avi

I think, perhaps in error, as I read the learned comments on this interesting subject, that some of those commenting here do not understand that there are TWO very different ideas about "the elephant in the room".
On the one hand, some people associate the expression with the idea that a particular topic is so huge, one cannot avoid discussing it, (analgous then, to the idea that one cannot overlook the huge problem of a genuine paucity of accurate historical data regarding the life of Jesus.)

However, this is not the meaning intended by Ben, whose illustration StudentDon presented to the forum in the original post. That illustration, with three blind men, represents the much older proverb carried into China with the arrival of Buddhism--> the original source of this excellent analogy: Each blind person touches a different part of the elephant,--tusk, tail, trunk-- and draws a false conclusion about the true nature of the beast, because all of their information about the problem has been limited to the small portion which they perceived by the sensation of touch, rather than by vision, i.e. if we observe only a component of the entire problem, then we misinterpret the overall aspect.

In this case, some of us limit our sensory input to Greek Papyrus manuscripts, others to Hebrew, or Aramaic texts, others to Coptic sources, etc....A more complete picture requires a willingness to look beyond the obvious....Neither Paul's letters, nor any other new testament source is going to provide the broader view necessary to reconstruct historical events from 2k years ago.

aa5874

And, you forgot the single most important factor, the resurrection. Jesus of the NT was a son of a God who became a man.

1Co 15:17 -

dog-on

The problem with this is that we are not blindfolded and yes, it is in fact, an elephant.

GakuseiDon

Thanks Ben. I was trying to avoid using the word "historicist" there, as Toto objected to the term, so wrote "non-orthodox" instead of "ahistoricist". :blush: You are correct, of course: later on, Tatian does develop non-orthodox views, though not ahistoricist ones. :blush:

Oh well. From now on I'll use "historicist" to mean someone who believed that Jesus walked the earth and interacted with people. Sorry, Toto!

GakuseiDon

They do indeed, and I think we can build a picture of an earthly being who lived at sometime after Moses and before Paul from those references quite easily.

That's why I say the ahistoricist case falls apart when we start to look at what Paul actually does say.

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

That's definitely one of the possibilities, and I don't want to deny that. But when we look at what Paul doesn't say, we need to note the greater context in which those letters were written. That's the elephant in the room that I'm pointing to. (That doesn't mean there aren't other elephants in the room)

GakuseiDon

こんにちは.

Actually, that's why I used it, since both meanings fit very nicely into this topic. Mythicists just concentrating on the lack of details in Paul and coming to their conclusion ("it's a snake!") while ignoring the rest of the "elephant" fits the meaning just as well.

That's right. That's why Doherty can get away with "pagans thought the myths of their gods were carried out in a sublunar realm". Without having background knowledge of the views of that time, how can one make a judgement on whether he is correct or not? That broader view is needed when examining such hypotheses.

GakuseiDon

That's a good point. I should stress that I'm not saying that the Second Century apologists had the same reasons as Paul for not including historical details. I don't know why Paul didn't do so, and obviously one reason is that Jesus wasn't historical to start with (though I believe that looking at what Paul does say goes against that). But I do know that some of the writers in my list regarded Jesus as historical **, and still didn't include details. In fact, Doherty believes this is an indication that some writers up until the end of the Second Century were ahistoricists. What would that mean? How would that impact the writings of heresiologists? There are many implications of using the criterion of silence proposed by some mythicists, but which don't get examined because of their focus on Paul.

** I'm using "historicist" to mean someone who thought that Jesus walked the earth and interacted with people at some time in history. Apologies to Toto!

GakuseiDon

You have said that before, and it seems to me like you are saying that even if Jesus was historical, then we wouldn't expect references to this, since it wasn't a big deal to them whether Jesus existed as an actual person or not. Is that the implications of what you are saying?

I agree, but here I'm only looking at the "lack of historical details in Paul" part of the argument.

I agree that this is what they did. In fact, this is what they had to do, if they were trying to prove that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in Scriptures.

As for the term "historicist", I'm using it to mean "those people who believe that Jesus walked the earth and interacted with people at some time in history". That would include docetists. I know you are unhappy with that, but I don't want to get my knickers in a knot each time I want to use the word.

I am claiming almost the exact opposite. Mythicists try to impose modern ideas about what Paul should have written without trying to get into the mindset of the people of that time.

I'm not saying I know why they wrote letters that included little or no historical details. But those examples definitely exist.

Sure. Paul was concerned with the exact same thing. Once you've read through the early letters, you can see that Paul is be no means unusual, both in content and writing style.

"Part of our basic mentality"??? Exactly. It's a modern mindset. Part of their basic mentality? Evidently not. That's the point of this thread. There are few historical details about anything.

Remember when you said that Paul's letters could be dated to before 120s CE? I asked you how, and you said from external sources. So why can't you use internal sources to date Paul?

I'm not saying I know why they wrote that way, but I'm saying that we need to take it into consideration when looking at what Paul didn't say.

figuer

But why would he be expected to write anything pertaining Jesus' life in a pastoral/theological letter? It seems like a completely irrelevant issue.

That would indicate the mind-feebleness of such apologists, since a simple: "That wasn't the purpose of those letters" would be more than enough.

Toto

Why do you persist in this misstatement that mythicists base their case only on the lack of details in Paul? Doherty has a much more involved case that depends on the positive language in Paul and other early Christians. Other mythicists have other points.