Nomad

And your point is what exactly? If I tell you that my son was born, but don't tell you when or where, I don't know what I am talking about? Don't be daft. The point is Paul knows of, and is talking about this historical fact regarding Jesus.

Yes. Interestingly, Matthew uses similar language, looking back to the same passage. Again this simply means that two Jews (namely Matthew and Paul) want to link a Jewish Messiah to Jewish Scripture. This is hardly a surprise.

I'm sorry, could you demonstrate from Paul where he believes that a spiritual person, who never lived as an physical person, could be the Son of God? (Don't you love how arguments from silence can cut both ways? ).



Irrelavent arguments from authority do not help Michael. Just so that you know, Doherty is not an authority on the New Testament, and ALL of those who are authorities accept that Paul was talking about historical information on Jesus lineage.

BTW, Wells is not an authority either. He is a professor of German, not an historian or Biblical scholar. Please look up the definition of the fallacy of Appeals to authority.

Actually, Jews rarely used "Abba" in their prayers to God. It was too informal an familiar to be viewed as appropriate, except in a children's prayer.

Matthew 19:4-9 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Only one, adultery. See also Matthew 5:32.

[quote]-Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)

IF Paul knows these men?? Are you being serious?

I'm out of time, but this is truly sad Michael. The remainder of your points are no better than those above. I would hope you could make better arguments, and find actual authorities to quote when making your case. It would add at least some weight to your arguments.

Nomad

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

lpetrich

That's a very amusing perspective on the Virgin Birth -- that Paul did not care about it because he wanted to distinguish Jesus Christ from the abundance of virgin-born and otherwise miraculously-conceived pagan heroes.

Almost as if it was a legitimate comparison.

Vorkosigan

And your point is what exactly? If I tell you that my son was born, but don't tell you when or where, I don't know what I am talking about? Don't be daft. The point is Paul knows of, and is talking about this historical fact regarding Jesus.

If your son is the son of god, a few details might be in order. But Paul never gives them to us. Paul knows that Jesus "was born of a woman" and knows the woman's other children (and presumably, her), but doesn't give the name of the mother of god. He obviously does not know this as a historical event that took place in a context he was familiar with.

Mike: He allowed divorce in certain situations.

Nomad: Only one, adultery. See also Matthew 5:32.

It only takes one to turn Paul into a liar, Nomad.

Michael

Kosh

Can we maybe get back to discussing the
dating of Gospels?

Nomad

Just because you would like some additional details does not change the facts Michael. Ellegard's position is that Paul says nothing about the historical Jesus. Since Paul says that Jesus was born, nuff said. Your sideshow is noted, but not relevant.

Also, thank you for retracting your assertin that Paul may not have actually known Jesus' brother James.

I will assume that you understand what a plural happens to be. You said certain situations. The fact is Jesus accepted only one exception, insisting that what God had joined together, no man could separate. Paul was well aware of this fact.

I will recommend the same book as I suggested to Toto. Akenson is a confirmed atheist, so you need not worry about him trying to convert you or anything. He will, however, offer you some perspective, and do so from a scholarly point of view.

I will give you the perspective of another sceptical scholar, as his view reflects a perfectly reasonable outline of what we should, and should not, expect to see in Paul's letters:

From Dr. Steve Mason's article, "O Little Town of... Nazareth?", Biblical Archaeology Review, February, 2000

Let's begin with our earliest source, Paul.

In all of the letters that we have, Paul never mentions any geographical location in connection with Jesus.

This absence can be explained in several ways: Such references may have been irrelevant to his purposes; or he may have assumed that his (converted) readers already knew of these traditions and therefore that he didn't need to mention them; or he may not have known much about the geography of Jesus' life. Admittedly, much can be attributed to the first category (irrelevance), since Paul was primarily concerned with Jesus' status between his crucifixion and his return from heaven, and not so much with the mundane details of Jesus' life. When he referred to Jesus' betrayal and described the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23), for example, [b]he almost certainly knew that these events took place near Jerusalem, but he had no reason to bring it up...

Did Paul know any tradition about the place of Jesus' birth? Since he does not mention one, we cannot be certain. But there is another way to approach this question, which is to ask whether it would have helped Paul's arguments—or those of his correspondents—to mention Jesus' birthplace if he did know about it.

Paul wrote letters, not essays, and he was in frequent debate with other Christians whose views differed from his own.

...So, we can ask not only whether Jesus' birthplace was an issue for Paul, but whether his letters indicate that it was an issue for any first-generation Christians.

Scholars differ significantly in their understanding of Paul's motives, but I would argue that even if he had known of the Bethlehem tradition, it would not have served his interests to mention it.

Don't try and move the goalposts Michael, and do not try and shift the focus of the discussion. Toto has told us that Ellegard argues that Paul NEVER says ANYTHING about the historical Jesus. From this he argues that there never was any historical Jesus to talk about. Your argument, on the other hand, is that Paul does not say enough (in your opinion) about the historical Jesus. You accept that Jesus did, in fact, exist. Had Ellegard been more cautious, and made similar statements, then this would not be an issue.

As it stands right now, Ellegard merely demonstrates that he read Paul (assuming he read Paul at all) with an agenda, and this agenda causes him to miss the obvious: Paul knew of, and spoke about, details in the life of Jesus. Among these, was the fact that Jesus was born to a woman, and that He had brothers.

Now, do you have an argument about the dating of the Gospels yet? Or will you continue to stick with your beliefs sans such arguments?

Nomad

Toto

That's not exactly what Toto said, and you are completely misrepresenting Ellegard. Toto was not that specific, but I will outline what Ellegard does say.

Ellegard notes that Paul never met Jesus, but he did meet Peter. If Peter had actually been a companion of Jesus, Peter presumably would have filled Paul in.

On the contrary, while Paul does talk about Jesus, everything that he says is theologically oriented. Moreover, Paul attributes his knowledge of Jesus to his own personal revelation from "the Lord", not to any earthly source.

Paul concentrates on the crucifixion and resurrection, and says nothing about Jesus' family (Ellegard thinks that James was a member of a brotherhood, not a sibling), nothing about Jesus' deeds, preaching, or how his audience reacted to it. Even in regard to the crucifixion, Paul only alludes to it, never gives it a date, time, or says who crucified Jesus.

Paul continually talks about knowing things "according to the scriptures." Ellegard interprets this as saying that Paul derived his knowledge from reading and interpreting the scriptures, not from any independent evidence of the events.

So what does this have to do with dating the Gospels? It is part of an attempt to make sense of early Christianity. For many, early Christianity doesn't make sense - the character of Jesus in the Gospels is too contradictory, and the Gospels are too much at variance with Paul and with Christian practice. It is not clear how they fit together (except that it's a mystery.) Ellegard's theory at least has some coherence to it - he neatly divides his 1st century Christians, from the 2nd century, with Ignatius at the turning point.

Vorkosigan

Why don't you get a copy of the book, Nomad, and read it, and respond to specific points that Ellegaard is making? I think his linguistic arguments are very persuasive -- he is one of the leading experts in the study of style -- and interesting to boot. The book is accessible and his arguments are clear. It would make a fine addition to your library.

Michael

Nomad

Here is what you said from your opening post.

Paul also identified his visions with the Teacher, which would explain his references to Jesus as a man born of woman, but with no other details of a life that presumably was very close in time to his own.

So Paul gave NO other details of the life of Jesus than that He was born of a woman. As I have demonstrated that this is simply false, all you need do is admit that Ellegard was "excessively enthusiastic" in his conclusions. IOW, he doesn't have a clue.

Very true. Paul also met James, John, and other apostles as well.

Actually, Paul himself tells us that Peter and James "fill him in" on the details of Jesus' life. We need not presume anything.

Of course it is, but this is not what you said in your opening post. Almost everyting people said in those days was theologically oriented. Even Josephus was theologically motivated, and said so up front. This tells us little of interest.

The question is, did Paul know about the details of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the answer is a resounding yes. Now, did he care very much about these historical details? That is a separate question, and one well worth discussing. What we should not do is try to use (non)silences in Paul to try and assert that Jesus was not an historical person. That is irresponsible use of historical evidence.

No, he attributes his "gospel" to personal revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:11-12). In verse 15 he tells us that God "set him apart at birth", likening his calling to that of Samuel, Samson, Jeremiah, Isaiah and others in the Old Testament(not to mention John the Baptist), who were also chosen before they were born. This was a way of claiming a very special kind of calling from God.

All of this is is quite a different matter than asking what Paul knew about what could be called merely the earthly life of the historical Jesus. After all the Gospel is the death and resurrection of our Lord. Without the resurrection, there is no Gospel. The earthly facts of Jesus' life may not have been central to Paul's epistles, but that hardly means he didn't know them at all. As has been shown, he knew quite a lot of Jesus' life, and none of it contradicts what we find in those Gospels.

One final point if I may. Even the most sceptical of atheists knows that the expression "from the Lord" does not always mean that Paul is literally saying that he got his information directly from Jesus.

One of the most pivotal texts in the entire Christian liturgy comes from Saul (Paul). Ut us his description of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, and thus an historical pericope set in liturgic form. He says he has received it from "the Lord," a term he usually employs to refer to Jesus Christ. Since he did not do this literally (Saul most definitely was not present at the original Last Supper), what I think he is doing here is saying that this is an historical event for which he gives the higest warrant of authenticity: it is true as if Jesus Christ were telling it himself."
(D. Akenson, Saint Saul: Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, [McGill-Queens University Press: Montreal, 2000], pg. 202).

Remember, for Christians, our liturgy and Church practices are said to come from our Lord. This is a figure of speech, and need not always be read literally. Discernment and common sense can be used.

I covered this off in my debate with Earl Doherty, who happens to think the same thing about Jesus. Of course, when Paul talks about James, he uses the term "brother of the Lord", a phrase he applies to no one else. Interestingly, if someone were to call my brother, the "brother of Nomad", and the listeners assumed he was talking about someone who was merely of the "brotherhood of Nomad", they would be quite daft.

Again, this is simply not true. As we have seen above, he relates the central event of the Last Supper, the Eucharist, the most sacred Sacrament (along with Baptism) in Christianity. As for telling people who were already believers details of the crucifixion, we need only ask why he would have to do this in an incidental letter. What value would it have?

One final point again, but in 1 Timothy we are told that Jesus dies in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. To claim that the author of this book was not reflecting Pauling thought is to beg the question. Quite frankly, I think the assumption that Paul could not have possibly written 1 Timothy cannot be taken as a given, and when this assumption is used as the starting point, just to make an argument (as Ellegard has done here), it is even more suspicious. One cannot build too many good hypothesis' upon other hypothesis'.

Yes he does. On the other hand, as I said earlier, as a Jew (and especially as a Pharisee) trying to convince people that the Jewish Messiah had arrived this is hardly a surprise. The Gospel writers did the same thing. Josephus also specifically tells us that he wishes to portray the history of the Jewish people in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is simply how Jews thought and taught in those days.

And this is just goofy. What does he think Paul and Peter and James talked about during their 15 days together? In any event, since Paul demonstrates a clear knowledge of a number of the events in Jesus' life, Ellegard is merely begging the question here.

The problem with Ellegard's dating is that he uses the weakest methodology (linguistics), and even then botches it. See, for example, his trying to force some kind of significance in the use of the word "synagogue" as a building in the Gospels and Acts. The "synagogue" happened to be the building Jews who lived outside of Jerusalem gathered in to worship and read the Torah, at least since the time of the Second Temple (5th Century BC). It should hardly be a surprise that 1st Century AD documents, like the Gospels, should talk about these buildings. After all, they were important to the communities that Jesus lived and taught in.

If you find the Gospels confusing, I can recommend much better reading materials than this, and you can find it written by real historians, like Robin Lane Fox, Donald Akenson or Michael Grant. Even liberal theologians like Marcus Borg and J.D. Crossan can give you better information than you will find in Ellegard. An even better place to start would probably be Geza Vermes, a sceptical Jew, who can help place Jesus in His historical framework better than almost any scholar alive today. Just because I do not agree with these men does not mean that I think they have nothing worth while to say. And quite frankly, I would rather debate their ideas, as they have considerable weight, and scholarly support behind them. Debating fringe scholarship like Ellegard, or Theiring, or Eisenman is something I would like to do less, allowing us to focus on the best scholarship out there.

Nomad

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Nomad

First, I do not have the time. I am currently most interested in researching the Old Testament, an area about which I am not nearly as well read, and I have found it very fascinating.

Second, I think Ellegard's ideas are too far flung to research more closely. Linguistic arguments are notoriously weak when trying to date materials, especially to anything closer than a few hundred years. To try and rule out material as 1st Century, as opposed to 2nd Century, and to do so on the basis of language usage alone is stretching too far. The fact that Ellegard does not think that 1st Century documents would refer to the synagogue as a building is a very bad sign. By 100AD the synagogue had been around in Palestine for at least 500 years.

Finally, when an author depends on conspiracy theories, and demonstrates a poor understanding of Paul, then I place him in a catagory popularly known as "wah wah". Perhaps it is unfair. I have done this with Christian (Josh McDowell, Ian Wilson) and non-Christian books alike. For good or bad, given a limited amount of time to read all of the books I want to read, these kinds of books do not make it onto my list.

Nomad

P.S. In my response to Richard Carrier's article on Luke and Josephus, I have always thought that the Achilles heel of the entire theory was the dating of Luke/Acts. I have now learned that Steve Mason himself still dates Luke to <100AD, and as Carrier himself noted in his article, if Luke depended on Josephus' Antiquities, we must date it later than 100AD. As I thought from the beginning, Carrier was taking Mason's arguments farther than did Mason himself. I honestly tried to find scholars that took the theory seriously, but as I suspected, the need for an unreastically late dating (to the 2nd Century) of Luke is seen as making the theory too weak to support. On the flip side, few scholars think that Josephus used Luke either. If better evidence ever surfaces, either way, I will let you know. I hope you will do the same. This is just an FYI, as no one appeared to care about the subject, and I did not have time to pursue something no one was reading.

Toto

Nomad: Please provide an instance where Paul attributes anything he learned about Jesus to Peter or another person.

Also, please explain what "conspiracy theory" Ellegard uses.

Ellegard says that Paul claims all of his knowledge of Jesus to have come from personal revelation. You dispute this - you quote Galatians 1:11-12 to say that Paul got his knowledge from "Jesus". But since Paul never met Jesus, this must have been from a vision of Jesus, or some other supernatural revelation. You then quote Akensen to say that of course, Paul didn't really mean this - it was just a figure of speech saying that Paul was really really sure about the facts.

This is pretty astounding. How does Akensen know this? It sounds like Akensen is trying to rewrite the Bible to conform to modern materialist standards, rather than accepting it as a document from its time. If every time you find something embarrassing or inexplicable, you can say it is just a "figure of speech" that "need not always be read literally", you can get away with about anything. Why can't you just say that the character of Jesus was a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally?

I have probably not described Ellegard's arguments about the word "synagogue" very well. His point is that Paul and other documents from the first century do not use the word synagogue, while it is a quite common word in the Gospels and Acts.