Vinnie

3. Paul's argument would have been bolstered if the written gospels existed (or if oral traditions with contents similar to the gospels were known) - as Paul would simply say "as is written. . ." or "as we all know. . ."

Wright is among the majority of scholars who feels Paul does show knowledge of Jesus' sayings in several instances. Some are only echoes and allusions and can be drawn from the Old Testament but others like Jesus' statement on divorce are more explicit. Paul also had quibbles with a group of Christians in 1 Cor 1-4 who used a (small?) collection ofwisdom sayings of Jesus which were probably similar to those found in GThomas. What is very interesting is that Paul never quotes them. Furthermore, epistles and the canonical gospels are vastly different media. Mot of Paul's letters are also occasional. We do not necessarily expect a lot of overlapp. Just ask Richard Carrier.

4. Paul does not refer to a number of items that later find their way into the gospels.

This may be problematic somewhat for Wright. For example, why no virgin birth in Mark? Why no explicit passion details outside the passion narrative? I would say no details because most of them were created from passion prophecy. How Wright addresses this is his business but notice that Wrights statement has to do with Jesus' teachings. It has nothing to do with a lack of narrative details (e.g. temple clansing, baptism, passion narratives, etc) in Paul. Thus you are caricaturing Wright if you apply his comment to missing narrative details.

Basically you have to come up with a core of material most scholars view as historical (which Paul should know) and then go through what he does or doesn't mention in various places and what he is expected to have mentioned.

Wright attempts to defend this by saying (to the effect) 'of course Paul doesn't refer to the (extant) gospels - that would be placing himself on the same plane as Jesus. He intentionally failed to mention historical facts, despite the fact that this would make his persuasive writing more persuasive.'

That is not what Wright says as at. Paul was proclaiming his specific interpretation of a new era in Wrights view. Jesus had already announced and inaugurated it with his teachings, parables and sayings. Paul does not need to repeat this message in his occasional writings which were pressed to specific Christian situations.

That argument is analygous to the apologist claim: "of course the post-resurrection accounts appear contradictory - that makes them more truthful."

I don't see how that applies.

Vinnie

Vinnie

As I just said to gregor you are applying Wright's comment on SAYINGS and TEACHINGS of Jesus to a lack of narrative details of Jesus' life in Paul's extant, occasional letters. These are two separate incidents and Wright never commented on Doherty and your first quote hardly fully represented Tom Wright as Toto and others chimed in with this misunderstanding: "Does that mean that the gospel writers were "trying to be a Messiah" and denying that Jesus was one? That aMark saw himself as a Messiah and Jesus as not a messiah? Or am I missing something?."

Wright was misrepresented. I am not saying Wright is correct, just that his position that was being mocked and laughed at is a caricature of hi actual argumentation. He only spoke on the sayings and teachings of Jesus as far as I can tell and he also EXPLICITLY stated that many of Jesus' sayings are found throughout Paul.

Ergo your simple statement totally threw everything off: "Wright totally refutes Doherty with just one simple paragaph." His statement never intended to to this and if the participants here read the whole link they would have seen what "all this" referred to.

And I am not defending Wright. I completely disagree with his canonical reconstruction of Jesus. The inverse of the embarrassment criterion (too much with the grain) itself stands heavily against it. This only tells me that his sourcce evaluation of the Gospels is much to conservative and therefore, PROBLEMATIC.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Could you be more specific in identifying where you find evidence of this in the chapters mentioned?

Vinnie

I attemptd to document some of the evidence here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/wisdomincorinth.html

I relied largely on Davies and Koester.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

The issue is not whether these issues are historical. The issue is whether Paul knows them. And he clearly does not. He might well know some isolated christians sayings, but he clearly does not know them as sayings of Jesus. Or he would have said so! (how better to crush the Corinthian bad guys!?)

The irony is, that I am reading Spence's The Chan's Great Continent which discusses Marco Polo's strange silences and contradictions in his accounts of China, and concludes that he never went there. This is in spite of the fact that Polo does demonstratably know correct facts about China. Yet the key silences and impossibilities are overwhelming.

The conclusion ought to be obvious: that when NT scholars conclude Paul knew historical Jesus legends, they do so using methodologies and arguments that are not used by other historical scholars in other fields.

NONSENSE! Did you read the excerpt you posted?? It takes great pains to place Jesus in a particular historical relationship with the prophecies, and in a historical role with Paul. It describes how Jesus lived his life, in addition to the nonsense about how deep what he said was, and then links that to Paul's role in the service of this greater theohistorical role. He DID NOT speak "only to the sayings and teachings of Jesus" but integrated them into a -- profoundly biased -- discussion of Jesus in history, his goal and purpose, tactics, and methods.

Not only did we interpret Wright correctly, we also understand him better than you!

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Actually I think my understanding of Wright's statement having limited scope if more accurate than yours. On a similar note I just read this from Witherington in an online discussion with Pagels:

I am not saying this is correct, just that Wright is being caricatured. His initial quote from Carr had limited scope and was not read as such. I presume his response to Carr's further questions would be different and possibly along the lines of Witheringtons above. Also your statement about Jesus' life just above.

You also claim you all understand Wright better but take comments wondering whether Wright logically should think the Gospel authors were trying to deny Jesus was the messiah and be one as evidence you do not. He was caricatured and mistaken from the beginning. The real sad part is that you don't need to caricature and misrepresent NT Wright to critique his views. Even more astounding is that you claim to accurately represent Wright when you've never read him or treatises with outlooks similar to his. You only go on hearsay from other scholars and his lack of popularity in the moderate to liberal end of critical scholarship. Not a very convincing means of attack and dismissal. I can at least lay claim to having read the entire book by N.T. Wright under question which you never read and strangely claim I misunderstand.

Wrights comments appear to have limited scope. They do not pertain to the total Pauline silence in your eyes which Wright would surely see as non-existent anyways.

And at the very least, the saying on divorce directly undercuts your claim that Paul didn't know Jesus sayings. Before you say it came from some heavenly Lord make you you read and discuss my detailed treatment of the saying in section 5b of my Mark paper:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

This was obviously a saying of an historical Jesus at core and this supplies the appropriate backdrop for Paul here.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Or he would have said so! (how better to crush the Corinthian bad guys!?)

Paul did this the way he normally did things: by prioritizing the cross. He prioritized and casted the cross as the hidden wisdom of God. He prioritized himself as an agent of God speaking not of human wisdowm. e was morei nto the heavenly revelation as that is the only way he could call himself a "true apostle" (TM).

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Hmmm, another scholar as conservative, and creedally committed, as Wright.

Did I say this?

Vinnie, accurate representation of the very far gone, like Wright, nearly always sounds like caricature. That is because fanbots who take them seriously can hardly believe their ears when sounder minds laugh at their pretensions to scholarship.

The real sad part is that you think your deployment of the hopeless embarrassment criterion -- which I see you have bent again (hey, if it is too "with the grain" it is also embarrassing). Is there anything the embarrassment criterion cannot mean? When NT scholars say "Embarrassment criterion" they are simply deploying the Declarative Method (tm) "It means what I say it means."

Actually, my friend, I was one of two who answered yes to both. But I've only read articles by him. Not any of these abortions.

I think we were talking about two different quotes. The excerpt that you put up clearly does not shirk at linking Paul and Jesus in historically, as I said.

If you cannot see the basic contradiction in Wright's views, there is obviously no way I can convince you.

There is no clue in there that Paul knows anything Jesus said "historically," and no clue in Matthew or Mark; indeed, Mark differs seriously from Paul in a flat prohibition against divorce -- Paul does not mention the adultery issue, which Jesus allegedly reinforces. "Not I but the Lord" is consistent with any number of interpretations, mythicist or historicist.

Yes, I read it. Unfortunately, you are still operating under the axiomatic but unproven assumption that the gospel fictions are based on some historical fact, when Paul is standing on his hind legs barking at you that they are not.

The hilarious thing is that if I tried to argue that Mark got his info from reading Paul's letters, you would complain that the differences are so great that Mark could not have copied Paul. But when we make the same argument about Paul, you flip that argument on its head. In other words, Mark doesn't know Paul's stories because there is little indication in Mark that he does, whereas Paul knows Mark's stories despite there being little indication that he does. The historicist case is simply an assembly of supple special pleadings that draw their lifeblood from creedal commitments, not history.

Vorkosigan

This is obviously an unproven underlying axiom, and something that you must demonstrate.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Hmmm, another scholar as conservative, and creedally committed, as Wright

That is not the issue, regardless of how true it is.

Did I say this?

No but you defended it against my critique.

Vinnie, accurate representation of the very far gone, like Wright, nearly always sounds like caricature. That is because fanbots who take them seriously can hardly believe their ears when sounder minds laugh at their pretensions to scholarship.

Granting this, I will note there are degrees of caricature.

Fact is Wright never claimed to touch Doherty's thesis and that one paragraph surely was not a comprehensive rebuttal to Pauline silence. That is how I perceived it as being treated. Wright's comment has limited scope. He would respond to Pauline issues in other way.

The real sad part is that you think your deployment of the hopeless embarrassment criterion -- which I see you have bent again (hey, if it is too "with the grain" it is also embarrassing). Is there anything the embarrassment criterion cannot mean? When NT scholars say "Embarrassment criterion" they are simply deploying the Declarative Method (tm) "It means what I say it means."

That is entirely incorrect. I said the inverse. The criteria are this:

With the grain.
Against the Grain.

If a tradition goes to closely with the grain of later church we are to be skeptical of it.
If it goes agaisnt the grain of the church and evngelists we grant is a higher degree of reliability. This is of course crude and limited but it certainly has its value.

I'd be willing to wager almost every skeptic on this forum uses the with the grain criteria or a variation of it in their studies. Embarrassment works in regards to the crucifixion. My piece on Mark, historicity and crucificion will be up eventually.

Actually, my friend, I was one of two who answered yes to both. But I've only read articles by him. Not any of these abortions.

Touche. But I read the book and articles and his popular treatment of the HJ.

If you cannot see the basic contradiction in Wright's views, there is obviously no way I can convince you.

I see the contradiction. But I also see "Wright's views". Ergo, I see the contradiction for different reasons it appears.

There is no clue in there that Paul knows anything Jesus said "historically," and no clue in Matthew or Mark; indeed, Mark differs seriously from Paul in a flat prohibition against divorce -- Paul does not mention the adultery issue, which Jesus allegedly reinforces. "Not I but the Lord" is consistent with any number of interpretations, mythicist or historicist.

Sloppy exegesis. Paul doesn't mention adultury? Whats the point of this then:

"A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband."

It is overtly obvious that the short form of the divorce saying found in Paul, Matt and Luke stems around the notion that remarriage is a sin. Remarriage is adultury. Thats the whole point.

There are also significant variations in the exact wording and nuance but there is no doubt Jesus issues a statement which was against divorce in some form for the reasons articulated.

Actually I would say Paul didn't know GMark and Mark didn't know the Genuine letters of Paul. We also have Q or the Synoptic sayings source if you prefer. It is theoretically possible all three shared a single source but given the deviations we must note that this saying first attested in the uncreative (when it comes to sayings of Jesus) Pauline corous had a long and developed tradition history. It certainly predates Paul's writing. The tradition is extremely well attested (three different forms in three different sources) and ancient.

Second, I never suggested Paul knows Mark's stories. I would say Paul knew some sayings of Jesus. I am of the camp that much of the Gospels is fiction aside from the individual periocpes which likely (many) have historical cores. I presume Paul, a member of the Christian movement who traveled and preached throughout various regions and one who knew some of Jesus original followers knew some HJ details. Paul's letters themselves are consistent with this.

But I certainly reject the notion that Paul went and learned every saying of Jesus or knew all there was to know. Paul's concern was primarily in his vision of the risen Jesus. Whatever importance or prominence Paul gave to Jesus' sayings evades me.

I simply note what is evident: Paul knows some of them but focuses most of his writings on the Cross. I presume, as an HJer he knew certain things like Peter was an original follower of Jesus and so on but Jesus left behind him people, not parrots. Little is also known about the oral stage of preaching and how faithful Jesus' message was initially handled.

Paul certainly was not Mark's rezevoir for HJ materials though.

This is obviously an unproven underlying axiom, and something that you must demonstrate.

I did. All the cross independent attestation on various things (followers of Jesus specific actions and sayings and so on) shows this quite well.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Marcus Borg also sees some continuity:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14275_1.html

Vinnie