Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:05 pm ...but with regards to Paul, the answer can only be "yes, one entity" as far as I can see.

• Yes, one entity, his Lord IS XS index's to the second and/or third-god of Platonism_2.0, i.e. middle-platonism.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:54 pmYou're not speculating. Your claim was that you had determined the best explanation for some observations - the observations that you're trying to explain are the evidence. At this point, you're defining your hypothesis. "Some guy who really lived" doesn't explain anything. You needed something more specific. Which guy who really lived?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:39 pm "Some guy who really lived"...

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:36 pm Let me ask you two questions:
(1) If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels: how likely is it that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus?

• I don't know

• The Gospel Jesus (minus the miracles and supernatural events) could be accounts of a historical Jesus

• The issue, for me, at least, are that the Gospel accounts are widely thought
  • not to be accounts of people who were contemporaneous with Jesus (hereafter 'contemporaneous people');
  • nor are they likely to be accounts of people who knew 'contemporaneous people'; or
  • if the Gospel authors knew 'contemporaneous people', they either
    1. don't refer to them; or
    2. don't refer to their accounts of Jesus (the latter is the same for Paul wrt Peter, James and John)

• And then there are:
  • Mark very likely to be a narrative in large part based on Paul and, in turn,
    • Paul being based on the LXX;
  • the issue of the relative chronology of at least one of the synoptic gospels and the Marcionite Evangelion;
  • other issues

1. viewtopic.php?p=150723#p150723
2. viewtopic.php?p=150792#p150792
3. viewtopic.php?p=150794#p150794
4. viewtopic.php?p=150799#p150799
5. viewtopic.php?p=150834#p150834

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:36 pm
And if your answer is: If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels:

• it's not at all likely that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus

Then my next question is:

(2) If that historical Jesus wasn't like the Gospel Jesus, what is the impact on 'the historicity of...Jesus' on NOT finding Gospel details about...Jesus in the letters of Paul?
.

• Well, I guess the question is moot, though I will say:
  • one would expect to find Gospel-like details in the letters of Paul if the NT Jesus was historical

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:37 pm

• one would expect to find Gospel-like details in the letters of Paul if the NT Jesus was historical

(1-2) Since I count Paul’s letters as evidence for historicity in OHJ (on the upper end of my margin of error; I only count them against on the lower margin), losing them would actually reduce the probability of historicity. It would leave us with the prior, established in chapter 6.
[...]

(3) If Paul lied about a historical Jesus in his letters, having no evidence he lied we’d have to conclude Jesus probably existed. We’d be wrong. But we would have no way of knowing that. This is true for literally every fact in history. That’s why all propositions about factual matters can only be stated as a probability. The converse probability thus accounts for the possibility we’re wrong. All we can do is assess how probable something is given what we know. I explain all of this in Proving History. I recommend reading it.

(4) Every method, even straightforward logic, can be used to lead us to a false conclusion. There is no such thing as perfectly reliable knowledge. About anything whatever. All you can do is assess how likely it is that, for example, you’ve been misled somehow. That’s literally all we can ever do, about any fact whatever, in any field of knowledge whatever. Welcome to epistemology.

---

--Richard Carrier (October 4, 2020)

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:39 pm

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:54 pmYou're not speculating. Your claim was that you had determined the best explanation for some observations - the observations that you're trying to explain are the evidence. At this point, you're defining your hypothesis. "Some guy who really lived" doesn't explain anything. You needed something more specific. Which guy who really lived?

"Some guy who really lived" is about the extent of the evidence that I'm willing to argue. Anything beyond that will be speculation. I'm happy to speculate! But that's all it is.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:15 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:47 pmI'm just trying to tie you down Don. Of course there's no evidence of anything, but I'm tired of the pranksters waving their HJ around without specifying it one tiny bit - so thanks

I'm definitely not waving my HJ around! My HJ is very small indeed. One might say, a micro-HJ.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:47 pmWhat's the use of having a live sample of nothing, who did nothing and was nothing? With just your two bullet points above John the Baptist actually did more than your HJ

It's not the size of one's HJ that's important, it's how one uses it. That's what I've been told, anyway.

Would it be fair to say that you are working from an agenda when it comes to HJ studies? And that agenda isn't satisfied with the proposal of a minimalist HJ? Because I don't see the difference between thinking there was no HJ, thinking there was a minimal HJ or thinking there was a full-blown Gospel HJ, unless some kind of agenda is involved. It's either (1) making conclusions based on the evidence, wherever it leads, or (2) working from an agenda.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:05 pm

dbz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 5:33 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm Do you think Paul's Jesus was one single entity, or an amalgamation of entities? If the latter, what is the evidence for that?

Paul was Hellenized Jewish Sub-Culture engaging in a religious syncretism of the Jewish two powers in heaven with the topmost gods of middle platonism. Greek was his first tongue.

That's the background on which his beliefs rested, sure, but did Paul think that Jesus was one single entity? That was your question: "Why does Yesus have to be one single individual?" The Gospels probably contain stories collated from the actions and sayings of various individuals, but with regards to Paul, the answer can only be "yes, one entity" as far as I can see.

JoeWallack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:22 pm Well I heard O'Neill talk about it,
and BCH shot him down.
Well I hope O'Neill will remember,
A Skeptic man don't need him around any how.

JW:

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past.

God damn GD, how long have you been here. You still don't know what a false diekatame is.

For those who need points sharply explained, the best explanation is Paul believed in HJ. You've been reading too much O'Neill.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism