What You Do To Peter You Must Do To Paul: the forgery question

[Peter Kirby]

Just thought I'd poke my head in here. While I acknowledge what Earl Doherty has done in his way to contribute to the discussion, I do not consider it the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis. My present opinion is that the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis would put the epistles of Paul after 70 AD and concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them.

[spin]

My present opinion is that the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis would put the epistles of Paul after 70 AD and concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation. Paul's epistles don't provide any evidence for historicity, unless you're willing to concede that other people's beliefs, such as those regarding a human Hercules, is evidence for the historicity of the figures behind those beliefs.

[Peter Kirby]

My present opinion is that the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis would put the epistles of Paul after 70 AD and concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation. Paul's epistles don't provide any evidence for historicity, unless you're willing to concede that other people's beliefs, such as those regarding a human Hercules, is evidence for the historicity of the figures behind those beliefs.

That's a fairly horrid strawman.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation.

You could just ask.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation.

After 70 AD is an alternative to before 70 AD, but that should not prejudice us against a "change of date."

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation.

It's part of a possible timeline where these letters were written after the Gospel story had been published.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation.

That's because I had not given anything by way of explanation. I just wanted to let Bernard know that I am not one of the "mythicists" who have been arguing that there was no human Jesus Christ in the letters of Paul, since that was Bernard's way of launching into me.

[spin]

My present opinion is that the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis would put the epistles of Paul after 70 AD and concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them.

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation. Paul's epistles don't provide any evidence for historicity, unless you're willing to concede that other people's beliefs, such as those regarding a human Hercules, is evidence for the historicity of the figures behind those beliefs.

That's a fairly horrid strawman.

Only if you force it to be, Peter. It seems to me that the notion behind your statement has the appearance of a reification of the characteristics of a figure of belief. One could just as easily reify some other figure of belief and achieve the same end. While Jesus may have been real, the characteristics of the theological figure in Pauline writings are no way to get to such a real figure.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation. Paul's epistles don't provide any evidence for historicity, unless you're willing to concede that other people's beliefs, such as those regarding a human Hercules, is evidence for the historicity of the figures behind those beliefs.

That's a fairly horrid strawman.

Only if you force it to be, Peter. It seems to me that the notion behind your statement has the appearance of a reification of the characteristics of a figure of belief. One could just as easily reify some other figure of belief and achieve the same end. While Jesus may have been real, the characteristics of the theological figure in Pauline writings are no way to get to such a real figure.

I don't see how we have a conversation when you insist on attributing arguments to me that I have not made.

[spin]

I don't see what the change of date does in this equation. Paul's epistles don't provide any evidence for historicity, unless you're willing to concede that other people's beliefs, such as those regarding a human Hercules, is evidence for the historicity of the figures behind those beliefs.

That's a fairly horrid strawman.

Only if you force it to be, Peter. It seems to me that the notion behind your statement has the appearance of a reification of the characteristics of a figure of belief. One could just as easily reify some other figure of belief and achieve the same end. While Jesus may have been real, the characteristics of the theological figure in Pauline writings are no way to get to such a real figure.

I don't see how we have a conversation when you insist on attributing arguments to me that I have not made.

You could be right. I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say, "concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them", or, as I said, how post-dating the Pauline corpus after 70 changes the non-historically relevant nature of Paul's information about Jesus. I'm only trying to understand what you're saying.

[Peter Kirby]

When I say that, I mean that I'm not the person Bernard I assumed that I was, a faithful Doherty-following mythicist.

When I say that my opinion is that post 70 AD is a better hypothesis, it isn't because I see that changing "the non-historically relevant nature of Paul's information about Jesus." No. It has to do with explaining the source of this "information" as derivative of a literary product, the story of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospel of Mark.

But that's okay; it really was just a terse throwaway comment to let Bernard Muller know how to craft polemics for me a bit more properly.

[spin]

[Bernard Muller]

When I say that, I mean that I'm not the person Bernard I assumed that I was, a faithful Doherty-following mythicist.

Shock! When and where did I assume that?

When I say that my opinion is that post 70 AD is a better hypothesis, it isn't because I see that changing "the non-historically relevant nature of Paul's information about Jesus." No. It has to do with explaining the source of this "information" as derivative of a literary product, the story of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospel of Mark.

If you choose that option, you would have to go with a fabricated Paul or interpolations of his epistles when he declares his intention to go to Jerusalem, or make collections for the church of Jerusalem (after 70, there was no Jerusalem to go to).

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

When I say that, I mean that I'm not the person Bernard I assumed that I was, a faithful Doherty-following mythicist.

Shock! When and where did I assume that?

“In Paul’s epistles & ‘Hebrews’, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham (Galatians l3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), Jesse (Romans 15:12) & David (Ro1:3) and also requiring a woman in order to “come” as a Jew (Galatians 4:4). “The one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) “humbled himself” (Philippians 2:8) in a world of “flesh & blood”, as one of them (Hebrews 2:14a,17a), among sinners, some opposing him (Hebrews 12:3). There he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses talking about salvation (Hebrews 2:3). This Jesus, at some time in the past a minister to the Jews (Romans 15:8) and an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), had a brother called James (Galatians 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Galatians 1:19,2:9) and Josephus knew about (Ant. 20).
Let’s add to that Jesus was poor (2 Corinthians 8:9) and was crucified. What is the best location for that: earth or that celestial place below the moon?
Furthermore, Jesus is described as heard speaking about salvation (Hebrews 3:1, 2:3) and had brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19). Paul also mentioned Jesus was handed down at night (1 Corinthians 11:23) prior to the crucifixion, alluding it took place in “Zion” (Romans 9:31-33, 15:26-27).

Of course, on all these points, you and other mythicists have come up with arguments against a natural reading.
But let me say those arguments are very indirect, remote, weak, greatly biased, far-fetched and rather silly.
Anyway, they can only raise some doubts or propose possibilities against a historicist understanding but that’s about it.

- See: http://peterkirby.com/my-story.html

When I say that my opinion is that post 70 AD is a better hypothesis, it isn't because I see that changing "the non-historically relevant nature of Paul's information about Jesus." No. It has to do with explaining the source of this "information" as derivative of a literary product, the story of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospel of Mark.

If you choose that option, you would have to go with a fabricated Paul or interpolations of his epistles when he declares his intention to go to Jerusalem, or make collections for the church of Jerusalem (after 70, there was no Jerusalem to go to).

(1) Sure, it might be a fabricated Paul. I don't know.

(2) We'll need to investigate your claim. My own understanding is that the city continued to be occupied by Jews until the end of the "third Roman Jewish conflict," i.e., the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s AD. The Temple was destroyed after the first Jewish revolt in the 60s AD, but the city continued to be inhabited after that. (Not looking up a citation just now; just mentioning that we need to clarify the issue.)