Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 10-21-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He does not ever say that Paul's beliefs are evidence for Jesus' beliefs. All of his argumentation for Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet, right or wrong as it may be, is derived independently of Paul's letters.

Hence his adducing the existence of Christian communities believing what Ehrman claims Jesus preached, in a huge paragraph just after saying we know what Jesus believed.

And then Ehrman goes on to say there is a clear connection between what Jesus preached and what these early Christian communities (as evidenced by Paul) believed.

Ehrman goes on to ask 'What is the link between John the Baptist and Paul?', and answers his question with the words ' the historical Jesus.'

Ehrman writes 'Now if the beginning is apocalyptic, and the end (ie Paul's letters - Carr), is apocalyptic, what about the middle?'

Perhaps this is yet another example of Ehrman's unclear writing.

Anybody would look at that quote and think that he was using Paul's letters as evidence of what Jesus believed.

But he wasn't. He just wrote in a misleading manner, still yet one more time.

Happily there are interpreters on hand to tell us what Ehrman really meant.

He was NOT using the end as evidence of the middle!

Equally happily such interpreters of the Word can be totally ignored as all they are doing is insulting our intelligence, in so blatant a manner that their attempts to deceive people are easily seen through, and fail to convince anybody who can read.

Steven Carr · 10-21-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We can know that Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher because Paul, the earliest writer of the earliest Christian Communities, wrote things similar to it that agrees with it.

It is what Ehrman calls on page 304 a 'powerful argument' for Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher that we have Paul's letters attesting to early Christian communities believing in an apocalypse.

I'm sure outhouse will be along shortly to explain that when Ehrman calls this 'a powerful argument' , he is not using these communities as evidence of what a historical Jesus believed :-)

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-22-2012, 03:47 AM

That is not an accurate charaterization of what Ehrman says.

He draws a connection between John the Baptist, and the undeniable apocalypticism of the early Christian communities (he does not specifically rely on letters of Paul, but multiple independent sources for the earliest Christian communities being endtimers) and says that if Jesus BEGAN as part of an apocalyptic community (which Ehrman argues was the case with John the Baptist) and the followers of Jesus after his death were apocalyptic, then, in his view, it's more likely that Jesus was apocalyptic too than that the movement was apocalyptic under John, then stopped being apocalyptic under Jesus, then became apocalyptic again after his death.

Quote:

This too is highly significant for our present discussion. At the beginning of Jesus’s ministry he associated with an apocalyptic John prophet, John; in the aftermath of his ministry there sprang up apocalyptic communities. What connects this beginning and this end? Or put otherwise, what is the link between John the Baptist and Paul? It is the historical Jesus. Jesus’s public ministry occurs between the beginning and the end. Now if the beginning is apocalyptic and the end is apocalyptic, what about the middle? It almost certainly had to be apocalyptic as well.

To explain this beginning and this end, we have to think that Jesus himself was an apocalypticist. That is to say, if Jesus started out apocalyptically but then in the aftermath of his life the communities of his followers were not apocalyptically oriented, one could easily argue that Jesus moved away from being an apocalypticist after his association with John. But that is not the case: the later communities were in fact apocalyptic in nature and presumably took their cues from him. So too, if Jesus did not start out apocalyptically but the later communities were apocalyptic, one could argue that Jesus himself was not an apocalypticist but that later followers of his changed his message to make it apocalyptic. But that cannot be argued either because Jesus did indeed start out apocalyptically. The only plausible explanation for the connection between an apocalyptic beginning and an apocalyptic end is an apocalyptic middle. Jesus, during his public ministry, must have proclaimed an apocalyptic message.

I think this is a powerful argument for Jesus being an apocalypticist. It is especially persuasive in combination with the fact, which we have already seen, that apocalyptic teachings of Jesus are found throughout our earliest sources, multiply attested by independent witnesses.

Ehrman is arguing for a through line between John the Baptist and the earliest Christian communities, not the letters of Paul per se, but the totality of sources characterizing those communities as apocalyptic.

You can argue (and I would agree) that Ehrman does not prove his case that John the Baptist was an apocalypticist himself (he basically just omits the fact that Josephus does not corroborate this claim. He does not say Josephus claimed John was apocalyptic, he just ignores Josephus completely on this except to say he corroborates JBap's existence), but it is simply not true that he is trying to make an argument for Jesus' apocalypticism based solely on the letters of Paul.

I always come off like a big Ehrman apologist, but I'm not trying to argue in support of his conclusions, I just want to make sure his arguments are represented accurately.

sotto voce · 10-22-2012, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We know that Jesus was concerned about helping the poor, oppressed, and needy, because he said that was the way to get to heaven, and "later Christians--including most notably Paul" did not hold that opinion.

This is supposed to be scholarship. It's not. It's farce. It's hot air, man. It's beyond belief that supposedly intelligent adults can be talking such amazing drivel. Unless it's some sort of joke, to see how many people take it seriously.

Jesus and Paul, along with John, Peter, James, Silas, Apollos, Barnabas and doubtless many more were completely agreed that the only way to get to heaven was by faith in the perfect atonement of Jesus on the cross. That's why people called them 'Christians', doncha know. Jesus and Paul said so, in different ways, as those who have actually finished reading the New Testament realise. But they spoke to different constituencies— 'before' and 'after'. Jesus made Jews long sunk in complacent apathy or worse realise that they were not all that they supposed themselves to be. Their lack of works demonstrated that they needed a remedy that Moses could not provide, but that faith in himself would provide it. Paul wrote to people who had realised this. "You were a bunch of no-goods, but you were saved from that. And don't let anyone tell you that you can earn your way to heaven by doing supposedly good works."

Clear?

Now, if there are no more questions, I'm sure you have better things to do.

PhilosopherJay · 10-22-2012, 05:31 AM

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Yes, he is not using Paul as the sole source that Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher. He is using Paul as one source that the earliest Christian community was Apocalyptic and because this community has a similar opinion to Gospel Jesus, this is evidence that Historical Jesus too must have been apocalyptic.

When Ehrman wants to prove that the historical Jesus was mainly concerned with the poor and needy, he suggests Paul's Christian community was a later one and the fact that Paul's and these later Christian opinions differs from Gospel Jesus' opinion suggests they come from the historical Jesus.

Logically, this demonstrates that Paul's agreement can be proof of the gospel Jesus being the historical Jesus and Paul's disagreement can be proof of the gospel Jesus being the historical Jesus.

Imagine an astrologer who tells you, "Mercury is in alignment with Mars. today. We know this because Leo is in conjunction with Scorpio and this proves you will have a good day."

A week later the astrologer tells you, "Today, Leo is in opposition to Scorpio and this proves you will have a good day."

You point out the contradiction that the conjunction of Leo and Scorpio on one day and the opposition of Leo and Scorpio on another day cannot both mean a good day. The astrologist's faithful ones answers, "But notice that Mercury was in alignment with Jupiter on that first day and when that happens Mars conjoining with Scorpio is fortuitous, so the Master was not only using Leo to prove that you would have a good day. He was only using it to show that Mercury was in alignment with Mars. You are mistaken and are taking the Master's words out of context."

You have to admit, this astrology business certainly is complicated.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That is not an accurate charaterization of what Ehrman says.

He draws a connection between John the Baptist, and the undeniable apocalypticism of the early Christian communities (he does not specifically rely on letters of Paul, but multiple independent sources for the earliest Christian communities being endtimers) and says that if Jesus BEGAN as part of an apocalyptic community (which Ehrman argues was the case with John the Baptist) and the followers of Jesus after his death were apocalyptic, then, in his view, it's more likely that Jesus was apocalyptic too than that the movement was apocalyptic under John, then stopped being apocalyptic under Jesus, then became apocalyptic again after his death.

Quote:

This too is highly significant for our present discussion. At the beginning of Jesus’s ministry he associated with an apocalyptic John prophet, John; in the aftermath of his ministry there sprang up apocalyptic communities. What connects this beginning and this end? Or put otherwise, what is the link between John the Baptist and Paul? It is the historical Jesus. Jesus’s public ministry occurs between the beginning and the end. Now if the beginning is apocalyptic and the end is apocalyptic, what about the middle? It almost certainly had to be apocalyptic as well.

To explain this beginning and this end, we have to think that Jesus himself was an apocalypticist. That is to say, if Jesus started out apocalyptically but then in the aftermath of his life the communities of his followers were not apocalyptically oriented, one could easily argue that Jesus moved away from being an apocalypticist after his association with John. But that is not the case: the later communities were in fact apocalyptic in nature and presumably took their cues from him. So too, if Jesus did not start out apocalyptically but the later communities were apocalyptic, one could argue that Jesus himself was not an apocalypticist but that later followers of his changed his message to make it apocalyptic. But that cannot be argued either because Jesus did indeed start out apocalyptically. The only plausible explanation for the connection between an apocalyptic beginning and an apocalyptic end is an apocalyptic middle. Jesus, during his public ministry, must have proclaimed an apocalyptic message.

I think this is a powerful argument for Jesus being an apocalypticist. It is especially persuasive in combination with the fact, which we have already seen, that apocalyptic teachings of Jesus are found throughout our earliest sources, multiply attested by independent witnesses.

Ehrman is arguing for a through line between John the Baptist and the earliest Christian communities, not the letters of Paul per se, but the totality of sources characterizing those communities as apocalyptic.

You can argue (and I would agree) that Ehrman does not prove his case that John the Baptist was an apocalypticist himself (he basically just omits the fact that Josephus does not corroborate this claim. He does not say Josephus claimed John was apocalyptic, he just ignores Josephus completely on this except to say he corroborates JBap's existence), but it is simply not true that he is trying to make an argument for Jesus' apocalypticism based solely on the letters of Paul.

I always come off like a big Ehrman apologist, but I'm not trying to argue in support of his conclusions, I just want to make sure his arguments are represented accurately.

Steven Carr · 10-22-2012, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That is not an accurate charaterization of what Ehrman says.

Translation - you have quoted the exact words of what Ehrman said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He draws a connection between John the Baptist, and the undeniable apocalypticism of the early Christian communities (he does not specifically rely on letters of Paul, but multiple independent sources for the earliest Christian communities being endtimers) and says that if Jesus BEGAN as part of an apocalyptic community (which Ehrman argues was the case with John the Baptist) and the followers of Jesus after his death were apocalyptic, then, in his view, it's more likely that Jesus was apocalyptic too than that the movement was apocalyptic under John, then stopped being apocalyptic under Jesus, then became apocalyptic again after his death.

Quote:

This too is highly significant for our present discussion. At the beginning of Jesus’s ministry he associated with an apocalyptic John prophet, John; in the aftermath of his ministry there sprang up apocalyptic communities. What connects this beginning and this end? Or put otherwise, what is the link between John the Baptist and Paul? It is the historical Jesus. Jesus’s public ministry occurs between the beginning and the end. Now if the beginning is apocalyptic and the end is apocalyptic, what about the middle? It almost certainly had to be apocalyptic as well.

To explain this beginning and this end, we have to think that Jesus himself was an apocalypticist. That is to say, if Jesus started out apocalyptically but then in the aftermath of his life the communities of his followers were not apocalyptically oriented, one could easily argue that Jesus moved away from being an apocalypticist after his association with John. But that is not the case: the later communities were in fact apocalyptic in nature and presumably took their cues from him. So too, if Jesus did not start out apocalyptically but the later communities were apocalyptic, one could argue that Jesus himself was not an apocalypticist but that later followers of his changed his message to make it apocalyptic. But that cannot be argued either because Jesus did indeed start out apocalyptically. The only plausible explanation for the connection between an apocalyptic beginning and an apocalyptic end is an apocalyptic middle. Jesus, during his public ministry, must have proclaimed an apocalyptic message.

I think this is a powerful argument for Jesus being an apocalypticist. It is especially persuasive in combination with the fact, which we have already seen, that apocalyptic teachings of Jesus are found throughout our earliest sources, multiply attested by independent witnesses.

Ehrman is arguing for a through line between John the Baptist and the earliest Christian communities, not the letters of Paul per se, but the totality of sources characterizing those communities as apocalyptic.

You can argue (and I would agree) that Ehrman does not prove his case that John the Baptist was an apocalypticist himself (he basically just omits the fact that Josephus does not corroborate this claim. He does not say Josephus claimed John was apocalyptic, he just ignores Josephus completely on this except to say he corroborates JBap's existence),

Let's wait for the inevitable straw man :-

But wait, is it going to be a bait and switch , rather than a straw man?

The suspense is intense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

but it is simply not true that he is trying to make an argument for Jesus' apocalypticism based solely on the letters of Paul.

And here is it is.

It turned out to be a switch.

People who bet on the straw man appearing get no refunds.

Having denied that Ehrman used Paul's letters as a basis for Jesus being a historical prophet, it is now switched to a claim that Ehrman does not base that solely on the letters of Paul, which nobody ever claimed.

So the OP has been proved to be perfectly correct after all.

Ehrman uses similarities between Paul and the Gospels to 'prove' Jesus said something, and uses dissimilarities between Paul and the Gospels to 'prove' Jesus said something.

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-22-2012, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Yes, he is not using Paul as the sole source that Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher. He is using Paul as one source that the earliest Christian community was Apocalyptic and because this community has a similar opinion to Gospel Jesus, this is evidence that Historical Jesus too must have been apocalyptic.

Not exactly. He's saying that because the earliest Christian communities and John the Baptist were both apocalyptic (in Ehrman's opinion) that Jesus probably was too. John the Baptist is his crucial connector. He has the Baptizer community as one terminus, with post-Jesus Christians as the other and is saying pre-Jesus apocalypticists plus post-Jesus apocalypticists equals a probable apocalyptic Jesus.

PhilosopherJay · 10-22-2012, 09:37 AM

Hi Steve,

LOL. Yes, the bait and switch is the trusty stand by.

It is kind of like exposing the secret compartment for the rabbit at the base of the magician's hat and the magician claiming he magically created that too when he pulled the rabbit out of the hat.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That is not an accurate charaterization of what Ehrman says.

Translation - you have quoted the exact words of what Ehrman said.

Let's wait for the inevitable straw man :-

But wait, is it going to be a bait and switch , rather than a straw man?

The suspense is intense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

but it is simply not true that he is trying to make an argument for Jesus' apocalypticism based solely on the letters of Paul.

And here is it is.

It turned out to be a switch.

People who bet on the straw man appearing get no refunds.

Having denied that Ehrman used Paul's letters as a basis for Jesus being a historical prophet, it is now switched to a claim that Ehrman does not base that solely on the letters of Paul, which nobody ever claimed.

So the OP has been proved to be perfectly correct after all.

Ehrman uses similarities between Paul and the Gospels to 'prove' Jesus said something, and uses dissimilarities between Paul and the Gospels to 'prove' Jesus said something.

PhilosopherJay · 10-22-2012, 10:15 AM

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

I am not much interested in Ehrman's specific evidence for proving Jesus an Apocalyptic preacher or not. What I am more interested in is Ehrman's ability to use the principle of multiple attestation to prove something and the opposite principle of dissimilarity to prove a similar thing.

It seems to me that using these principles I can prove any saying/opinion of Jesus to be either the saying of the real historical Jesus or not the saying of the real historical Jesus. In regards to apocalyptic beliefs of Jesus, Ehrman could have invoked the Principle of Dissimilarity if he had so chosen. There is nothing dissimilar in the later Paul, so this is just the later Christian communities putting their stamp on the Jesus character. The historical Jesus was not apocalyptic.

Conversely, he could have said that nowhere else is it attested in any early Christian community that Jesus said that charity determines one's position in the afterlife. This fails the test of multiple attestation. Therefore, it is clear that this is just a heterodox opinion being made up by an obstinate later writer.

Apparently, only Ehrman possesses the secret knowledge of when it is proper to invoke which principle.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Yes, he is not using Paul as the sole source that Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher. He is using Paul as one source that the earliest Christian community was Apocalyptic and because this community has a similar opinion to Gospel Jesus, this is evidence that Historical Jesus too must have been apocalyptic.

Not exactly. He's saying that because the earliest Christian communities and John the Baptist were both apocalyptic (in Ehrman's opinion) that Jesus probably was too. John the Baptist is his crucial connector. He has the Baptizer community as one terminus, with post-Jesus Christians as the other and is saying pre-Jesus apocalypticists plus post-Jesus apocalypticists equals a probable apocalyptic Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-22-2012, 11:24 AM

I'm not trying to defend any of Ehrman's conclusions, I'm only saying he did not use this one particular argument to get to any of them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2012, 11:24 AM	#30
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I'm not trying to defend any of Ehrman's conclusions, I'm only saying he did not use this one particular argument to get to any of them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.