DrSarah wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:06 pm
JoeWallack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 5:42 pm
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=301
JW:
...
Fer instance, Paul as source:
- 1) Contemporary? No.
2) Confirmed? No.
3) Credible? No.
4) Credibly transmitted? No.
[...]
Case in point (so to speak) is DS's recent elevation of Paul to clear witness for HJ because our current translations show he wrote "brother of the lord". Based on standard criteria, Paul has little credibility.
I think it’s worth remembering here that credibility needs to be considered in the context of ‘Credibility about what?’ A person might be a credible witness in one area, biased in another, and entirely without knowledge of a third.
In Paul’s case, what we know is firstly that he has very little credibility on the general topic of who or what Jesus was (not only did he never even meet Jesus, he also makes it completely clear that he’s getting his information about Jesus from the visions he believes he’s had of Jesus
in preference to any information people from the original movement might be able to give him). Secondly, we know that he has very little credibility when it comes to claims that he makes to try to win people over (he makes it clear that he’ll present himself however he needs to in order to win people over to the cause, so strict honesty isn’t his priority). So we need to be wary of anything he says in either of those categories.
However, neither of these really covers the ‘brother’ comment, because it’s not in either of those categories. He’s not claiming that Jesus told him in a vision that he had a brother; he’s saying that he
met Jesus’s brother, and that he’s aware of brothers of Jesus who are funded by the group. And it’s hard to see how either of these comments would make the kind of positive difference to his cause that would make him want to lie about it; in Gal 1 he’s actually trying to convince people of how
little he’s had to do with the other apostles and hence mentions his meeting with James only in a ‘full disclosure’ kind of way, and in 1 Cor 9 he’s off on a whinge about why some groups get financial support from the church which he doesn’t.
Going through your four criteria, at least as best as I understand them:
1. Contemporary? Yes; Paul is referring to someone he’s personally met and to financial arrangements in the church that were current at the time he was writing.
2. Confirmed? Josephus also mentions a ‘brother of the Lord’ called James who was involved with the church, so that’s confirmation of that mention, although the mention of other brothers involved with the church isn’t reliably confirmed.
3. Credible? Yes; it’s perfectly plausible that both that Jesus would have had brothers and that a couple of them might have been interested in joining the group who gave them the hopeful message that he was still alive despite his apparent tragic death.
4. Credibly transmitted? Not quite sure what this one means, but the fact that these are both passing comments made in the course of rants about other things makes them sound a lot more credible than if, say, Paul were using these claims in some sort of self-aggrandising way.
Tl;dr: yes, I think there are some points on which Paul is reasonably credible, and this is one of them.
JW:
Let's start with your end:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhuman ... -9-part-4/
"So this, unlike most of what Paul says, actually is
reliable information. Not theological expositions based on visions, but passing comments about people of whose existence and status Paul has personal knowledge. These two comments that Paul makes in the midst of rants about other issues are
very good evidence that the Lord of whom he’s speaking (Jesus) had human brothers. And that, in turn, is
good evidence that Jesus was human."
- JW: Objection your honor.
Judge: Overstated.
"1. Contemporary? Yes; Paul is referring to someone he’s personally met and to financial arrangements in the church that were current at the time he was writing."
I meant contemporary to us. Extant evidence does not age well. The time alone makes an individual piece of evidence weak. For an individual conclusion like this we should always consider the general comparison. Here there are very few ancients with sufficient evidence making their existence likely. Mostly leaders of major civilizations which Jesus was not. Carrier's strength is he is very good at making comparisons of evidence for comparables. You are not.
"2. Confirmed? Josephus also mentions a ‘brother of the Lord’ called James who was involved with the church, so that’s confirmation of that mention, although the mention of other brothers involved with the church isn’t reliably confirmed."
[sarcastic]So a passage in Josephus from 2,000+ years ago that is generally believed to have been at a minimum edited by Christians is your confirmation[end sarcasm].
"3. Credible? Yes; it’s perfectly plausible that both that Jesus would have had brothers and that a couple of them might have been interested in joining the group who gave them the hopeful message that he was still alive despite his apparent tragic death."
I meant Paul. You explain that Paul is credible when he is not incredible. Let's try that out:
"Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected." So we can reliably believe that this is very good evidence that Jesus died on Friday.
"4. Credibly transmitted? Not quite sure what this one means, but the fact that these are both passing comments made in the course of rants about other things makes them sound a lot more credible than if, say, Paul were using these claims in some sort of self-aggrandising way."
Church transmission. You think the Church was a reliable transmitter (rhetorical, don't answer}. You think the Church would have incentive to posture that Paul communicated with those close to Jesus (see previous note).
With the evidence this weak on your side and non existent on failure to Price Check's side you both are guilty of trying to emphasize conclusions when all you can do here is make relative comparisons rather than absolute ones. The most important relative conclusion here is the distance between what would be good evidence and the evidence you had. As that great 20th century philosopher Marsellus said:
You are pretty fucking far from an okay conclusion.
The ironic thing here is that going down the Christian rabble hole in the opposite direction you miss the context which supports your conclusion. The comment about brother of the Lord does fit the surrounding context. Paul's theme is that his spiritual knowledge of Jesus is superior to a physical knowledge of Jesus, like I don't know, a brother would have. His comment is intended to discredit James as a witness to Jesus. A spiritual witness. You don't note this because the Christian apologists you follow don't want to confess it.
Oh but then there's that second best potential witness, the uBarquitus "Mark", unknown but has a lot of scope with an entire Gospel that looks like the original one. He/she/they/it say that the brother James was opposed to Jesus and the disciple James was not Jesus' brother. And "Mark" quite famously says that his Jesus says that whoever is not his brother is his brother. So many James, so many "brothers" and so much expired time.
So how does the evidence for Jesus being historical compare to the evidence for Caesar (or David) being historical. Won't know until your next post.
Joseph
"The current outpouring of sympathy for Israel should make anyone with half a heart retch." - quoted by Neil Godfrey
The New Porphyry