Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

[Secret Alias]

Perhaps Marcion did not gut a canon. Perhaps the Church 'Fathers' are lying to re-write history.

But note the way I framed the discussion. It isn't about who was first or second for the moment. The important point is just to acknowledge there is controversy and thus certainty shouldn't be allowed. You can't push either the orthodox or the Marcionites to the side. Let's just acknowledge that the writings are controversial and split the difference. You can't be 'certain' using disputed material.

[MrMacSon]

Perhaps Marcion did not gut a canon. Perhaps the Church 'Fathers' are lying to re-write history.

But note the way I framed the discussion. It isn't about who was first or second for the moment. The important point is just to acknowledge there is controversy and thus certainty shouldn't be allowed. You can't push either the orthodox or the Marcionites to the side. Let's just acknowledge that the writings are controversial and split the difference. You can't be 'certain' using disputed material.

I agree the writings are controversial, and I wasn't seeking to address (or ignite or re-ignite) a 'who was first or second' debate.

I was just making the point that the portrayal of Marcion as a heretic, or a modifier of a pre-existing texts or canon, may be the Patristics seeking to re-write history.


Previously,

... The Church Fathers both tell us Marcion gutted that canon (so there were huge differences) and then proceed to deny us adequate information to ascertain what the Marcionite canon looked like ...
.

[Secret Alias]

Ok. Yet I think it important to stress again - it is unreasonable to have certainty about the historicity of Jesus. The evidence isn't that good.

[Giuseppe]

But if Paul existed, and he wrote the epistles, then the silence of Paul + other authors about the historical Jesus is for me conclusive evidence of mythicism.

I've been thinking about making a thread on this topic, but I'll ask it here: Which epistles in the NT (so not counting the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles) discuss the historical Jesus in the way that you'd expect Paul to have done? And if there are none, how would that affect what we'd expect to see in Paul?

I don't understand how other epistles (for example, Hebrews) in the NT talk or ''discuss'' about the historical Jesus. I was alluding only to the fact that the 200 silent passages (documented by Earl Doherty) where Paul (and Hebrews) would have to discuss about the historical Jesus but he didn't is sufficient evidence against the historical Jesus.

Sure, I can understand that approach. But, as I argued often with Doherty and others who emphasized the silence in Paul, it is ignoring what we see in the wider literature. If you see the same kind of silence throughout early literature, then that needs to be taken into account.

When Graham Stanton looked at GA Wells' use of the silence in Paul to build his case, Stanton basically shrugged and said "So what?" He noted that precise historical and chronological references are few and far between also in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran. [Stanton, G; "The Gospels and Jesus", Second Edition, Oxford Bible Series, 2002, page 144]

Doherty himself notes in his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" that there is a strange silence in the Second Century apologists writing to pagans on the historical Jesus that can be compared to the First Century epistle writers:

As one can see by this survey, if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 485)

Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 477)

For Doherty, the reason for the similarity is simple: both groups didn't have a historical Jesus at their core. But if we conclude the Second Century writers did have a historical Jesus in sight, how would that set the expectations for what we see in the First Century epistle writers? I'm not saying that both groups had the same reasons for writing the way they did; only that when you look at the wider literature, Paul's silence doesn't appear to be so unique.

Having read early Christian literature multiple times (in English translation), I don't see Paul's silence as unique. I can't explain it, as I can't explain why they left out precise historical and chronological references (not just on a historical Jesus, but on so much more) in so much of the early literature. But I don't see that as trumping what Paul DOES write regarding Jesus as coming from the Jews, being the seed of David, etc.

The silence of the Second Century epistle writers can be fully justified by the pure and simple fact of their writing in Second Century.

But the silence of the First Century epistle writers can't have the same type of justification.

The silence of Paul and Hebrews is unique because it is First Century silence. A Christian silence of the First Century. To ignore that silence means simply to read these texts as if they were written in Second Century. This is the precise point ignored by GDon.


In answer to Secret Alias, what he escapes is that any possible configuration of pauline words derived from the our existing pauline texts allows us already at least a solid and firm conclusion about Paul, so well described by a mythicist:

It is the general tenor of these scriptures that must decide, and as to this there cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the unbiassed. This general tenor gives great dogmatic value to the Death of Jesus as a God, but does not recognise at all the Life of Jesus as a Man. The very few exceptions are trivial, and only apparent ; but even if they were not trivial, and not merely apparent, it would still not matter—they could not weigh against the utterly unequivocal general tenor. Many more important isolated statements may have been, and confessedly have actually been, interpolated into the text, no one knows when or how, but the general tenor is unmistakable and determinative. The general tenor cannot have been interpolated or corrupted.

(W. B. Smith, Ecce Deus, p. 23, cursive original)

Said in other terms, if the corruptors and falsifiers have left that general tenor alluded by the mythicist above, then it is already evidence that they agreed with their lost enemies at least about the general tenor. And therefore

The general tenor cannot have been interpolated or corrupted

It is that general tenor that makes impossible the historical Jesus in Paul. It is that general tenor ''trumping what Paul DOES write regarding Jesus as coming from the Jews, being the seed of David, etc.''

[GakuseiDon]

The silence of the Second Century epistle writers can be fully justified by the pure and simple fact of their writing in Second Century.

I don't know how it can be fully justified. Can you give a brief summary, or point me to where it has been fully justified?

But the silence of the First Century epistle writers can't have the same type of justification.

The silence of Paul and Hebrews is unique because it is First Century silence. A Christian silence of the First Century. To ignore that silence means simply to read these texts as if they were written in Second Century. This is the precise point ignored by GDon.

No, I've already stated that the reasons for the silence between the two groups might be different. But the silence is unexpected in both. See my quotes from Doherty above on this.

And it isn't just details of a historical Jesus that is missing. There are few historical or chronological markers in most early texts about anything. One mythicist dates the epistle of Barnabas to 500 BCE, partly because it doesn't mention the Roman Empire. His argument is that surely the author would have mentioned the Roman Empire if he wrote around 100 CE!

[GakuseiDon]

Gday all,

This completely depends upon a certain degree of textual integrity in the Pauline corpus, right?

Yes. That is, that the seven epistles usually attributed to Paul were written by that one person.

That is far from certain.
Considering the corrupt nature of the texts, the contradictions, the many spurious letters, the silence about them in various early writers, and the dishonest and dubious documentary practices of the time.

Paul could conceivably be no more historical than the Son Of God he (allegedly) preaches.

It's starting to look like a house of cards - or turtles all the way down.

That's a fair point. All that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm reliant on the conclusions of experts in this case, i.e. that there was a Paul, and that he wrote those seven letters, minus interpolations and text changes that are generally accepted. Could the experts be wrong? Of course! Any strong case saying otherwise should be evaluated, and it may take the current generation of scholars to die off before that is done.

But for now, based on what has been concluded concerning the earliest texts, to answer the question in the OP: there are good reasons to conclude that there almost certainly was a historical Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

The silence of the Second Century epistle writers can be fully justified by the pure and simple fact of their writing in Second Century.

I don't know how it can be fully justified. Can you give a brief summary, or point me to where it has been addressed?

I can explain it now in the more simple way:

The only natural explanation of the fact that the Second Century epistle writers are silent about the historical Jesus, even if they are historicists, is that Jesus was seen by them as by no means a near contemporary of themselves, but a figure belonging to the early first century CE. The silence by these writers on the earthly figure of Jesus has a very simple explanation: they were convinced that the figure who had appeared to Paul in his visions was a teacher and prophet who had lived and died long since, under Pilate.

Clearly Paul's silence about the historical Jesus cannot have the same justification: Paul was a contemporary of the presumed historical Jesus..

No, I've already stated that the reasons for the silence between the two groups might be different. But the silence is unexpected in both.

In red your error. The silence is unexpected only in Paul and Hebrews, not in the Second Century epistle writers. For the reason given above in this same post.

And it isn't just details of a historical Jesus that is missing. There are few historical or chronological markers in most early texts about anything.

According to the mythicist Prof Price, Marcion (Second Century) was historicist, even if he was unaware of the Gospels. And what could Marcion give you about the historical Jesus?

All he [Marcion] would have gleaned from Simonianism was the belief that someone had seemingly undergone crucifixion among the Jews.

(Robert Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 125, my bold)

One mythicist dates the epistle of Barnabas to 500 BCE, partly because it doesn't mention the Roman Empire. His argument is that surely the author would have mentioned the Roman Empire if he wrote around 100 CE!

These mythicists are false mythicists, obviously, and you know it. A true mythicist is one who has real right to doubt.

[Kapyong]

Heya GakuseiDon

That's a fair point. All that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm reliant on the conclusions of experts in this case, i.e. that there was a Paul, and that he wrote those seven letters, minus interpolations and text changes that are generally accepted. Could the experts be wrong? Of course! Any strong case saying otherwise should be evaluated, and it may take the current generation of scholars to die off before that is done.

Indeed.
I found myself with an un-tested assumption that there really was a single Paul as the genuine 1st C. author of (most of) the Big Seven.

I suspect others may have made the same assumption, helped along by the enormous weight of tradition. The idea that even Paul could be artificial is just too shocking to contemplate.

But for now, based on what has been concluded concerning the earliest texts, to answer the question in the OP: there are good reasons to conclude that there almost certainly was a historical Jesus.

Almost certainly ?
I think that is too firm a conclusion considering the shifty evidence.

And Bernard's certainty or hyposcepticism epitomises Secret Alias's point - it's over the top.

At best Jesus is a 'maybe'.

Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

I'm reliant on the conclusions of experts in this case, i.e. that there was a Paul, and that he wrote those seven letters . . .

Who are some of these "experts"?

On what arguments/evidence do those "experts" base their "conclusion" that there "was a Paul" and how do they define or identify that "Paul"; and on what arguments/evidence to those experts "conclude" that he wrote "those seven letters"?

[GakuseiDon]

No, I've already stated that the reasons for the silence between the two groups might be different. But the silence is unexpected in both.

In red your error. The silence is unexpected only in Paul and Hebrews, not in the Second Century epistle writers. For the reason given above in this same post.

Then I go back to my earlier question: Which of the epistles in the NT contain the references to a historical Jesus that you would expect to find in Paul, if there had been a historical Jesus? And if there are none in the non-Pauline epistles, how does set our expectation about what we see in Paul?

Here are the 21 epistles found in the NT: (Ones in blue are ascribed to Paul, with asterisks indicating those thought to not be by Paul)

Epistle to the Romans
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians*
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians*
First Epistle to the Thessalonians
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians*
First Epistle to Timothy*
Second Epistle to Timothy*
Epistle to Titus*
Epistle to Philemon
Hebrews*

Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Epistle of Jude

I can start adding other early texts if you like, for example the Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, Didache. At some point we click over to the Second Century CE, at which stage according to your reasoning we wouldn't expect to see details about the historical Jesus being mentioned.

But the question remains the same: which epistles contain the references to the historical Jesus that you'd expect to see in Paul if there had been a historical Jesus? If the silence is widespread, how can we say that the lack of references in Paul is unusual?