The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

[TedM]

But what is really meaningful is that not one Christian writer on record before Justin Martyr had his hands on any Gospels.

So no-one could have challenged the newly published Gospels as not historical.
Kapyong

This is a logical error Kapyong. It's so obvious to me. I can't understand why you simply can't see it. Even if you are right about a lack of evidence, you are certainly wrong to conclude that it means there was no oral tradition regarding the material. How can you not see that basic possibility?

And why are you ignoring my comments about Papias? And why have you also not responded to my question about oral discussions? You seem to be one of those persons who will only accept what the evidence shows, and is unwilling to think about what are logical possibilities based on what evidence shows. The evidence shows that the authors of GLuke and GMatthew (and probably GJohn) knew about GMark. That Papias knew about gospels by Mark and Matthew. That Aristides knew about written gospels. They were all before Justin. People certainly could have challenged the Gospels as not historical prior to Justin. I just named 5 different people that could have done so, and such a challenge wouldn't have required someone else having gone 'on record' about existing Gospels. Why would it? Makes no sense. You seem to have some idea that 'published works' were always reviewed by the Historical Society of Israel/Judah or something like that. I think it was D Hindley who had a nice long post showing how that's not at all how things worked back then. No surprise to me. People copied who could afford to copy or who knew how - no Gutenbergs.

EDIT: I see you have now responded re Papias:

The evidence shows that NO-ONE apart from Papias knew any names of authors before Justin.

So now you have changed your position. There is one! Hallelujah! But also you are now using new language saying 'knew any names of authors'. Is that really what you meant to say in the beginning, or have you modified your position?

Papias did NOT use the word 'Gospel' at all.

I stand corrected there - I was reading Eusebius's comments about Papias rather than the Papias passage, in error. However Papias writes that Mark relayed the 'sayings or deeds of Christ'. That's a gospel.

[GakuseiDon]

That's exactly what the evidence shows - no Christian writer on record had Gospels before Justin.

What about Aristides? I might have missed you referencing him earlier in this thread, but Aristides wrote around 120-130 CE.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kay.html

• The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it...
  
  But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations...
  
  And as for their words and their precepts, O King, and their glorying in their worship, and the hope of earning according to the work of each one of them their recompense which they look for in another world,-you may learn about these from their writings...
  
  Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things as also of things which are to come...

[Peter Kirby]

If you want a modern example, there is Alvin Plantinga's "Advice to Christian philosophers". It is 19 pages long in PDF format. There is not one mention of "Jesus", or "Christ", or "Logos", or "Son [of God]", or even "Bible" or "Testament" in there.

I presented a similar idea on the BC&H forum, but most did not seem to like the idea of giving up their favorite type of argument (that from silence). The very first counterargument (from Toto) is that we can't use latter day counterexamples. This of course conveniently makes the early Christian texts sui generis, to be interpreted in special ways that cannot be checked empirically.

http://bcharchive.org/3/thearchives/sho ... ml?t=44769

I have long had the intention of doing a "reality check" on the purely mythological or spiritual interpretation of Paul by comparing the Pauline epistles to the letters of some divine of later date, about whom there can be no doubt that he accepted Jesus to have been a person of flesh. I recently stumbled upon a collection of letters by a Puritan minister online, though I now forget how I arrived there. So I began to read the collected corpus of letters attributed to Samuel Rutherford, as found here:

http://www.puritansermons.com/ruth/ruthindx.htm

There are several passages in which Samuel Rutherford employs a manner of speaking about Christ that would appear to be purely mythological.

Letter 37, To Lady Kenmure
"Therefore, when you lie alone in your bed, let Christ be as a bundle of myrrh, to sleep and lie all the night between your breasts (Cant. 1:13)."

Clearly the source of information about Christ for Rutherford was the Old Testament, which he mined for scriptural allusions to his Cosmic Christ. Christ appears to be utterly divorced from any Galilean setting, or even humanity at all, being likened unto a sack of myrrh which can be held close to the believer in the time of Rutherford.

Letter 87, To Elizabeth Kennedy
"God has made many fair flowers; but the fairest of them all is heaven, and the Flower of all flowers is Christ."

There is no historical Jesus in sight in this passage. Christ resides in heaven and is titled "the Flower of all flowers," clearly a mythological sobriquet. A similar passage is found in Letter 88, where Rutherford says, "we have neither eye nor smell for the Flower of Jesse, for that Plant of renown, for Christ, the choicest, the fairest, the sweetest rose that ever God planted."

Letter 87, To Elizabeth Kennedy
"Oh, if men would draw back the curtains, and look into the inner side of the ark, and behold how the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily!"

Here Jesus is said to reside inside the ark, which is odd for a Galilean peasant.

Letter 88, To Janet Kennedy
"If we would fall out of love with all of our masked and painted lovers, then Christ would win and conquer to Himself a lodging in the inmost chamber of our heart."

Here Rutherford speaks of the Christ in you, a Gnostic-sounding concept. Similar language is found in Letter 100: "I long to hear how your soul prospers, and how the kingdom of Christ thrives in you."

Letter 88, To Janet Kennedy
"Oh, let the King come! Oh, let His kingdom come!"

There is no sense here that Christ had come a first time on earth, as told of in the Gospels. Rather, Rutherford looks forward to the day that the King will come. A similar situation is found in Letter 247: "Now the very God of peace establish you to the day of His appearing."

Letter 99, To William Gordon
"I took Christ's obscurity to be as good as Scripture speaking wrath; but I have seen the other side of Christ, and the white side of His cross now."

Would Christ really be obscure if he had appeared on earth and walked among us? And how is it that "His cross" had appeared to Rutherford, except it be in a spiritual sense?

Letter 100, To the Lady Cardoness
"See that you buy the field where the pearl is. Sell all, and make a purchase of salvation."

A similar parable is found in Matthew 13:44, "The kingdom of the heavens is like a treasure hid in the field, which a man having found has hid, and for the joy of it goes and sells all whatever he has, and buys that field." But Rutherford gives not the slightest hint that this saying comes from Jesus.

Letter 103, To the Lady Cardoness
"I cannot but recommend Him to you, as your Husband, your Well-beloved, your Portion, your Comfort, and your Joy."

This is clearly mythological language.

Letter 103, To the Lady Cardoness
"I dine and sup with Christ."

How is this possible if Christ is thought of as a human being in 1st century Palestine?

Letter 103, To the Lady Cardoness
"Look through all your Father's rooms in heaven, because in your Father's house are many dwelling places."

Rutherford does not mention that this imagery comes from Jesus (John 14:2).

Letter 131, To Jean Brown
"No, I think patience makes the water Christ gives us good wine, and His dross silver and gold."

No mention is made here of the miracle at Cana of turning water into wine.

Letter 131, To Jean Brown
"Don't worry about the storm when you're sailing in Christ's ship: no passenger will ever fall overboard."

Here Christ is likened to a ship captain, with contemporary believers aboard. No allusion is made to the stilling of the storm by Christ in the Gospels.

Letter 230, To Lady Kenmure
"And the Lamb, your Husband, is making ready for you."

This is allegorical, not historical, language.

Letter 233, To Fulk Ellis
"I believe that our Lord is only lopping the vine-trees, not intending to cut them down, or root them out."

This is reminiscent of John 15 but no reference to the words of Jesus is made.

Letter 233, To Fulk Ellis
"And even when we have arrived within the castle, then must we eternally sing, 'Worthy, worthy is the Lamb, who has saved us, and washed us in His own blood.'"

Was the historical Jesus a lamb, in whose blood believers were washed? Or does Rutherford speak of a spiritual Christ?

Letter 247, To Janet Kennedy
"Many stars, great lights in the church are falling from heaven, causing many to be misled and seduced."

A parallel passage is found in Matthew 24:29, but no mention is made of the words of the historical Jesus.

The collection of Rutherford's letters here numbers thirteen. The collection can be read through in a couple hours. The collection was *not* made by me, or by anyone who anticipated my use of them. They were collected, not unlike Paul's letters, because they were thought to well represent the thoughts of Samuel Rutherford. (I have not had time to read the larger collection of hundreds of letters by Samuel Rutherford--but, then, not everything jotted by Paul has been preserved either.) Yet, for all that, there is not a single explicit reference to the career of Jesus of Nazareth on earth; indeed, not even debateable passages such as there are in Paul's corpus. This collection of letters by a seventeenth century Puritan are bereft of the kind of references which are demanded from first century Christians. They also exhibit similar spiritual language and allusions to Jesuine sayings without attribution.

This study, therefore, shows conclusively that the argument from silence as applied to the New Testament epistles by Jesus Myth advocates to show that the authors disbelieved in an earthly Jesus is methodologically unsound.

best,
Peter Kirby

And of course it is methodologically unsound (as are many similar arguments, made without due caution).

Here's Toto claiming to play devil's advocate (emphasis added):

Peter - I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I think that you can distinguish these letters by the passage of time. For Rutherford, Jesus might as well have been a mythological god on a higher plane. In fact, church doctrine has emphasized this spiritual aspect of Jesus for most of its history, until the influence of the Enlightenment and Deism led on a quest for the historical Jesus. When Rutherford speaks about a spiritual Jesus, he could be reflecting his reading of Paul's letters and standard church doctrine.

In contrast, Paul met people who supposedly knew this remarkable human being, but shows no interest in his human aspect.

(And, you can find near contemporaries of Rutherford who made trips to the Holy Land to be where Jesus was. You can't seeem to find these people in the first century.)

I think a better parallel would be to look at how people today write about some recent, semi-deified historical figure. Does anyone mention Elvis or the late president Kennedy without mentioning some human aspect of them? What about that Hasidic Rabbi whose followers thought he was the Messiah?

Unfortunately our data on "recent semi-deified figures" is itself all a bunch of special cases. It's hard to say that anything transfers one to another.

(That kind of thinking is a problem for everyone -- including and perhaps especially those who want to make the argument from silence. If you think you can make reliable conclusions about things for which you have no analogy from your experience or things known in some empirical way, you are not thinking it through... you might as well claim anything at that point... or, better, nothing.)

PS -- If you want to argue over this, please read the thread linked first. A similar question and answer is probably there, and I don't have a lot of time.

[Kapyong]

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Gday GakuseiDon and all
Hey thanks for persevering with me GakuseiDon I think you have identified our Gordian Knot.

No worries. I think you are a rational guy, and I'd like to think I am a rational guy also. Isn't it fascinating that two people can look at the same information and draw two separate views from it? That's why I was hoping something like Bayes Theorem might help to provide an objective approach to such problems in history. Since I am nowhere near qualified to use BT, I'll struggle on!

Thanks cobber I you.
Yes indeed - just ask the Shia and Sunni, or Catholic and Protestants, or mythicists and normal people

Discussing complex things can be a challenge and a joy, exercise and development for the mind (and soul )

I agree that BT looks like a good new approach, and I hope Dr Carrier has started something. A bit sad that like all geniuses he has a weak spot - how traditional that it's about sex

I'll probably make this my last response on the topic of M. Felix here, since we are at an impasse, and that's a signal we have reached a natural end to the discussion. I'll say here thanks very much for your time and cordiality on this!

Yes, at this point, I have to go do a lot more reading, as suggested.

And thank you
Polite and friendly discussion about opposing views can be very productive, I think we both learned a little and realised more commonality than at first.

Such discussion is not always found in online forums - having no face-to-face, no real accountability, can tend to rude and adversarial attitudes. I have visited and left half a dozen fora in the last year or so. (Three over Palestine ).

This place is still my 'home forum' because this is where the smart informed guys and gals hang out. Which means I do a lot more learning than informing Seems slightly less friendly lately, but maybe it's just me.

We two imagine each other as equals - persons with different views. But there is a tendency for people to divide - into groups, which are not necessarily equal. The obvious example being the USA - where everyone clearly identifes as a Black-American, or Hispanic-American, or Asian-American, or White-American ...
How Lucky is Oz, where mostly everyone are just plain aussies (while still struggling with Aborigines, and now Muslims.)

Sometimes refered to as Circles as Affinity - the circle which includes your own group, and excludes and defines outsiders - the 'other'. So on most religious sites I am instantly an outsider, being a 'mythicist' - a dirty wrotten atheist Jesus denier !

Jesus clearly taught that we should include the outsiders - the outcasts, sinners, the poor, bad people, tax collectors, prostitutes - in our Circle of Affinity. I would expect Christians to be out actively helping the homeless and poor, the drunks and druggies and prostitutes, the crazies and outcasts ... Even the worst of all - the mythicists !

Well, let's hope! But I feel you are taking a sentence or two, and building a case from what is NOT being said in those sentences. A broader evaluation of the writings I suggest is in order. ...
I'll leave it here. Good luck!

An entirely fair comment.
My favourite method of research is using a Global Search tool on the texts to find key words and phrases. Very handy, e.g. I can search all texts from 1st CBC to 2nd CCE in five seconds. But it has that obvious weakness. I must read more in support.

We'll move on from M.Felix, see you 'round like a rissole


Kapyong

[DCHindley]

to DCHindley,

I did find a summary, though:

1 Clement - none
Barnabas - three citations of an unknown gospel
Ignatius, Smyrneans - one citation of an unknown gospel
Justin, 1st Apology - one citation of an unknown gospel
Justin, Dialogue - two or three citations of an unknown gospel

It seems to me you have been generally very strict, more so for Justin, but rather lenient on Barnabas

But I do not see anything about the gospel to the Hebrews.
But thanks for your reply, anyway.

Cordially, Bernard

From volume 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers series, and the relevant footnotes:

Ign, Smyrneans 3.2: 3.2) When, for instance, He [Jesus] came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit*." [* Literally, “demon.” According to Jerome, this quotation is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 39.]

Barnabas, ch 6: The Lord says, “Behold, I will make* the last like the first.”** [*Cod. Sin. has “I make.”. ** Not in Scripture, but comp. Matt. xx. 16, and 2 Cor. v. 17.]

Barnabas, ch 7: Thus also, says He, “Those who wish to behold Me, and lay hold of My kingdom, must through tribulation and suffering obtain Me.” [Comp. Acts xiv. 22.]

Barnabas, ch 12: In like manner He points to the cross of Christ in another prophet, who saith,* “And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord saith, When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and when blood shall flow out of wood.”169** [* Cod. Sin. refers this to God, and not to the prophet. ** From some unknown apocryphal book. Hilgenfeld compares Hab. ii. 11.]

Justin, 1st Apology, ch 38: And that all these things happened to Christ at the hands of the Jews, you can ascertain. For when He was crucified, they did shoot out the lip, and wagged their heads, saying, “Let Him who raised the dead save Himself.” [Comp. Matt. xxvii. 39.]

Justin, Dialogue, ch 35: And, ‘There shall be schisms and heresies.’ [1 Cor. xi. 19.[?]]

Justin, Dialogue, ch 47: Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘In whatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you.’ ” [[Comp. St. John xii. 47, 48.] Grabius thinks this taken from the [apocryphal] Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is not in the New or Old Testament. [Query. Is it not, rather, one of the traditional sayings preserved
among early Christians?]]

Justin, Dialogue, ch 76: And again, in other words, He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions, and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’ [Luke x. 19. [“And on scolopendras” (i.e. centipedes) not in the original.]

It is hard to tell sometimes whether they are conflating passages from the canonical Gospels, or have cited or were at least influenced by otherwise unknown gospels. The existence of oddball gospels that are not identifiable include:

1. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840: First before he does wrong (?) he thinks out everything that is crafty. But be ye on your guard that the same thing may not happen to you as does to them.1 For not only among the living do evil doers among men receive retribution, but they must also suffer punishment and great torment.
And he took them [the disciples] with him into the place of purifica- tion itself and walked about in the Temple court.2 And a Pharisaic chief priest, Levi (?) by name, fell in with them and s<aid> to the Saviour: Who gave thee leave to <trea>d this place of purification and to look upon <the>se holy utensils without having bathed thyself and even without thy disciples having <wa>shed their f<eet>?3 On the contrary, being defi<led>, thou hast trodden the Temple court, this clean p<lace>, although nocone who has <not> first bathed <himself> or <chang>ed his clot<hes> may tread it and <venture> to vi<ew> <these> holy utensils! Forthwith cthe Saviour> s<tood> still with h<is> disciples and <answdred>: How stands it (then) with thee, thou art forsooth (also) here in the Temple court. Art thou then clean? He said to him: I am clean. For I have bathed myself in the pool of David and have gone down by the one stair and come up by the other and have put on white and clean clothes, and (only) then have I come hither and have viewed these holy utensils. Then said the Saviour to him: Woe unto you blind that see not!4 Thou hast bathed thyself in water that is poured out, in which dogs and swine5 lie night and day and thou hast washed thyself and hast chafed thine outer skin, which prosti- tutes also and flute-girls6 anoint, bathe, chafe and rouge, in order to arouse desire in men, but within they are full of scorpions and of <bad>ness <of every kind>.7 But I and <my disciples>, of whom thou sayest that we have not im<mersed> ourselves, chave been im>mersed in the liv<ing ... > water8 which comes down from < ... B>ut woe unto them that .... [6. Cf. Gospel of the Nazarenes No. 18]

2. Papyrus Egerton 2:

f.1v (ll. 1-20))
(I)... <to> the lawyer<s: ‘Punish e>very one who act<s contrary to the l>aw, but not me!... (5)... what he does, as he does it. י <And> having turn<ed> to <the> rulers of the people he <sp>oke the following saying; ‘(Ye) search the scriptures in which ye think that ye have life; these are they (10) which bear witness of me.5 Do not think that I came to accuse <you> to my Father! There is one<that aocuses <you>, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope.’6 And when they sa(15)<id>: ‘We know that God <hath> spok<en> to Moses, but as for thee, we know not <whence thou art> ’7 Jesus answered and said unto them: ‘Now (already) accusation is raised8 against <your> (20) unbelief in regard to the things testified by him. For if <you> had cbelieved Moses>, you would have believed <me>;/0r <concerning> me he <wrote> to your fathers’.9

f.1r (11. 22-41)
... <to gather> stones together to stone him.10 And the <rul>ers laid (25) their hands on him that they might arrest him and <deliver> him to the multitude. But they w<ere not able> to arrest him because the hour of his betrayal <was> not yet c<ome>.n (30) But he himself, the Lord, escaped out of their han>ds12 and turned away from them.
(II) And behold a leper drew near <to him> and said: ‘Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them (35) in the inn, I also <became> a <leper>. If <thou> therefore <wilt>, I am made clean.' Immediately the Lord <said to him>: 7 will, be thou made clean.' <And thereupon> the leprosy departed from him. But Jesus (40) <said> to him: ‘Go and show thyself to <the priests> and offer <for thy > purification as <Moses commanded;», and sin no more ... ‘13

f. 2r (II. 43-59)
(III)... <ca>me to him to put him to the pro<of> and to tempt him, whilst <they said>: (45) ‘Master Jesus, we know that thou art come <from God>,14 for what thou doest bears a test<imony>15 (to thee) (which) (goes) beyond (that) of al(l) the prophets. <Wherefore tell> us: is it admissible <top>ay to the kings the (charges) appertaining to their rule? <Should we> pay <th-> (50) em or not? But Jesus saw through their <in>tention,16 became <angry>17 and said to them: ‘Why call ye me with yo<ur mou>th Master and yet <do> not what I say?18 Well has ls<aiah> prophesied <concerning y>(55)ou saying: This <people honours> me with the <ir li>ps but their heart is far from me; <their worship is> vain. <They teach> precepts <ofmen>.19

f. 2v (lines 60-75)20
(IV) <The grain of wheat>... (60)... in the place shut in. .. it was laid beneath and invisible... its wealth imponderable?21 And as they were in perplexity at his strange question, (65) Jesus as he walked stood con the> bank of the <riv>er Jordan, stretched out <hi>s right hand, <fill>ed it with ... and sowed... on the (70)... And then ... water... And... before <their eyes>, brought fruit... much ... to the jo(75)<y?> ...

3. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224:
p. 175
And the scribes and <Pharisees
and priests, when they sa<w
him, were angry <that with sin-
ners in the midst he <reclined
at table. But Jesus heard <it and said:
The he<althy need not the physician.
p. 176
And pray for
your enemies. For he who is not
against you> is for you.
He who today> is far off - tomorrow will be
near to you> .............

4. Papyrus Cairensis 10 735:
Recto
The angel of the Lord spake: Jo<seph, arise,
take Mary, thy w<ife and
flee to Egypt <.............
.............
.............
every gift and if < ....
his friends ...<....
of the king..<....
.............
Verso
(According to Deissmann’s reconstruction)
... > should interpret to thee. The
archistrategus however> said to the virgin: Behold,
Elisabeth, thy relat>ive has also con-
ceived, and it is the s>ixth month for her who
was called barren. In> the sixth, that is <in the month Thoth,
did his mother> conceive John.
But it behoved> the archistra-
tegus to an>nounce <beforehand John, the> servant who go-
es before his Lord’s> coming ...

5. The so-called Fayyum Fragment:
After> the meal according to custom (?) (he said:) <All ye
in this> night will be offend-
ed, as> it is written: I will smite the <shepherd,
and the> sheep will be scattered.
When> Peter <said>: Even if all, <not I,
Jesus said:> Before the cock crows twice, <thrice
wilt thou> de<ny me today.

It is with difficulty that any attempt be made to associate these agrapha and gospel fragments with the heretical gospels that are mentioned by Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and others, which they call the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes (spellings abound) and Gospel of the Egyptians, etc. I get the impression that many of these later Church fathers only know these "gospels" by hearsay, not direct knowledge, despite occasional claims to have "translated" them, etc. (Jerome).

DCH (must sleeeep)

[Kapyong]

Greetings Peter Kirby,

Thanks for joining in

If you want a modern example, there is Alvin Plantinga's "Advice to Christian philosophers". It is 19 pages long in PDF format. There is not one mention of "Jesus", or "Christ", or "Logos", or "Son [of God]", or even "Bible" or "Testament" in there.

I presented a similar idea on the BC&H forum, but most did not seem to like the idea of giving up their favorite type of argument (that from silence). The very first counterargument (from Toto) is that we can't use latter day counterexamples. This of course conveniently makes the early Christian texts sui generis, to be interpreted in special ways that cannot be checked empirically.
http://bcharchive.org/3/thearchives/sho ... ml?t=44769
...
PS -- If you want to argue over this, please read the thread linked first. A similar question and answer is probably there, and I don't have a lot of time.

I read it all through, here is the Executive Summary :
Such a comparison is an excellent idea, but 17th C. Rutherford was a terrible choice of comparand.
The Mythical Jesus Theory is more nuanced than just Paul's silence.


In more detail -

It's not that we 'can't use latter-day' examples, but his situation was obviously so different to Paul's :

Paul:

• Addressed entire churches collectively.
• Wrote before any other documents about Jesus existed.
• Was a member of the first generation, actively attempting to codify Christianity as a religion.
• Often expressed concerns with formulating Church doctrine, authority.
• Writings gathered specifically for their representation of church doctrine.
• Large amount of writing.

Rutherford:

• Addressed individuals, either personal friends or others well-known by him.
• Could be certain his readers had a working knowledge of entire New Testament.
• Wrote when Christianity had been state religion (locally) for 1000 years.
• Was part of a movement looking for a personal (non-authoritarian) experience of Jesus.
• Writings gathered specifically for their representation of Rutherford's life and views.
• Small amount of writing.

It seems that people here aren't interested in using comparands in order to determine how likely it is that a NT epistle would refer to an earthly Jesus.

Sound analogues DO exist: 1 Clement, Hebrews, 1 John, Hermas, Barnabas, the forged Pauline epistles. Also Revelation, and the Ascension of Isaiah. ...and their position on the historical Jesus is?

Furthermore,
it's not just an argument from silence, but also the positive evidence that Paul (and others) speak of a heavenly being Jesus Christ -

First, it isn't just that Paul is silent on historical details, but rather that the language that he uses corresponds with Gnostic and neo-platonic ideas that posit an existence at a higher level above the earth. In this sense Paul JMers can hold that Paul believed that Jesus really existed, just not down here on earth. His crucifixion and resurrection really did happen, just not here on earth a few years before Paul's ministry.

Peter, the point that many have made about Paul is not just that he is silent on the Jesus of legend, but also that he made positive statements that indicate that Jesus was only a spiritual being, and further, that thanks to remarks in other documents we know that there was a strain of Christians who believed only in the spiritual Jesus.

1. Paul claims to have gotten his gospel from revelation, not from man
2. Paul can say things like he does in Rom. 16:25,26 and Gal. 3:5-10 without the barest reference to Jesus' earthly career or to the Great Commission
3. Paul claims that his experience of the Christ was no different from those who saw the resurrected Christ prior to the ascension
4. Paul prefers to quote the Jewish scriptures when he wants to make a doctrinal point, instead of offering a word from Jesus
5. Paul complains about the Jews rejecting the good news they heard from apostles like himself, and further refers to their habit of killing prophets (Romans 10-11), but doesn't mention their rejecting Jesus' message and killing him
6. Paul argues for the resurrection of the dead, but doesn't mention any traditions that Jesus resurrected people from the dead

Of COURSE a historical Jesus Christ would have been mentioned -

It just does not seem to be a necessary thing to bring up in a Christian epistle, even if one accepts that Jesus was a man.

I'm sorry, but I just can't help but find this mind-boggling. God (or the Logos, if you want to split hairs) comes to earth as a little bitty baby, grows into a child prodigy, becomes a popular preacher, eats a sacred meal with his disciples in which he initiates an important Christian ritual, causes a ruckus in the Temple courtyard that gets him arrested, is tortured and crucified, and supposedly walks out of his grave and talks to his friends before going into the sky. And all of this happened just 20 years ago, and many of the people who were there are still alive. And, except for brief references to the Last Supper and the appearances (and of course plenty of references to the suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection, but all of them drawn from the Jewish scriptures, not from eyewitness testimony) no one wants to write about it. I mean, OK, they don't have to repeat the whole story every time they exchange letters. But you know, just a quick reference to a particularly memorable incident in the life of God? A direct quote from Jesus on a contentious point of doctrine? A rebuke to Christians who were claiming that Christ never came in the flesh, along the lines of "They wanna say that to Peter's face?" An "Oh, by the way, Jesus' mum sends her love" ?

Importantly, it's not just Paul -

But a silence in all surviving early Christian literature is a stronger argument than a silence in Paul's letters.

Not everyone thought this was a good effort, sorry Peter Kirby :

Is this post a joke? It's not April Fool's Day yet!

You're playin' with us, aren't you?

Look Peter, take your "reality check" cum rebuttal and sit it on a table. Comb its hair, wash its dusty face with some cold water, pat it down and throw some clean, ironed clothes it so that it looks worthy of being an argument from a serious person like you. I am one of your fans you know .

I find this whole thread a bit confused. I think Peter may have set up a straw man in his initial post.

One interesting suggestion for a comparand came up -

For example, in 20 years will the nuns of Mother Theresa's order refer to her as a spiritual being, or will they write about how she was born in Macedonia in the Ottoman Empire, about her work with the poor in India, the fact that she was an international celebrity who took donations from Charles Pickering, etc?

It's almost twenty years since 'Saint' 'Mother' Teresa died - are there writings refering to her like Paul did about Jesus Christ ? I haven't seen any.

What I have noticed online is a huge argument between supporters who really believe she was a human saint vs detractors who point out she was a sadist and a fraud and a thief.


Kapyong
P.S. BTW - I am the poster formerly called 'Iasion', first real name Quentin.

[Bernard Muller]

Vorkosigan wrote:
Sound analogues DO exist: 1 Clement, Hebrews, 1 John, Hermas, Barnabas, the forged Pauline epistles. Also Revelation, and the Ascension of Isaiah. ...and their position on the historical Jesus is?

I know that 1 Clement (32:2), Hebrews (7:14), 1 John (1:1-5), Barnabas (12:10, 7:3,9), one of the forged Pauline epistles (2 Tim 2:8), Revelation (5:5), Ascension of Isaiah (3:13 & 11:1-22) acknowledge an earthly Jesus in them.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Furthermore,
it's not just an argument from silence, but also the positive evidence that Paul (and others) speak of a heavenly being Jesus Christ -

Of course, Paul and others speak of a heavenly being Jesus Christ, because that's where he was supposed to be when these authors wrote about him.

Vorkosigan wrote:

Peter, the point that many have made about Paul is not just that he is silent on the Jesus of legend, but also that he made positive statements that indicate that Jesus was only a spiritual being, and further, that thanks to remarks in other documents we know that there was a strain of Christians who believed only in the spiritual Jesus.

Of course Paul is silent on the Jesus of legend, because that Jesus of legend had yet to come, first in gMark. But the earthly & human Jesus is stated in his epistles, as a humble Jew of no reputation, and certainly with no legend attached to him yet.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

There's no point quoting a bunch of stuff from that thread; it's done and dusted. Wrestling with troglodytes is hardly edifying. To advance the discussion, you should present an argument that builds on the kinds of things that we learned from that thread. That would present a way forward. In particular, you should have come away with a better appreciation of the importance of backing our interpretations with more than our subjective impressions. You shouldn't just fall back on your subjective impressions, just because you don't like the OP of that thread and don't believe it did anything to overturn your subjective impressions and interpretations. The problem remains -- how do we know what we claim to know about things such as the meaning and intent of the author? In this case, how do we make the argument from silence work?

It does not always work. If you don't understand that, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Almost everyone in that thread failed to pass go... getting hung up on the details of the attempt to bring them out of their own ignorance. They wanted to play around in their little sandbox where their argument from silence works and there's nothing more to it. And so they did.

(If you want to move on to arguments other than the naive argument from silence, good -- I'd agree with you, obviously.)

Such a comparison is an excellent idea, but 17th C. Rutherford was a terrible choice of comparand.

It's not a comparison. It's a test of whether an argument from silence lets us infer whether a person believed in a historical Jesus. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do people hate the very idea? Why do people get caught up in the B.S. regarding the 17th century date of this author? Would you wet your pants if there was a 3rd century or 4th century or 5th century author used, or is this just the most obvious thing that occurs to any moron, as it did in that thread?

It's a test of the methodology of the argument from silence:

This study, therefore, shows conclusively that the argument from silence ... to show that the authors disbelieved in an earthly Jesus is methodologically unsound.

Bringing up all these differences puts the burden of proof on the person making the argument from silence. They must prove that their argument works under the extra conditions, even when it doesn't work in general. The one using an argument from silence must prove that, when looking at the New Testament epistles, there are special conditions that obtain that necessarily make the argument work, even though we know that it doesn't work as a general rule.

What we have is our knowledge of the general case (it doesn't work) and our ignorance of the special case (the NT epistles, with any extra conditions). The person arguing from silence inserts their assumptions into that ignorance. They don't get a free lunch, especially given our knowledge regarding the general case. They need to put in the work, to make their argument work. Mentioning these differences only makes it possible that they could possibly make their argument work, one day, if they put in the work to show the empirical basis of their argument under certain conditions. It doesn't actually make the argument from silence sound. It isn't sound in the general case, and they've done nothing to prove that it is sound in any special case.

[Kapyong]

Gday Peter Kirby and all

There's no point quoting a bunch of stuff from that thread; it's done and dusted.

Hmmm, I was responding to this :

PS -- If you want to argue over this, please read the thread linked first. A similar question and answer is probably there, and I don't have a lot of time.

I did read the thread, which did address the issues, and pointed out your choice of comparand was bad, so I summarised the thread for readers.

If you want to move on to arguments other than the naive argument from silence, good -- I'd agree with you, obviously.

We did, I did - the positive arguments for a spiritual Jesus Christ. You didn't respond to them, but instead lambasted the dependence on arguments from silence.

Such a comparison is an excellent idea, but 17th C. Rutherford was a terrible choice of comparand.

It's not a comparison. It's a test ...

Pardon ?
It's a test based on a comparison. Here is the start of your first OP :

I have long had the intention of doing a "reality check" on the purely mythological or spiritual interpretation of Paul by comparing the Pauline epistles to the letters of some divine of later date,

Everyone used the words and concepts related to comparison, throughout the thread, including you Peter Kirby :

What I have shown is that a person could write in the way that Rutherford does yet still maintain a belief in an earthly Jesus. This can be taken as a point of comparison for the argument that the authors of the New Testament epistles disbelieved in an earthly Jesus.

It seems that people here aren't interested in using comparands in order to determine how likely it is that a NT epistle would refer to an earthly Jesus.

What I detected in some of the responses was that any interest in finding points of comparison was trumped by a subjective sense of what they know Paul must have written ...

It clearly was a comparison argument.

of whether an argument from silence lets us infer whether a person believed in a historical Jesus.
Why is that so hard to understand?

It's very easy to understand your argument. There is no evidence that any reader failed to understand your argument - no requests for clarification, no explanations from you to correct a reader's misunderstanding.

Why do people hate the very idea? Why do people get caught up in the B.S. regarding the 17th century date of this author?

The clear and significant differences between a first century founding Christian, and a 17th century believer, make this particular comparand worthless for your (quite good) over-all argument.

Anyway, here's what's most informative :

Would you wet your pants if there was a 3rd century or 4th century or 5th century author used, or is this just the most obvious thing that occurs to any moron, as it did in that thread? ...
Wrestling with troglodytes is hardly edifying. ...
It does not always work. If you don't understand that, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Almost everyone in that thread failed to pass go ...
getting hung up on the details of the attempt to bring them out of their own ignorance. ...
They wanted to play around in their little sandbox where their argument from silence works and there's nothing more to it. And so they did.

These are not the words of a scholar arguing over differing theories.
No
Sorry Peter Kirby, but I think it's clear that you look down on mythicists (aka Jesus Myth proponents) as just ignorant morons spouting B.S.. Which probably explains why some others here have been so rude and personally abusive to me for being a mythicist.

" We don't serve your kind in here, thank you very much ! "

Sadly, even our favourite BC&H forum has entered the Post-Truth Era
The truth and the facts are no match for the power of Right-Think.


Kapyong
P.S. But maybe it's not really Peter Kirby at all ? It does sound rather over-the-top for the educated and informed and thoughtful Peter Kirby. So if it does turn out to be someone else, like a crazy twin brother, let the record note that I was indeed sceptical