-poem route. Hell, it might get Ian off my case, if nothing else Paul still includes it in a point he's making to his flock either way.

What would be more relevant is whether or not it's a later interpolation, but that's orthogonal to its being a poem or not.

I am off your case

 

[Craig B]

Well, for me it is irrelevant, which makes it not worth the effort, but as always I'm open to the arguments to the contrary.

In the meantime, I'm ok with it being a poem. And I'm ok with it not being a poem, if you want to go the not-poem route. Hell, it might get Ian off my case, if nothing else Paul still includes it in a point he's making to his flock either way.

What would be more relevant is whether or not it's a later interpolation, but that's orthogonal to its being a poem or not.

Later interpolation is very much a minority view. I don't know what evidence, if any, there is for that.

 

[David Mo]

Good morning to everybody:
I am travelling and I will be synthetic.

IanS has said that the hymn of Philippians is a drastic argument against the existence of Jesus the Galilean. I don’t think so, but the exact opposite. IanS is in a conceptual mistake. I have said some comments ago that the point is not the nature of Jesus Christ according Paul (a difficult subject even inside Philippians) but if the hymn supports the existence of a certain Jesus on the earth, being of human nature or only in appearance a secondary question.
Remember: “he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (2, 7).
The claim that Jesus was a man only in appearance is a classical docetist thesis. But docetists don’t deny Jesus’ life on earth. They believe in the real existence of Jesus as an appearance of the divine Jesus. This is to say what is called “the historical Jesus”. Docetism is a form of euhemerism where the attribution of divinity to a historical character doesn’t deny his deeds. Therefore, the consideration of Alexander as a god doesn’t deny that he conquered Egypt, but only that his human appearance hidden his divine nature.
It is true that Paul doesn’t seem interested in the events of Jesus’ life, except in the birth, the death and the resurrection. But this is another subject.
Conclusion: the Philippians hymn implies Paul’s belief in a human (like ?) Jesus Christ.

Another thing: all the interpretations of the Pauline epistles are based on the assumption that they express a coherent doctrine. This is true for believers’ and mythicists’ interpretations. They widely use the criterion of contradiction to remove the passages that contradict their respective model or consider them as allegorical ones. Big mistake. The religious thought is not ever coherent. Even in Plato or other ancient philosophers we can find some contradictions; even important contradictions that are usually considered as an “evolution” of his thought. This is not evident neither in Plato nor still less in Paul. The “interpolation wars” between different interpretative models are based on an anachronistic assumption that empowers one and all to perform the selective readings of some texts that are clear by themselves on the unique basis that it disturbs their interpretative models.
Therefore, the reading becomes more rationalized but not more rational.
I hope to be operational soon.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, as I keep saying, at least the Doherty and Carrier version of MJ doesn't say that Jesus was immaterial or not in the shape of a dude, or anything. It just wasn't on Earth. Kinda like the Moon landing being on the Moon doesn't mean that Armstrong was anything but human and all.

Which brings me to another point: no I'm not really in the camp of that MJ flavour and all, so I'm not going to tell anyone that they need to agree with Carrier. Obviously. But it would certainly be more useful if people at least knew what they're disagreeing with. Just saying.