For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[dejudge]

@dejudge
You'll notice I make a different between
A) the Author Paul, i.e., whoever wrote those epistles (which could have had another name, mind you)
B) the Character Paul in the epistles

The latter may or may not be the same as the former. Hell, it may or may not even be based on the former.

Sort of like the conceptual difference between Karl May the novellist, and Karl May the fictive cowboy-type guy, with a fictive Henry gun that can shoot like two dozen rounds before needing to reload, and narrating it in first person to boot. Author Karl May AFAIK never set foot in the USA, while Character Karl May was having adventures all over the wild west. And in a completely different time than the author's to boot.

To get back to the point, I don't know if the author of Paul's epistles actually was a loonie or making it up. But the character in the epistles is definitely a paranoid schizophrenic, as far as I can tell. If he's someone else's literary protagonist, well, that protagonist is definitely described as off his rocker. In fact, he's not even in the same town as his rocker any more

Please, one does not have to be a "paranoid schizophrenic" or "off his rocker" to write fiction.

The letters under the name of Paul are simply fiction--[non-historical propaganda] fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd century in an attempt to historicise the fiction characters called Jesus and the apostles.

In order to make the supposed Paul a Christian or convert fake implausible contradictory conversions were invented.

See Acts 9 or Galatians 1.15-16

In Acts Paul is converted by a blinding bright light and hearing a voice but in a letter supposedly written to people in Galatia he was converted after a conference with some kind of Ghosts [entities without flesh and blood].


The abundance of evidence show that the letters under the name of Paul were really fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd-3rd century but that people BELIEVED they were written earlier.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So basically you don't understand the difference between Author and Protagonist? Hint: the protagonist isn't the one writing the story

 

[Craig B]

The abundance of evidence show that the letters under the name of Paul were really fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd-3rd century but that people BELIEVED they were written earlier.

It is dejudge's general contention that the only evidence of date of authorship is the date of the earliest surviving manuscript. This leads him to suppose that very many ancient texts are the work of gangs of mediaeval forgers. In this, he is a disciple of Jean Hardouin^WP, and nothing seems to be able to shift him from that intellectually untenable position.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I get that idea.

Well in Paul's case it is at least a possibility. We know that about half the epistles in his name ARE later forgeries, and by different people at that. So the existence of such "gangs of forgers" is actually quite canon. About the other seven, all we can actually say is that all 7 seem to be written by the same guy (well, except some bits by later scribes), but we can't tell who that guy actually was or whether he was telling the truth.

And there are historical examples where if you have a bunch of letters by the same guy, it doesn't mean he's telling the truth. It could be just one prolific author of fiction.

PERSONALLY I'll just go with them being letters from Paul, mostly because it doesn't really matter to me. Whether it's a 1st century nutcase or a 2nd century liar, I still don't see the dude as much of a source for a historical Jesus. And not just for being insane and/or a liar, but really, he is not telling us any single thing about what the alleged historical Jebus ever said or did or looked like or even where or when DID he get nailed. So he really he's not much of a source.

So there's really no reason for me to put much effort into whether ALL the Pauline epistles are forgeries or not. It may be an interesting topic in itself, no doubt, but it makes no difference for what I'm more interested in.

 

[Craig B]

PERSONALLY I'll just go with them being letters from Paul, mostly because it doesn't really matter to me. Whether it's a 1st century nutcase or a 2nd century liar, I still don't see the dude as much of a source for a historical Jesus. And not just for being insane and/or a liar, but really, he is not telling us any single thing about what the alleged historical Jebus ever said or did or looked like or even where or when DID he get nailed. So he really he's not much of a source.

So there's really no reason for me to put much effort into whether ALL the Pauline epistles are forgeries or not. It may be an interesting topic in itself, no doubt, but it makes no difference for what I'm more interested in.

That is a remarkable degree of indifference from a person who is concerned in any way with the question of the historicity of Jesus. Did the source that claims to have met a Peter and a James, and to be contemporary with an extant Temple in fact exist, or is it the invention of a forger living one or two centuries later? This makes no difference to what you are interested in? If what you're interested in was photography or playing the cello I could understand that.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, the fact is that even taking Paul at his word, I'm still not seeing any way to reconstruct a historical Jesus. Whereas making him a protagonist in the works of a later fiction writer woul mean... err... exactly the same: you still have no reason to take him as much of a source for reconstructing a historical Jesus. So it literally makes no difference.

Essentially Paul's epistles not being historical would just be a shortcut. But taking Paul at his word is still getting me to the same conclusion.

Plus there's something to be said for addressing the worst case scenario, as in, actually addressing all the possible evidence against my conclusion. An argument which just addresses half of it and proclaims the rest non-existent is a much weaker argument, isn't it?

So it's about as interesting as whether the train is steam or electric, and whether Atlantic Coast Line Railroad is secretly still alive as a separate entity and runs it, when the topic is if you can take a train from New York to London. You still can't. No matter how very much I might be interested in the topic (seein' as I hate flying; no, I'm not afraid, I just hate it), chasing such details still doesn't give me a different result, so why bother?

Edit: but, as always, I'm open to arguments to the contrary. If you think that Paul not existing would make a STRONGER case for a historical Jesus, I'm listening. And yeah, then it would be more interesting for the topic of whether there was a historical Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Well, the fact is that even taking Paul at his word, I'm still not seeing any way to reconstruct a historical Jesus. Whereas making him a protagonist in the works of a later fiction writer woul mean... err... exactly the same: you still have no reason to take him as much of a source for reconstructing a historical Jesus. So it literally makes no difference.

Yes. That's the bit I find odd. Presumably you are equally indifferent on the question whether the gospels were written in the later first century, or by gangs of forgers hundreds of years after that. I mean, they're not historical documents, so the dates of composition are of no significance whatever?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Not sure what is so odd. As I was saying, it can be an interesting topic in its own right, but it still doesn't make any difference to my point. There are plenty of interesting topics and details in the world, but for any given model or argument you have to pick the ones that actually make any difference.

Ditto for the gospels, in fact. The only hard upper limit for the four is actually Irenaeus, because no source we have before that seems to have even heard of them. (And yes, that includes Papias.) So, yeah, they COULD be later.

The destruction of the temple is the LOWER limit for the interval when Mark could have been written, not the absolute one point in time.

(Edit: and yeah, REAL history works with time intervals. Theology, well, those are the guys who seem to want the earliest possible date to be the one.)

BUT the fact still remains that Mark is writing fiction, and isn't very knowledgeable about anything from the area either. And Matthew and Luke don't seem to be better informed either, since they're just fixing Mark's fiction instead of showing any sign that they know the real story. So for the topic of whether you can find any actual information about a historical Jesus in them, well, you still can't.

So why would I want to derail the discussion about the HJ into a ultimately unprovable tangent that still doesn't make any difference?

 

[Craig B]

Not sure what is so odd.

So why would I want to derail the discussion about the HJ into a ultimately unprovable tangent that still doesn't make any difference?

The dates of composition of the earliest sources may be "unprovable", but that hardly implies that whether they are (or contain) genuinely first century material or are forgeries perpetrated centuries later makes no difference!

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, the relevant question is: makes a difference TO WHAT? Everything makes some difference to something. But does it make a difference to the argument in question? Do I actually need a later date for the argument to work? That's the relevant part.

But as I was saying, I'm open to arguments to the contrary. If you can make an argument that a later date for either Paul or the Gospels actually makes them BETTER sources for a historical Jesus, I'll gladly address them.

Otherwise, I'd think it would be obvious that I'm not God, so I don't have all eternity. My time is finite. Maybe not as in minutes, but that kind of research takes a lot of time and effort. So I'll address the parts that seem more important, and refrain from doing counter-arguments to some argument nobody is actually making. If nobody is making an argument to the effect of "the gospels are later, therefore Jesus", I don't really have much of a reason to counter that and still have no Jesus.

 

[vridar]

Here, a problematic comment of yours:

In your comment #399 ap. 3 you use the non-contradiction argument to discard Romans 1: 3 as a genuine Pauline text -this is to say, an interpolation- by means of two different comparisons.

First point, I did not "discard Romans 1:3 as a genuine Pauline text". Notice what I wrote:

Nor is it arbitrary to suspect interpolation of this passage. We know Paul's letters were a minefield of doctrinal wars with claims and counterclaims of falsifying them:

That is not a dogmatic discarding of the passage. It is an expression of awareness that there are potential problems with the verse if we rely upon it as genuinely Pauline. I cannot prove or dogmatically state that the passage is an interpolation. I can only say there are a number of reasons to suspect it is an interpolation.

I don't think it is wise to be dogmatic either way when discussing these letters.

This verse would be an interpolation because it doesn’t fit the authentic Pauline thought and because they doesn’t fit other texts. Remember: Romans 1: 3: “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”
According to you this verse would be contradictory with the true Pauline doctrine as reflected in 2 Cor.5:16: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer”.

I confess that I don’t see any contradiction between those verses. 2 Corinthians doesn’t deny that Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David, but it affirms that a good understanding of him implies realizing his divine mission and his transcendence of “his earthly life”.

In addition, you say that Romans 1:3 “imputes great significance to the idea that Jesus was the Son of David”. This is not evident. This verse only places the existence of Jesus Christ in a particular context of the history.

I don't see any historical context expressed in Romans 1:3. A descendant of David presumably could be in any historical era between the time of David and Paul.

The relevance of this fact transcends the carnal significance, because it is a universal one, as it is pointed in the next verse (4): “…and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord”. Paul is claiming that the earthly life of Jesus doesn’t interest him (or doesn’t matter) no more, although this life on earth really had existed. What really matters is the power that God confers on Jesus Christ, the resurrection specially.

Where is the contradiction?

From what you have set out here I understand that you have a different interpretation of the verses in question from the perspective I expressed.

I can only say I see the implications of the verses differently from you. I can do nothing more than repeat what I wrote in that original post --- but notice also that #3 was but one of 6 lines of evidence that I think cast suspicion on the authenticity of the passage.

I wrote:

3. Ideational evidence for interpolation: 1:3, by virtue of being at the opening of the letter as an explanation of the very gospel Paul preaches, imputes great significance to the idea that Jesus was the Son of David. This contradicts Paul’s firm insistence elsewhere that he has no interest in the fleshly lineage or heritage of Jesus, even dismissing any such interest as a waste of time:

Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer (2 Cor.5:16)

Later in Romans the author further says that Jesus came to earth only in “the likeness” of sinful flesh, thus again contradicting the idea that he could have been a literal Son of David:

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom.8:3)

The opening verses introduce the adoptionist doctrine that Jesus was only declared to be the Son of God at the resurrection. This also contradicts Romans 8:3 (quoted above) where the author accepts that it was “his Son” that God sent to earth, ostensibly “as” His Son, prior to any death and resurrection.

I see the contradictions for the reasons stated. You do not see any contradiction for the reasons you state.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, each with our different perspectives.

I would never base a strong argument upon Romans 1:3 -- I can neither deny it was written by Paul not can I affirm it is definitely an interpolation. I try to avoid dogmatism where I think there is room for debate.

 

[Craig B]

If nobody is making an argument to the effect of "the gospels are later, therefore Jesus", I don't really have much of a reason to counter that and still have no Jesus.

The reason for examining arguments is to determine whether they are valid or not. It is not to note whether or not they agree with a predetermined opinion.

 

[vridar]

OK.

Would you care to address the issue of Carrier overstating the importance of his "peer review"?

Or the numerous instances of him erroneously claiming that his book was published by the University of Sheffield?

Or are you going to harp on about my ability to research these things?

I do think it is important to speak up when I think someone's character is being attacked on very one-sided or partial evidence.

I have my own disagreements with Carrier and there are many things about him I do not like personally. But I do not advertise those things because they are personal opinions -- even though many others love to find excuses to kick him and denigrate him.

Even if I dislike someone I find it in my genes or something to generally stand up and speak out if I see them being attacked or slandered on very flimsy grounds.

I prefer to focus on the arguments he makes and not on things I cannot prove but merely find questionable or distasteful.

I also have many questions and suspicions about the peer-review processes more generally. But the only time I will address these is when I have researched evidence to support my suspicions -- and that does on occasion get published.

Relying on internet blog posts and on a public website of a publisher are not strong grounds for attacking the character of anyone -- I think most of us would agree, surely.

Please be careful about attacking people's character.

As for research abilities -- it is a fundamental principle that good research always -- always -- tries to find evidence and data and arguments to disprove one's own thesis or proposed idea or hunches.

People can always find evidence to support what they want to believe if they look hard enough. There is even some bad scholarship that gets published (despite peer review) that does just his very thing -- especially in the field of biblical studies.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Craig B
Well, of course, if you weren't still just trolling with twisting other people's words, you'd probably be able to figure out that I'm talking about whether or not they're counter-arguments I need to address, not whether they conform to a preconceived notion.

Edit: Also, if you seem to think there is a difference they make, I would remind you that it's a positive claim, and you get the burden of proof. But you can start by at least stating what the difference is, rather than just doing the prom-queen act of just voicing disbelief that I don't. Well, do YOU? If you make the positive claim, it's yours to state and support. You don't get to just bait and troll for me to pick supporting the opposite.

 

[Craig B]

@Craig B ... prom-queen act ... just bait and troll ...

That's both unjustified and ineffective. I have made a valid point in moderate language. If you don't want to respond, ignore it; but this sort of thing is pointless.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, filtering that out, I still gave an answer. Quoting from my own message: Also, if you seem to think there is a difference they make, I would remind you that it's a positive claim, and you get the burden of proof. But you can start by at least stating what the difference is, rather than just [...] voicing disbelief that I don't. Well, do YOU? If you make the positive claim, it's yours to state and support.

So really, _I_ don't think that a later date for the gospels challenges my point that they're not good sources for reconstructing a historical Jesus. Pushing Mark to the 130's (you know, the SECOND Jewish revolt, and possibly the bigger crush of any hope of ever rebuilding the temple) instead of the 70's just makes them even less reliable.

But IF YOU think that a later date is in some way creating a counter-argument to my point, then you get the burden of supporting that. I think the least one can do when claiming something of the form of "X exists" -- regardless of whether X is a counter-argument, a flying pig, or the noble race of elves living in my fridge -- is to state what X is, not just wonder out loud why someone didn't see X already. I mean, the burden of proof actually is to support it too, but starting by explaining what's the X is at least a start.

 

[Craig B]

So really, _I_ don't think that a later date for the gospels challenges my point that they're not good sources for reconstructing a historical Jesus.

Don't you? I think you do. If they were forged by Hardouinesque fabricators centuries later, presumably for the purpose of deceiving readers, it would not be reasonable to say they were "not good sources". They wouldn't be sources at all, would they?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Don't you? I think you do. If they were forged by Hardouinesque fabricators centuries later, presumably for the purpose of deceiving readers, it would not be reasonable to say they were "not good sources". They wouldn't be sources at all, would they?

Well, yeah. Or at the very least they'd be even worse sources. Sure, I'll agree to that. It's quite obvious, really.

But the thing is, I don't really NEED to go that far. The gospels are already pretty much non-sources for reconstructing a HJ, in the absence of any external confirmation that would help sort out which few bits are actually historical from the overwhelming majority of stuff that's just made up.

So, sure, they might be even worse sources if they were written later, but they're already not enough to make the HJ case beyond the stage of a possibility. Making them even worse will still leave them at the stage of not clearing the threshold. They'll just miss the threshold by more.

I might have to address something that's effectively a counter-argument, not something that's just making the point easier.

It's like saying in a shoplifting trial that ah, the defense did argue that the 5 ft tall kid couldn't reach the top shelf to steal that item, but you need to also address the case of whether it was his 4 ft tall sister. Well, why? She's just going to miss the top shelf by even more.

But if you want something WOULD actually make a difference to MJ -- although to Carrier's flavour, not mine -- forget the gospels. The big problem would actually be dejuge's claim about Paul. If Paul ISN'T written before the gospels, then you can't use Paul to figure out what Jesus was like before the gospels.

So that one would actually be a problem.

But since I'm not really representing the Carrier MJ camp, well, it's a HHGTTG case of Someone Else's Problem. Let Carrier or Kapyong deal with it

 

[Brainache]

I do think it is important to speak up when I think someone's character is being attacked on very one-sided or partial evidence.

But not important enough to bother finding any contrary evidence? Or is there no contrary evidence to what I've produced?

I have my own disagreements with Carrier and there are many things about him I do not like personally. But I do not advertise those things because they are personal opinions -- even though many others love to find excuses to kick him and denigrate him.

Even if I dislike someone I find it in my genes or something to generally stand up and speak out if I see them being attacked or slandered on very flimsy grounds.

Someone up-thread posted that OHJ had been "peer reviewed" as if it lent credibility to Carrier's thesis. I reposted some comments from this forum which pointed out that "peer review" in the Humanities doesn't mean the same as it does in the hard sciences.

In amongst those posts I also saw someone quoting Carrier where he was claiming that his book was being published by a University Press; it wasn't.

If you want to infer from that negative things about Carrier's personality, you can.

If you have evidence that "peer review" in this instance means that the book is somehow more authoritative than other books on this subject, please post it.

If you cannot contradict any of the evidence, no matter how it was obtained, either drop the subject or concede the point.

I prefer to focus on the arguments he makes and not on things I cannot prove but merely find questionable or distasteful.

I also have many questions and suspicions about the peer-review processes more generally. But the only time I will address these is when I have researched evidence to support my suspicions -- and that does on occasion get published.

Relying on internet blog posts and on a public website of a publisher are not strong grounds for attacking the character of anyone -- I think most of us would agree, surely.

I wasn't attacking his character. I was addressing the issue of "peer review" and the fact that Carrier's followers continue to use it as evidence that Carrier's book is more authoritative than other works in this field.

Please be careful about attacking people's character.

As for research abilities -- it is a fundamental principle that good research always -- always -- tries to find evidence and data and arguments to disprove one's own thesis or proposed idea or hunches.

People can always find evidence to support what they want to believe if they look hard enough. There is even some bad scholarship that gets published (despite peer review) that does just his very thing -- especially in the field of biblical studies.

Right back at you vridar.

I would hope that if my "research" (it was a forum post FFS) has produced a wrong conclusion on my part that someone could provide me with more correct information. Can you do that? Can you show evidence that I am wrong?

I welcome any correction. I thanked Hans for pointing out that the Publisher's address includes "Sheffield University" which may have led to an honest misunderstanding on Carrier's part.

I feel that a misunderstanding of that magnitude would not speak well for his research skills... What do you think?

If it was a deliberate misstatement, then it doesn't speak well for his honesty... What do you think?

Do you have any evidence that we should grant more weight to OHJ than other books because it has been "peer reviewed"?

If you are unhappy with the level of research in my posts, rather than complaining to me, you could show me where I'm wrong.

It's up to you.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Brainache
Well, maybe, but it's still an ad-hominem circumstantial when it comes to whether he has a point or not about Jesus.

And I have to wonder why people who didn't even read the book put this much effort into doing all sorts of such irrelevant considerations as if, verily, it was some kind of last-ditch now-or-never kind of effort where they have to attack the author, if they can't do athing else.

Especially because here's what you'd find on the first page of the preface. In fact, in the first half page of the preface:

He doesn't actually claim to have the definitive answer. He doesn't claim to have settled it that, that's it, it's p>0.5 for his theory, we can all pack our bags and go home. He only really claims that it's a possible alternative theory, and you need more than just handwaving to address the MJ case. Hell, even the second half of the title of the book might have given you a hint: "why we have reason for doubt." And really that's all that he establishes there: that it's not entirely unreasonable to doubt a HJ.

Seems to me like the easiest thing to do, especially if you're not really all that interested in actually reading and arguing the whole thing, is to just agree and move on. Think, "sure, mate, it's possible, but, as you say, you haven't reached the level of evidence to actually settle it as THE thing that happened. Maybe next time."

That's what I did. (In case it wasn't clear to someone or another how come I think he has a point or two, yet I'm not convinced that his conclusion cleared that P>0.5 threshold.)

You don't really need to establish a credibility level for whether his MJ is right, when he's saying up front that there's a lot of probability room for it to be wrong. You can basically just agree with him that yeah, verily, there's a LOT of room for a lot of other possibilities to have happened back in ye olde Jesus days, and you save yourself the rest of the effort