gstafleu

We "know" it in the sense it is the most likely hypothesis. And that is because Paul's supplies so little (not "none," you are correct in pointing that out) HJD. That is the usual AFS argument: given that Paul mentions so little HJD, it is most likely that he didn't know it. Extend this argument to most other epistolarians.

So, to make this a bit less black-and-white, what do you think of the following. We divide Jesus history overall into three parts. The first part is pre-war (the first Jewish war, i.e. pre about 70). In the documents we have from that time we see very little HJD, and from that we conclude there was little HJD about.

The other end of the spectrum, part III, is post-150, when gospel-type HJD starts to reign supreme. This leaves an interregnum from 70-150, part II. Sometime during this period the gospels get written. Given that we don't have much evidence for HJD from before this interregnum, we conclude that this is when most HJD is generated. However, during the interregnum the non-HJD strain also remains virulent (I remember this from Doherty).

So yes, perhaps Justin is just a convenient time marker in all of this. Just talking through my hat I would say that is rather unlikely that all HJD tradition gets generated in one fell, and short, swoop. But I could see a narrow stream of HJD tradition break free from its confines and and infect popular imagination in such a swoop. Maybe Justin was instrumental in that?

Doesn't this three part invention follow the available evidence pretty well, without assuming anything about documents we don't have? Parts I and III are uncontroversial, I think. The best controversy one can come up there with is for part I: Paul and the others from that time did know HJD but just didn't mention it. But, according to our rule of not using evidence we don't have, that doesn't count.

Part II, the interregnum, just states that the gospels were written in that period, and says that this is where (most) HJD comes from. Given that the gospels is where we find most (pre-150) HJD, that is pretty straightforward, I'd say. As a controversy, there could be lots of HJD in eaten docs, but our rule doesn't allow for that, so gospels it is. Part III says that as of 150 the historical Jesus started his supreme reign. That he reigned supreme as of that time is not controversial, I think (with the possible exception of some mountainous regions in the Southern hemisphere).

So I think I sort of nailed it :devil3:. Any controversies I missed?

Gerard

Roger Pearse

The words petitio principi would seem to apply here, unless I misunderstand? We're trying to work out what is most likely.

There is an appeal to the lack of works from the period discussing the issue, as a reason to hold an idea invented just now, and the presumption that because we have none therefore no-one in that period held the views described in the NT before and the fathers such as Irenaeus after.

When asked how we know this, despite the lack of data for it and the evidence against, the answer is "because it is most likely"?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

You are (rightly) not allowing the opposition to depend on the hidden assumption that missing documents did contain Jesus details, but here are the statements you are making that seem to depend on the hidden assumption that missing documents did not contain them:

There is no way to draw this conclusion from the extant documents without assuming that the nonextant documents lack the details.

(An issue that is peripheral to the present discussion but actually more important to me is that, even from the extant documents from this period, we can reconstruct a minimal HJ.)

There is no way to know that this is when the gospel type Jesus starts to dominate without assuming that, before 150, the nonextant documents did not contain Jesus details.

(Furthermore, even well after 150 there are plenty of documents and authors who lack Jesus details.)

You are correct about not relying on eaten documents (to have given Jesus details), but then you turn right around and rely on them (to have given few or none) when you say gospels it is. This assumes that none of the nonextant works offered much in the way of Jesus details.

Your assumptions may all be correct, as may your hypothesis as a whole. I am merely pointing out that they are, in fact, there.

Ben.

gstafleu

So we have the following situation. In period I we have documents that contain little or no HJD. We have no documents in that period that contain significant HJD. From this I conclude that in that period no documents with significant HJD existed. However, we know that there were lost documents in that period. You then say that my conclusion above assumes that theses lost documents did not have significant HJD, right?

I suspect that is a bit of sleight of hand. The point being that in my reasoning I never use the lost documents, I only refer to the non-lost ones, following the "existing evidence only" rule. By that same rule I will only start caring about the lost documents (i.e. allow them in as evidence) once they become un-lost. Until that point I do not assume anything about them because as far as I'm concerned they do not exist, they are pie in the sky. They can only influence my argument once it starts raining pie.

To put it another way, I never mention the lost documents. You have to bring them up in order to get them into the discussion. Because they are lost, assumptions about them are null and void as to my argument. Which is another way of saying I don't assume anything about them. Should they ever show up, then they can be considered. Before that any reference to them (re my argument) is invalid.

All of which comes down to one rather Wittgensteinian point: If you cannot talk about evidence because you don't have it, then don't .

[I'm now off to a fancy steak reatsurant for my wife's birthday. I forgot to give her her present this morning, but I think I can extricate myself from that with some snappy jewelry--but you can probably see how I may need all my concentration for that...]

Gerard

Ben C Smith

You did use the lost documents, in the line I boldfaced for you. You claimed that no documents with Jesus details even existed at the time; this cannot be true unless the lost ones lacked such details.

What on earth are you exchanging pleasantries with me for, then? Go, man, go!

Have a nice time.

Ben.

aa5874

Pardon me. READ MY POST CAREFULLY.

Where did I say or mention a gospel of Marcion?

IS THE NAME MARCION IN THE THE GOSPEL OF MARCION?

mountainman

By hand.

spamandham

The problem is, that you are merely assuming that the documents we do have from the various time periods, completely represent everything that once existed. This is a very weak argument, unless you can support the assumption. After all, Roger's trademark "99% of all ancient documents have been lost" is not even the only alternative explanation to MJ. We simply don't know.

You would do better to use the texts themselves to prove that there was early contention regarding a historical Jesus. Ignatius (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 9), admits contention in his day in regards to the very existence of Christ (if Roger or Ben can weigh in on this translation and verify I'm understanding it correctly, please do).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iii.ix.html

...further note

Ignatius admits that Christ's death is a mystery that he had received to believe. This tends to support a mythical/legendary hero Christ more than the argument from silence does.

Huon

I have a problem with the word "whom" (whom some deny). I was told by my teachers of english that the words "who", "whom" concern persons, while "which" concerns things, or events. If this rule is true, the phrase "whom some deny" concerns a person (Christ), not an event (his death). I am not able to look at the greek text, but it would be easy to make the difference.

Ben C Smith

I mentioned the gospel of Marcion, and gave you links (see for yourself, remember?).

But if you want to play dumb, fine. You have claimed that the Jesus of Marcion was an apparation. How do you know this?

Thanks (again) in advance.

Ben.