Rick Sumner

[snip]

Nobody said it did. :huh:

Nobody's talking about "the mythicist position" either. We're looking at the AFS. And the AFS is rooted explicitly in such assumptions. In fact, Doherty's own words say as much--repeatedly and emphatically. He even defines it as such:

It states in one of its applications that if a document fails to mention something in a context where we would strongly expect to find it. . .

The emphasis is, of course, mine. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Doherty uses the AFS as a positive argument. So your suggestion of what "mythicists do" simply isn't true.

Ben's challenging that expectation. That's not a strawman. Your charge, that it isn't an argument for historicity is a strawman, and one you should know to avoid by now. Ben's told you the intent of the argument repeatedly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

I have a couple of questions for anyone interested.

I think most of us will agree that it's plausible that Paul knew details that he believed related to a historical human Jesus. Nothing in his writings rule this out.

I think most of us will also agree that, within the writings of Paul that we have, Paul did not write any details about a historical Jesus, aside from creedal aspects. (i.e., Paul did indeed write some details that may imply a historical person)

Why is not then, the simplest explanation for this absense, that Paul didn't know any details other than creedal aspects?

And if we accept this as the simplest explanation, why is it not the case then, that the simplest explanation for his lack of knowledge, is that he did not know of a historical Jesus?

If we agree that Paul likely did not know of a historical Jesus, why is the default position not "Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus"?

While it's certainly possible that Paul did know of a historical Jesus, or at least believe in one, and for some reason did not defer to him when it would have helped, or talk about his life wandering around preaching etc., it seems to me, the onus is on the person making such a claim to demonstrate why that claim is simpler than the conclusion that Paul knew of no historical Jesus. To the extent anything in ancient history can be claimed to be demonstrated, why is it not the case for this?

Speculation and counter examples do not fulfill that obligation. All they do is to keep open the possibility that Paul did know or at least believe in a historical Jesus - something few of us would deny to be implausible anyway. It simply isn't the most parsimonious explanation.

ynquirer

What is the most parsimonious explanation, then? That Paul believed in a man who he thought was historical, but who might either be or be not such a historical man because the man at any rate was to be placed so backward in the past that no contemporary of Paul could possibly have memory of him?

Yet, yours is the most parsimonious explanation as soon as you assume away every historical reference in Paul as ‘creedal’, that is, as something he learnt by endless repetition instead of experience whether direct or indirect - people whom he talked with. Why don’t you assume that Paul conceived of the creed? Because he says he ‘received’ it? However, you very well know that he specifically adds the qualification that he received the creed through revelation, not from tradition. Therefore, he either knew of the man by experience - possibly both direct and indirect, involving news from others together with his own mystic visions - or he knew of him through a purely mystic vision. There is no room, in my opinion, for an intermediate solution - such as proposed by some MS of the Talmud Bavli Tractate Sotah 47a, for instance.

And speaking of parsimony btw, I would say that the explanation that he had mystic visions he mixed up with others’ direct experience is far more parsimonious than the explanation that he conceived of everything by himself alone. Otherwise, what is the role of the Pillars, Cephas, James and the rest? It is obvious that the relationship was stressful at some moments and that Paul makes it very clear he was a newcomer. How do you explain all that?

Ben C Smith

What was the strawman? I thought I set up the argument fairly, and it was not directed at anybody in particular.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am willing to stipulate that for the sake of argument.

I personally think that is the simplest explanation.

Here is where we part. It is also possible that he knew of an HJ, but not much about an HJ, because he did not care.

This is why I brought brother Lawrence in. I think Toto is ringing the wrong bells trying to imply that brother Lawrence did not even know of an HJ. Was he absent every time the gospels were read in the liturgy? For 40 years? He is closer to the target, however, when he writes:

Ben.

gurugeorge

I understand what you are saying and what Ben is doing. I think what's happening here is that I'm not getting my point across very well, partly because I'm simply not, and partly because I keep excitedly adding on what I see as the corollaries for the bigger HJ-MJ picture, and that shiney bit keeps distracting Ben and yourself.

Let me see if I can put it in a way that will make it clearer:

On the one hand there's Lawrence's/Paul's BELIEF about an HJ, and on the other hand somewhere out there there's the FACT of HJ/no-HJ. The reason why Ben's argument is a strawman (actually, technically, ignoratio elenchi I think) is because the mythicist argument from silence doesn't say "if Paul believed in a historical Jesus, we'd have a strong expectation that he'd say X", the mythicist argument from silence is "if there WAS a HJ, we'd have a strong expectation that Paul would say X".

That Ben's argument works on belief is shown by the fact that he has to give evidence that Lawrence was in fact a Christian of the sort you'd reasonably expect to believe in a historical Jesus. That's why it works when he pulls the magic rabbit out of the hat with "Haha, see, no mention of the historical Jesus in his writings! Guess why? Because he's a mystic see? Argal, since Paul was a mystic, the strong expectation that you'd find some mention of the historical Jesus is inappropriate."

But what this really is, is an argument against Christians (or HJ-ers) being puzzled by the silence. It uses, as a logical counterpart to the traditional/Christian/HJ ASSUMPTION about Paul that he was a Christian, the KNOWLEDGE we have of Lawrence that he was a Christian. It's only on the assumption that Paul is actually referring to an HJ, that a puzzling silence appears that goes against an expectation based on Paul's belief (a silence that Ben is saying isn't a problematic silence after all, because mystics don't do that sort of thing - actually this is an old argument anyway). But in fact, this is the Christian/traditional/HJ assumption, not the mythicist assumption. AFAIK, irrespective of mythicists and their arguments, Christian scholars have always thought that there is a peculiar silence in Paul that has to be explained away from a Christian perspective. Ben's argument would be better directed at Christians and fellow HJ-ers who find a silence in Paul that they feel compelled to defend against. Ben's point is apposite for HJ-ers. He ought to be directing this post at HJ-ers, saying "look guys, you don't need to worry, it can be the case that an HJ-er can be silent on the HJ - see? No need to feel compelled to explain Paul's silence, he was a mystic, it's ok, you can't expect mystics to yammer on about HJ."

But the mythicist doesn't base his "strong expectation" on a prior assumption of HJ-belief in Paul in the way that a Christian/HJ-er might. The Christian "strong expectation" is based on the belief that Paul is an HJ-er (a belief that has the same logical position as the knowledge we have about Lawrence's background - it sets up the Christian's/HJ-er's "strong expectation"). But the mythicist's argument from silence isn't grounded in the same way, it's grounded in the hypothetical that IF A LIVING HUMAN JESUS ACTUALLY EXISTED, then on general principles, common sense, we'd expect X. All that feverish excitement with a Messiah just recently deceased, and people who actually knew the guy walking the land spreading his message, etc., makes it highly unlikely that anybody close to that excitement could have avoided somehow letting slip, either consciously or unconsciously, some tidbit of information that could pin down a living human Jesus' actual existence. THAT'S the kind of "strong expectation" Doherty is talking about.

But even in terms of belief, for Ben's argument to really hit the mark (in terms of being an argument against arguments from silence based on the beliefs of an author), it would, as I have said, have to be a better comparison in concrete terms. Yes, in the abstract, Ben's argument shows that an HJ-believer can be silent on an HJ. But for a more concrete comparison, you'd need somebody close in time and space to the (supposedly historical) cultic deity, who knows some people who (supposedly) knew the (supposedly historical) cultic deity, etc., to show that under similar circumstances an HJ-believer WOULD be silent on an HJ, even if he were a mystic. How would closer proximity in time and space to the Man Himself change Lawrence's writing? Do you think he'd still be silent about a Messiah recently deceased, who people he knew had known? On the contrary, he sounds like a devotional chap, and I believe, as I said, he'd be beside himself with excitement about the whole thing, ecstatic to have such a close connection to the very entity he perceives spiritually, also in the flesh.

That's why I think writing by devotees of Sabbatai Zevi, or of our modern day Dalai Lama, or the Gyalwa Karmapa, would be more appropriate. In the case of "guru devotion" in the Hindu and Buddhist systems, for example, yes, you get a lot of writing about the spiritual aspect of the guru, how he's always present in the devotee's heart, how he's actually some high level deity, how he's always enlivening and guiding internally. But that doesn't preclude some chat about, or even inadvertent reference to, the actual living guru - there's some of that too.

gurugeorge

See my response to Rick. And please don't take my jibes the wrong way, I think you're a very fair arguer and thinker, I'm just pulling you guys' legs.

Dreadnought

What will be the next argument put forward I wonder. Letters from a person in a wheelchair which never mentions Augustus Ceasar? And then we'll know that all people who write letters without mentioning him are in wheelchairs.

Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can consider Mr Smith a winner in this exchange. At most he's demonstrated that it is possible that a mystic might not mention Jesus in letters and by extension Paul could have known about a historical Jesus and not mentioned him. This is standard apologetics, in my opinion, in the sense that it is aimed at keeping a possibility open that Jesus/the bible is not disproven. "Might conceivably be" is all you can get out of it and, well, this was known already. No mythicist that I know of is dead certain that Paul never knew about a real Jesus.

Ben C Smith

Yes, that was going to be my next move, but perhaps with full-body traction instead of wheelchairs and Charlemagne instead of Caesar. But, since you seem to have a headstart on it, I think I will leave it to you.

This does not follow. What would follow is that people in wheelchairs might write letters without mentioning Caesar.

If this were about winning and losing, I might take this the wrong way.

Good thing we play the game for charity.

That is exactly what I set out to show. I appreciate your getting the point so easily.

I do not even know the meaning of the term apologetics anymore. I think I used to know, but it is lost to me now.

I am glad to hear that everybody was already on board already.

That, too, is good to hear.

Ben.

spamandham

That's pretty close. IMHO, the most parsimonious explanation is that Paul didn't care about a historical savior, because his savior is a legendary figure at best, and he knew it. An alternative that is on roughly equal footing to me, is that Paul's savior is a mystical metaphor for the Jewish people.

It's an unnecessary complication to claim that Paul invented the creed. He might have, he might not have.

Paul does not claim that everything he knows about his faith was received through revelation, but merely that whatever gospel was taught of him, was by revelation (Gal 1:6-12). This is a very odd phrasing, and I really don't know what it means. It seems to suggest that others were going around teaching a gospel about Paul!

At any rate, I don't see how this implies that the creedal aspects of Jesus that Paul promulgates, are claimed to have been received through revelation. Even if 'of' is a scribal error that should have been 'by', it merely implies that whatever is unique about Paul's teaching is what he received through revelation - i.e., the gentile mission.

I'm willing to allow for Paul either outright lying, stretching the truth, or being redacted later, so claims such as this are suspect anyway.

More parsimonious still, is that he came up with the idea of spreading a pre-existing Jewish savior concept among non-Jews. Whether or not he actually had a vision is irrelevant for the most part, as is whether or not he viewed Jesus as historical, mystical, or legendary.


The Jewish savior cult already existed by the time Paul showed up. Paul adapted it for non-Jews. Why is that complicated?