On the silence of 2century apologists

[Giuseppe]

I understand that Carrier concedes that the 2CE apologists are historicists to simplify his case and reduce it to the only essential items.

But why do you think that the apologists are historicists ?

Surely their Silence is less strong than Paul's in terms of utility in the case against the historical Jesus: who writes so late is no obliged to break the silence. (whereas I can't concede to BOTH Paul and Hebrews the right of being silent. )

Even so, their silence is shared by ALL them. Why?

[MrMacSon]

Even so, the 2nd century apologists silence [about a historical/man Jesus] is shared by all [of] them. Why?
.

Because the 2nd century apologists have no prior primary sources to work from.

Because most (if not all) of them are part of the formation of the narrative; part of the process of ''cumulative elaboration''

The 2nd century apologists are unlikely to be working from the gospels as we know them

• The passages in the NT books as we know them that are in texts by the likes of Justin Martyr, the Clement, etc are likely to be from those 2nd c. texts, or from common sources; rather than vice versa

The 2nd century apologists are laying the foundations to the forming the gospels and other texts

Surely the 2nd century apologists silence is less strong than Paul's in terms of utility in the case against the historical Jesus: who[ever] writes so late is not obliged to break the silence.

The 2nd century apologists silence is equal to Paul's in terms of utility in the case against the historical Jesus

They can't break the silence. They do not have the capacity or a 'work-around to.

(I don't know what your point about Hebrews is/was.)

[Giuseppe]

The 2nd century apologists silence is equal to Paul's in terms of utility in the case against the historical Jesus

I disagree strongly. Who is more close in timeline to the presumed event is more obliged to break the silence.

Hebrews and Pauline epistles were both before the 70 CE. Therefore their authors aren't justified to maintain a silence about the historical Jesus (IF Jesus existed). Apologists are justified.

[MrMacSon]

... Who is more close in timeline to the presumed event is more obliged to break the silence.

.. "the presumed event/s" may not have happened / probably did not happen. Therefore the silence would be / [is] absolute.

All the key texts are theological texts. History is a distant second in priority or genre.

[MrMacSon]

Hebrews and Pauline epistles were both before the 70 CE ..

How do you know that?

[Giuseppe]

Hebrews and Pauline epistles were both before the 70 CE ..

How do you know that?

Because, without a Paul and Hebrews before the 70 CE, no possibility of using a so powerful Argument From Silence against the Historical Jesus, and end of the games.

Note that even the wise DCH is moved to assume (to be historicist) that the Paul more victim of hallucinations about an exalted Jesus is a later editor of the epistle in comparison to a first Paul who - in the his view - talked in more ''human'' terms about Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

Hebrews and Pauline epistles were both before the 70 CE ..

How do you know that?

"Know" is a strong word, but you have seen the evidence rehearsed before: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3744&p=80120#p80120. The combination of (A) evidence implying that the author of the epistles (whether Paul himself or not) thought that Paul predated 70 and (B) passages attributed to Paul in which he expects an imminent parousia: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3744&p=80120#p80121, one in which he thinks he himself might participate, is not to be cast aside lightly. That is enough, in my book at least, to create a presumption that there is material in those epistles which predates 70, and I am currently (still) in the process of sorting out which material might have been added later. In order to remove this presumption for me, one would have to very carefully explain the motives of a forger who would put chronologically impossible predictions and hopes on Paul's lips. The advocates whom I have read for a date later than 70 have not done this to my satisfaction; not even close, really. Would you like to try your hand at it?

In addition to those indications, it is quite reasonable to suspect that 2 Thessalonians predates 70 (whether a genuine Pauline epistle or a forgery): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3460.

[Bernard Muller]

Surely their Silence is less strong than Paul's in terms of utility in the case against the historical Jesus: who writes so late is no obliged to break the silence. (whereas I can't concede to BOTH Paul and Hebrews the right of being silent. )

Paul & 'Hebrews' were not silent about the past earthly human Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
http://historical-jesus.info/40.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Hebrews and Pauline epistles were both before the 70 CE ..

How do you know that?

Because, without a Paul and Hebrews before the 70 CE, no possibility of using a so powerful [an] 'Argument From Silence' against the Historical Jesus, and end of the games.

Note that even the wise DCH is moved to assume ... a 'first Paul' who -in the his view- talked in more ''human'' terms about Jesus.

You're not articulating this very well: I know English is not your first language, but I'm referring to the 'logic' of your argument -

[edited -]
You're saying Paul and Hebrews have to have been genuinely written before 70 CE¹ so that selected passages in them are able to provide optimal evidence for a historical Jesus. You need to specify the passages and why you think each of those passages (or groups of them) support your argument.

1. You're also inferring they have to be proven to have been written before 70 CE to provide optimal evidence for a historical 20-30s CE Jesus.

The implication is that if Paul and Hebrews cannot be proven to have been genuinely written before 70 CE, historical Jesus did not exist

[Bernard Muller]

But why do you think that the apologists are historicists ?

Aristides, Quadratus, "Ignatius", Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were certainly 2nd century apologists, but also historicists.
Even the few preserved writings of Papias indicate he was also a historicist.

Cordially, Bernard