Toto

"Text wall" refers to insufficient paragraph breaks.

Lets focus on this. Why is it a safe assumption? And why assume that if they did not talk about the weather, they must have talked about the historical Jesus?

This idea is repeated on Mark Goodacre's latest blog post. But I find it totally unconvincing - just an imaginative way of filling in the gap between the historical Jesus and Paul.

What would Paul have talked to Cephas about? The primary issues that come to mind are: circumcision, table fellowship, kosher food, the role of the Torah, relations with the Romans, delivering donations to the church. . .

Most historicists are quite willing to grant that almost all of the gospels are theological or allegorical story telling, so trying to connect Cephas with the figure of Peter in the gospels is probably futile; but without this connection, what would Cephas have known about the historical Jesus? We don't know. It's just a gap in the record.

Edited to add LegionOnomaMoi's paragraph from the OP in the original thread:

LegionOnomaMoi

Rambling argument? Really? I introduced the topic, and then discussed Doherty's claim that Paul only went to Jerusalem once. How is that rambling?
Because no one spends 15 days with a single person talking about the weather (Paul explicitly remarks that his time was spent with Peter alone, with the sole exception of seeing James). Then, as I describe in detail, there is Paul's choice of the verb he uses to describe how he spent his time with Peter.

I didn't, and if you hadn't snipped my "rambling argument" you might have noticed this. What I addressed was Doherty's assertion that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. I did not say that this is what Paul did, merely that Doherty's claim here is mistaken. He not only gets the number of trips to Jerusalem wrong, but is (at best) misleading in his depiction of Paul's time spent with Peter.




1) All ancient historiography was story-telling, and often included myth, allegory, etc. As numerous in-depth comparisons between the gospels and ancient biographies have shown, the gospels fit well within this nebulous realm (itself half historical and have novel). The fact that the gospels are clearly theological, and even as ancient biographies go are hard to associate with historiography, does not mean they are not attempts to depict historical events (as the authors believed these events occurred).

2) The names Peter and Kephas themselves are good reason to connect the two. Neither one was an actual name, but (as you no doubt know) both are words for "rock" in their respective languages. That there were two important individuals in the earliest christian circles called "rock" seems to me to be quite unlikely. We have no evidence that christians went around giving themselves pet nicknames or acquiring them. How likely is it that Mark just happened to create a character (or describe another early Christian) called "rock" and for Paul to independently refer to another, seperate early Christian also called "rock", and for both to be depicted as leaders in the early Christian community?

EarlDoherty

Well, I'm flattered, Legion. But you'll have to take a number. You're rather lower down on a too-long list of priorities.

What strikes me is the amount of work you have been willing to put in to try to debunk some of my arguments. There really is a contingent out there that is in desperate need of discrediting mythicism. It never ceases to amaze me, especially when more often than not its members make some kind of declaration (the truth of which is difficult to judge) that they are basically non-believers, even atheists. As Chaucer's post indicates, when somebody throws a volley at Doherty, it gets eagerly passed around and lauded as some kind of Pulitzer prize candidate for historiography. I'm glad I can help so many people get through their nights.

The other thing that gets me is how much those Pulitzer prize winners have desperate recourse to the most obscure straws, and everyone welcomes them as some kind of life-saving penicillin. Legion's appeal to the word "historesai" (which every translation I know of renders simply "to see, or get to know, or visit") as some kind of veiled reference to 'learning about Jesus' raises the question, well, why the hell didn't Paul say so in plainer words? He could have said, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas and spent fifteen days learning all about Jesus' life and work while Cephas was his chief disciple..." (Of course, that would have thrown a monkey wrench into the declaration he had just made that he got his gospel about Jesus from no man. It might also have raised a few eyebrows for clashing with the fact that virtually nowhere else does Paul draw on or show any interest in anything that he had learned about Jesus' life and work.) But I guess when all you've got is straws, the tendency is to inflate them. Much the same goes for most of Legion's other appeals to countering my arguments, such as the word order of Christ and James in Antiquities 20. Blowing straws out of proportion makes for much better flotation devices.

And I just wish that if people are going to go to the trouble of trying to debunk my work, they would use the most recent publication rather than a 13-year old version. The minor omissions or perceived failings Legion calls attention to in The Jesus Puzzle are more than adequately covered in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

Anyway, whether I ever get around to making a more detailed response to Legion's effort here remains to be seen. I'm only halfway through my response to Ehrman.

P.S. Yes, Legion scored one point. I did say Paul went to Jerusalem only once, when of course it was twice by his own words. I may have had in mind that in the first 17 years of his missionary life he only had one opportunity to learn about Jesus from his disciples. (Oops, guess that destroys my entire case and shows me up to be a fraud and an incompetent.)

Earl Doherty

LegionOnomaMoi

I was asked to, some time ago:
And then again by you:So first you challenge me to respond to your argument and your response to Ehrman, and when I do, you wonder at some hidden bias? Interesting.



It never ceases to amaze you that people take the time to critique arguments they find flawed? Also, weren't you asserting earlier that too few scholars actually take the time to deal with your work?

Studying is a hobby of mine (one of two, actually). And because of this (although it may also be a personality trait) I frequently find myself in the position of reading some article or responding to someone's report about something they read which I know is either highly misleading or downright wrong. Most of the time it has to do with artificial intelligence, language, climate science, psychology, or similar topics which are frequently reported on. In this case, it's historical Jesus studies. And as I said, I was going to write something like this some time ago, when Toto first suggested I do so, but was unmotivated to do so until you yourself challenged me to.


And, as someone who has studied languages, you should know that all translations are imperfect. Additionally, I did not say that he meant "learning about Jesus". Merely that your claim that we lack any evidence that Paul had such an opportunity is incorrect, and that if Paul simply wished to convey that this was no more than a meet and greet, the length of time and his choice of words (or rather word) is hard to explain.


And there's your answer (or a possible answer). Paul's letter describes his conflict with Peter, who is clearly a leader. If it is true that Peter knew Jesus quite well, and was in fact Jesus' lead disciple, then Paul has every reason to downplay the fact that most of his knowledge about the Jesus tradition comes from Peter, and his claim to apostleship is based on revelation, rather than meeting Jesus. Of course, all this depends on the gospels, and thus gets into a quite different and more difficult historical reconstruction. However, it's also irrelevant. The point remains that contrary to what you wrote, Paul did indeed have the opportunity to learn a great deal about an earthly Jesus.


Funny, considering your book.



Only my argument is supported by Josephus' own word order elsewhere, as well as references to relevant work on the Greek language. Yours is suppported by...? The way it sounds wrong in English?


I also relied on various posts you've made since then (your rejoinder to Ehrman written quite recently again cites Kelber without indicating that you are starting mid-sentence and without giving the context of your quote, and again relies on Bultmann's now thoroughly discarded model of orality). Alas, I don't own your newer book.

Toto

I didn't want this to get lost. Mark Goodacre seems to think it is obvious that Peter told Paul all about the historical Jesus, but I don't see why that is obvious or even probable.

stephan huller

As the purveyor of strange bits of information, I thought I should mention that the Roman tradition seems to have thought that Peter and Paul formed some sort of angelic syzygy. In other words, that the two of them become one like the angels or if you will the manner in which the Valentinian emanations 'coupled.'

So it is that one could develop a mythicist counter argument to Goodacre's claim (which I haven't read), that in fact 'Peter and Paul' might have developed as a same-sex syzygos from some heretical school, perhaps the Valentinians or even the Marcionites.

It is important to note that the Marcionites are accused essentially of subordinating Peter not rejecting him. If something like this shows up in an early heretical report I can provide just as many quotes - if not more - to the opposite effect.

Paul was the super-apostle, perhaps even the Father, Peter the lower hypostasis, and perhaps representative of the Logos (according to the early tradition Jesus was a 'second Logos' between the lower power and the Father).

In other words, Acts might have developed in light of a pre-existing heretical 'mythicism' relating to the coupling of Peter and Paul.

thief of fire

If they both followed the jesus cult then its a given they spoke about jesus. Now as youll agree with that we can work through your objections one by one. Simply mention each objection

aa5874

igsfly: This is the Precise problem. You have ASSUMED the veracity, and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings WITHOUT corroboration.

It is POINTLESS arguing with BELIEVERS who trust Bblical Paul

For you to accept statements in the Bible as historically accurate WITHOUT any corroboration is Heinous.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the character called Paul met Cephas/Peter or anyone in the 1st century before the death of Nero.

Please, even Apologetic sources claim the Epistles were composed AFTER Revelation by John and that Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was written.

Please, the supposed Apostle Cephas did NOT ever exist.

Paul met the Apostle Cephas ONLY on paper.

Paul and the Apostle Cephas were PAPER characters of the 1st century.

Letters that place Paul before the death of Nero have been deduced to be forgeries.

Any person who is aware of the Forgeries of the Paul/Seneca letters have committed a Heineous Error when they accept the Pauline writings as historically accurate WITHOUT corroboration.

It is completely unreasonable to ASSUME Paul met the Apostle Cephas and to also ASSUME what they spoke about by Guessing.

Toto

What do we know from the text of the epistles, assuming for the sake of argument that they are some reflection of reality?

Paul followed a Jesus cult after receiving a divine revelation. We don't know the contents of this cult before he became a member.

Peter was in some group that followed the Torah. What do we know about them? Nothing much. It is assumed by HJ researchers that they were some early version of the Ebionites, or "Jewish Christians," but evidence of this has escaped me. They followed the Torah - were they standard Jews? What did they think about Jesus? Did they care any more about Jesus' life on earth than Paul? Who knows? :huh:

So what would Peter and Paul talk about? The only topic Paul associates with Peter (assuming FTSOA that Peter is Cephas) is the issue of table fellowship - can you eat with non-Jewish gentiles who do not keep kosher. This is also the issue for a dramatic scene in Acts, where Peter gets a divine revelation that all foods are clean and edible.

So I think that was the issue that had to be worked over, and it might have taken a few weeks. And if they figured out that, the next issue would be circumcision.

I am waiting for some evidence that the Jerusalem Church and Peter cared about the Historical Jesus, as opposed to the Torah.

stephan huller

In the interest of fairness one could make the argument that the gnostic understanding of Peter representing or embodying the 'stupid' or animal portion of the Church was based on the idea that they held Jesus to have been a mere man. If someone tried hard to research this POV they would likely find evidence to support it better. I think the Marcionite interpretation of Peter's declaration 'You are the Christ' was related to this notion. I forget what Clement said about this just now.