Doug Shaver

Thanks, but that will not be at all necessary. I've already read it now.

I would have said nothing about it this time, if you hadn't made of a point of letting everyone know how indifferent you were to how they felt about it.

I have never argued that either is impossible. I have said on several occasions, here and elsewhere, that in my opinion it is not unreasonable for anyone believe in a historical Jesus. My argument has always been simply that it is also not unreasonable to think the man never existed.

In my judgment, it is.

I don't believe that is relevant to anything that was in my post.

I could not begin to correct so many misunderstandings in the space and time at my disposal.

Nobody, but nobody, has argued otherwise. The dispute is over which understanding is more justified when the totality of evidence is taken into consideration.

That is not my understanding of Doherty's position, and I know it is not my position.

More probably close to a hundred years, and I don't think the author knew much more about Paul than his name.

gnosis92

I patiently typed a in regular English with full sentences and capitalization a little note on Doherty's essay Odes of Solomon, whether it makes it makes sense to classify the work by looking at each element independently of any other (as opposed to collectly form a fingerprint), and whether, as a hymn that may have been sung, it should have gospel Jesus details, and how the Odists intended audience would have understood the references with no response. :crying:

Rick Sumner

"Burden of proof" isn't a legal concept. It's pertinent in any form of debate. It might be originally a legal term (though I don't know), but that's neither here nor there.

I believe you're misunderstanding Walker, at least insofar as I can glean from papers he's written and cited in available on JSTOR. He suggests that someone suggesting a document has no interpolations bears the burden of proof, but that the burden of proof in an individual passage rests with the person claiming interpolation. Unless he suggests something remarkably different that I haven't seen, in which case I'll gladly take a reference. The specific quote pertaining to documents is found in his paper in NTS 33, p.615:

"in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations."

Walker writes in the NTS 33 (p.610):

The burden of proof clearly lies with any argument that a particular passage is an interpolation. Indeed, I would insist, at this point, upon a rigorous application of such criteria as appear applicable (e.g., the passage must be demonstrably non-Pauline in language, style, ideas, and/or implied historical milieu; and the case for interpolation is greatly strengthened if textual and/or contextual evidence can be adduced). Individual passages in otherwise authentically Pauline letters are themselves to be regarded as authentically Pauline unless convincing arguments to the contrary are advanced.

The paper in question would be The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (NTS 33 p.610-618). That might be where we would expect him to lay out his expectations on, well, the burden of proof in identifying interpolations in the Pauline epistles.

He could not possibly, as near as I can see, disagree with you more.

No, he doesn't have to. It's intrinsically more likely, by virtue of Occam's Razor. Someone raising the possibility needs to argue for its likelihood. In the absence of such argument, he's under no obligation to tender it. It's the same reasoning that says I don't have to entertain the idea that Venus is really a spaceship when studying celestial bodies. One is not obligated to argue against all possible positions. Only against ones that are presented in contrast.

Imagine it as a formal debate. He asserts that his position is most likely. You respond by suggesting that another position is equally or more likely and explain why. You don't get to raise possibilities ("Unless, of course, Paul's letters were edited by later Christians, and the Judaizers didn't believe in a physical Jesus either, or any of many other possibilities.") and think that constitutes a rebuttal, or even reason for pause.

I could, just as easily, and using the same reasoning that demands he address random, ad hoc interpolations suggest that he's wrong because Paul was a Martian who traveled through time or many of many other possibilities.

This is, of course, another (more exaggerated) reductio ad absurdum but the method is the same, only the names are changed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gnosis92

Act's historicity on Paul is a separate issue, Act's author, as well as the forged letters of Paul, are two early writers on Paul.

Was there anyone who read Paul who understood Paul along the lines that Doherty argues, which he says is part of the Middle Platonist worldview, and given Paul and his followers had at least a hundred years b4 the gospels were widely circulated, what happened to them? They had the rich soil and the hundred years of infrastructure to spread their purely spiritual figure b4 Mark was widely circulated, yet all the early Church fathers and hostile pagan witnesses only seem to know of an HJ, no MJ.

Toto

"Burden of proof" is a well known legal concept. Its purpose is to allow a decision in a contested case in which all of the evidence might not be before the court, but the court must reach a decision. Scholars, on the other hand, are not forced to reach a decision, and can just mark an issue as unresolved.

I believe that you are misunderstanding me. I have not called for shifting the burden of proof.

Formal debates have their own rules, and I have not taken on the burden of participating in one. Of course, I would not expect gnosis92 to discuss all conceivable but unlikely possibilities. However, interpolations and forgeries are well known to be part of the Christian documentary heritage. As Walker has written, as well as other scholars, interpolations are to be expected. A forgery or interpolation in Paul's letters is not on the same level as the "possibility" that Paul was a Martian. You will find other threads going on here about the possibilities of editorial additions to Paul's letters.

gnosis92 has presented his argument here based on probabilities. He needs at least to identify his assumptions

Toto

What happened to them? They were the losers. They didn't have the infrastructure. The church fathers who built the infrastructure of the early church felt that they needed a historical founder to back up their claims to authority, and they ended up prevailing and controlling later history.

Rick Sumner

You said, in regards to developing the idea of interpolations, that gnosis92 had a "higher burden of proof" (you actually said "burder on proof" ,). If you no longer think that to be the case--that gnosis92 does not own a burden to address the possibility of interpolations when they are not accompanied by argument, then you're in agreement both with myself, and with Walker (whom you cite, and whom is pretty clear that he sees it as counter-intuitive as I do). If that is not your position, then shifting the burden of proof is exactly what you've done. In either event, I'm content to leave it as it is, and invite the reader to determine whether or not you've been fairly represented, and if so, whether or not you're right.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gnosis92

If the MJ theory is true, and for at least one hundred years the MJ movement were spreading their version of mysticism throughout the Levant,

How likely is it that the church fathers could build an infrastructure that would outcompete an earlier group who for the first one hundred years, to the extent that there is no record of the earlier work that has been done?

Why when pagans do write of early Christians, they only seem to know HJ Xians and not MJ xians, when MJ xians had over a hundred year head start?

Toto

But there is a record. That's what Doherty's book is about.

Which pagans wrote of first century Christianity?

GakuseiDon

Out of interest, how do you account for those apologists who wrote in the second half of the Second Century whom Doherty has identified as Christians who didn't believe in a historical Jesus? Most of them wrote between 160 CE and 180 CE.