I have been stressing in all my contributions to this discussion that ancient thought is not a unity. Its diversity has been the central point I have been making so I think we can understand my reference to ancient thought here as encompassing a diversity.
I never knew we "have to" either. I don't know why you think I think we "have to" do that.
I apologize for my bad English. Maybe it has been worse than usual this time. I will try to do better now.
It is a fact that Paul uses some sentences that refer to the life of Jesus, that is to say, to his birth, lineage, family, death and resurrection and other ocasional mentions to some behaviours than usually are understood as typical of a human being living on earth. This passages of the epistles are obviously opposite to the main mythicist thesis.
I hope you would agree with this. Then I wouldn't be obliged to repeat the corresponding quotes.
The mythicist has to ways to answer to this objection.
(a) These passages are interpolations.
(b) These passages are allegories where any terrestrial reference must be translated to a spiritual (heavenly) meaning.
It is a methodological rule of hermeneutics and interpretation that both resources are acceptable only if you are able to prove that the usual reading is not admissible. If you have not any reason to give up on the most common reading you ought to maintain it. One of the most c compelling crtiterion to abandon the usual reading is the principle of no contradiction. (You have used it at least five times in the comment that I have mentioned above).
I hope that our agreement persists till now. I suppose our disagreements begin from now.
Many of the alleged interpolations in the Pauline epistles have as unique or main argument the non-contradiction principle. This is a logical principle widely used in the field of rational thinking... but this is not applicable to religions and myths. In the mythical thought it is possible to affirm A and not A together. The believer can successively affirm that Jesus Christ is the same and different of the Father, that all the Christians are Jesus' brothers and sons of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ was in his tomb and in Hell simultaneously, etc. These contradictions are reinforced by vagueness and ambiguity that are features of the so called mythic-poetical language.
The Philippians hymn, for example. In the believer language it is possible to affirm that Jesus Christ is equal and dependent of the Father, that he was divine from the beginning of time and exalted only after his death, etc. We usually tend to search for a unitary explanation, by dissolution of the ambiguity and vagueness of this language. It is our mistake. The contradiction is the core of the religious belief. This is the persuasive use of language.
Therefore, if we want argue in favour of an interpolation or a metaphorical-allegorical interpretation of a passage we should give strong reasons to do it.
Therefore I don’t see any strong reason to accept these interpolations and allegorical interpretations that mythicists propose. I don’t see any strong reason to change the usual meaning of the words “brother of the Lord”, “seed of David”, “born of a woman”, “crucifixion”, etc., in order to transform events of a human life in allegorical interpretations of heavenly entities, as mythicism, Gnosticism, docetism or other Christians sects propose only because these “tranformers” are consistent with their particular interpretations.
An example:
In your comment #399 ap. 3 you use the non-contradiction argument to discard Romans 1: 3 as a genuine Pauline text -this is to say, an interpolation- by means of two different comparisons. This verse would be an interpolation because it don’t fit the authentic Pauline thought and because they don’t fit other texts. Remember: Romans 1: 3: “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”
According to you this verse would be contradictory with the true Pauline doctrine as reflected in 2 Cor.5:16: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer”.
I confess that I don’t see any contradiction between those verses. 2 Corinthians doesn’t deny that Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David, but that a good understanding of him implies realizing his divine mission and his transcendence of “his earthly life”. In addition you say that Romans 1:3 “imputes great significance to the idea that Jesus was the Son of David”. This is not evident. This verse only places the existence of Jesus Christ in a particular context of the history. The relevance of this fact transcends the carnal significance, because it is a universal one, as it is pointed in the next verse (4): “…and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord”. Paul is claiming that the earthly life of Jesus doesn’t interest him (or doesn’t matter) no more, even this life on earth really had existed. What really matters is the power of the Christ that God concedes him, the resurrection specially.
Where is the contradiction?
I stop here, because the comment is excessively growing. Maybe I have explained better my idea and you have some interest to discussing it.
Thank you.
