Ben C Smith

Yes.

What Van Voorst was arguing or was not arguing makes no difference to whether Doherty made a strawman argument.

Doherty attributed a sentiment (that only historical works should have historical details) to Van Voorst which Van Voorst did not actually write or even imply, at least not in the snippet cited.

This change to what Van Voorst actually wrote is the strawman, the erection of an easier argument to attack rather than the real one.

I am afraid I am having difficulty following the above and especially applying it to the exchange to which I linked. Van Voorst said X (whether he was answering the right or the wrong points); Doherty repeated Van Voorst as having said Y. I am not here defending the fitness of the argument Van Voorst made (partly because I do not have the book in front of me, though I have read it).

BTW, what do you think of the argument from silence that Steven Carr successfully refuted above? Paul has a Corinthian church on his hands doubting the final resurrection; he deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 15. According to the tradition, Jesus said several things about the final resurrection. The argument from silence kicks in: Paul, had he known any of those dominical resurrection sayings, would have surely used them with the Corinthians. Jesus said we would be resurrected, end of story. Yet Paul does not; evidently Paul did not know those dominical resurrection sayings!

Yet in this case we know that this is, in fact, a faulty conclusion. Paul did know at least one dominical resurrection saying; he uses it in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17. The argument from silence fails here, just as it fails with Tertullian and Marcion.

You want more?

In Romans 7.1-4 Paul makes an argument that depends on marriage being binding until death. Jesus, according to the tradition, uttered sayings that affirmed that marriage was so binding that even formal divorce could not abrogate it. Why did Paul not quote these dominical sayings? Could it be that Paul did not know those sayings (argument from silence)? No. He uses them in 1 Corinthians 7.10-11.

In Galatians 6.6 Paul tries to inspire the Galatians to give generously to those who teach them the word. Jesus, according to the tradition, said that those who preach the gospel should live off the gospel. Why did Paul not quote that dominical saying? If Jesus arranged for preachers of the word to earn their living from the gospel, then Jesus must be in favor of those being taught giving to their teachers. How better to inspire the Galatians to give? Could it be that Paul did not know this saying (argument from silence)? No. He uses it in 1 Corinthians 9.14.

I just do not trust arguments from silence. I think there are two conditions that must be met to make one work:

1. The author had to have been in a good position to know the silenced information.
2. The author would certainly have mentioned it had he or she known about it.

But we have seen above how hard it is, even assuming that the author would have known about the event had it happened, to attain certainty that the author would have mentioned it. Apparently supreme relevance to the subject at hand is not enough.

Just for fun, then, and quite apart from the initial reason I joined this thread (the strawman), why not show me an egregious silence or two on the part of Paul? Show me one or some of those excellent reasons why Paul should have said something about the life of Jesus somewhere had he known it.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

The second-century Christological debates were considerably more complex than Docetism vs. Orthodoxy. There was also the Adoptionist position, which Irenaeus argues against (AH 1.26.1):

Ironically, the part I put in bold is not wholly dissimilar from the 19th century liberal German Protestant take on the historical Jesus. (Contemporary criticism, however, tends to shy away from the superlatives. Appearing more objective, I suppose.)

Stephen

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephen,

Would GMark represent an Adoptionist Christology?

<jj4 edit:> The Christ Spirit wafting down and taking possession of J. is just as fantastic as the Incarnation.

It only happens in the world of religious imagination.</jj4 edit:>

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

I agree with your analogy. Of all the persons named Jesus 2000 years ago, the HJers have the daunting task of identifying which one was falsely claimed to be Jesus Christ.

S.C.Carlson

GMark neither supports or denies an Adoptionist Christology, because the key concept of, as you put, "the Christ Spirit wafting down and taking possession of J[esus]" is lacking in GMark.

For an argument that the historical Jesus represents a case of spiritual possession in the anthropological sense (i.e., "as any altered state of consciousness indigenously interpreted in terms of the influence of an alien spirit"), please see Stevan L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and Origins of Christianity (New York: Continuum, 1995) (p. 23 is quoting the definition by Vincent Crapanzano, Case Studies in Spirit Possession [New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977], 7).

Stephen

Ted Hoffman

Turton writes:
Mark 9:36-37: And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37: "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."
Turton notes:

S.C.Carlson

Bart Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 49, writes:
If Bart won't say Mark intended an adoptionistic Christology, neither will I. Personally, I think it would be anachronistic to make Mark an adoptionist.

jakejonesiv

In Mark 1:10, the spirit as dove (pneuma wsei peristeran) descended into Jesus. The preposition is quite important. Au_GMatthew was uncomfortable with the implications and changed it to lighting on him. (Mattthew 3:16).

The spirit "drives" Jesus into the wilderness/erhmon (Mark 1:12) just as "Legion" was driven into the desert/erhmous by the unclean spirit (Luke 8:29).

Here we see a great difference, and why au_GMatthew either didn't understand or didn't like what au_GMark had written.

In GMark an ambiguous spirit enters into Jesus and drives him forcibly into the wilderness. (BTW, the voice from above proves nothing. Who is the Prince of
the Power of the Air?). In GMatthew, the Holy Spirit comes ONTO Jesus and
leads him into the wilderness. Quite a difference!

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

The identity of this spirit as a distinct "Christ spirit" is critical. Though a small step from Mark, it is nonetheless an extension of Mark.

Stephen

gstafleu

I have to go by the snippets quoted by D, I realize the dangers of that. Nevertheless, at this point that is all we have from which to determine whether D's statement misrepresents what VV said. Let me try again.

1) VV says "Moreover, we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written for primarily historical purposes." This is X.
1a) Given that we are talking about refuting MJ, I take it X is meant as a refutation (if it isn't meant as such my argument fails).

2) X is not a refutation, because it does not address the arguments (never mind their right- or wrongness) that MJ posits as to why we do expect historical statements in Paul.

3) X however would be a refutation if:
3a) it was indeed generally agreed upon that historical statements only appear in historical works. Moreover, I cannot think of any other circumstances in which X could be seen as a refutation.

4) Given that VV thinks X is a refutation (from 1a), it follows that VV must then hold to (3a).

By presenting the fact that the epistles are not historical documents as a refutation of the AFS, without responding to the arguments as to why MJ expects historical facts, VV must hold that the fact that the non-historical nature of the epistles in and of itself is sufficient to explain the absence of the historical facts. This in spite of the arguments to the contrary adduced by MJ, the mere non-historicity of the epistles is apparently enough as VV doesn't think it necessary to counter the arguments.

The only circumstance I can see in which the non-historical nature of a document is sufficient to a prima facie reject the notion that there could be historical statements in this document, is if one holds that it is unreasonable to expect historical statements in a non-historical document. The a prima facie bit comes from VV's non-respondence to the arguments. If one holds that it is not unreasonable to expect historical statements, then one should counter the arguments as to why one would in this case expect them.

I think this is as good as I can explain it. Maybe my chain of thought is too complicated. I certainly agree that it would have been better if Doherty had phrased things slightly differently, as I indicated in a post above.