Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-03-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
Because there is a huge difference in tendentious composition and outright falsehood; that's why. As I demonstrated in my previous post, "deselect all" is just another selection choice. So what gives your "selective" reading any claim to privilege with reference to all others?

My claim is the normal skeptic one: there must be some indication of historical reliability before accepting the claims of an ancient document. Acts lacks any such indications.

Quote:

With regard to Acts, I see a lot of the former but in the chapters that don't claim supernatural events, not much of the latter. I can easily see the differences between Paul's self-serving accounts of his interaction with TJC, and the post-gospel apologist account in Acts (where the author had somewhat different priorities) as a reflection of their different short-term priorities...and as a means to ferret those agendas out and sift out the few kernels of fact trapped in the seams between the two versions. In layman's language it's like separate readings of the cross-filings in a divorce case. Neither is wholly true nor wholly false, but by analyzing both separately and against each other, one can get a lot closer to the objective truth.

Why are you assuming that there are any facts there? When you have two factions slandering each other, why should the truth lie in between them?

Quote:

That is hardly less sophisticated than the methodology that is evident on the link you just posted on the Earl Doherty thread.

Are you referring to the essay by Robert Price? Price does not claim to find any history in Paul's letters. He does literary analysis. But you have not given me any methodology at all.

Artemus · 03-03-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk

With regard to Acts, I see a lot of the former but in the chapters that don't claim supernatural events, not much of the latter. I can easily see the differences between Paul's self-serving accounts of his interaction with TJC, and the post-gospel apologist account in Acts (where the author had somewhat different priorities) as a reflection of their different short-term priorities...and as a means to ferret those agendas out and sift out the few kernels of fact trapped in the seams between the two versions. In layman's language it's like separate readings of the cross-filings in a divorce case. Neither is wholly true nor wholly false, but by analyzing both separately and against each other, one can get a lot closer to the objective truth

With divorce filings, the authors may be cross-examined and there will be files of supporting evidence, both of which aid in extracting the facts. Neither is available in the case of Paul's letters versus Acts. Once evidence is known to be altered/embelished, the burden of proof is on those who claim that useful information can still be extracted. I won't say that all of Acts is necessarily false. However, in the absense of additional supporing evidence, it cannot be accepted as true. It is therefore useless in drawing conclusions.

capnkirk · 03-03-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
With divorce filings, the authors may be cross-examined and there will be files of supporting evidence, both of which aid in extracting the facts. Neither is available in the case of Paul's letters versus Acts. Once evidence is known to be altered/embelished, the burden of proof is on those who claim that useful information can still be extracted. I won't say that all of Acts is necessarily false. However, in the absense of additional supporing evidence, it cannot be accepted as true. It is therefore useless in drawing conclusions.

The problem I face on this thread is this: Maccoby took a hundred pages to develop his exegesis RE: Acts v. Paul. How can I hope to present that exegesis coherently (with sufficient support to satisfy the experts here) one small fragmentary post at a time when they've already dismissed Acts as having no valid content?

Unlike court cases with an abundance of source evidence, Biblical exegesis can never hope to "prove" anything. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is utterly impossile, and even "preponderance of evidence" is the rare exception. Evaluating probabilities becomes the best one can hope for. Everyone seems to have some expert's opinion in their hip pocket to refute some other expert's deliniation on just about any given point, and everyone is confident that 'their' expert is right, making things interesting and sometimes exciting, but not particularly enlightening.

rlogan · 03-03-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk

For now, let me just say that a wholly appropriate descriptive adjective for Paul would be: "Clintonesque"

My goodness. A lot of stuff in there. I tried to extract a basic story line. If I may, Paul is the creator of himself and he wants to be a cult leader. He accomplishes this by being all things to all people.

I want to post my thread now...

Toto · 03-03-2004, 05:19 PM

Maccoby simply assumes that there is some historical validity in Acts. He never establishes it. I am not the only one who thinks so.

Quote:

The greatest strength of Maccoby's bold new paradigm (not even Baur went so far as to make Paul a Gentile!) is the way it makes difficult passages like these in the epistles to shine with new meaning. But we may think twice about some of his other evidence. Some will think he is too inclined to take Acts as historically sound. Maccoby is far from naive on such matters: he is acute in observing the literary artifice and novelistic character that disqualifies much of Acts' narrative as unhistorical. The most he thinks he can find here and there are traditions which run against the redactional grain and thus provide clues of what really happened.

But his reconstruction of Paul's role in the Jerusalem persecution of the High Priest seems to take too much as historical. Given the anachronisms involved, why not rather follow Haenchen and others in excising Paul from the Stephen episode altogether, and with it any role in Jerusalem? And thus would disappear any link to the High Priest. But that link comes in handy for Maccoby as a hook on which to attach the Ebionite tradition about Paul as a disappointed convert. The full form of that tradition makes Paul a rejected suitor for the hand of the High Priest's daughter. It is this rebuff which leads Paul to renounce the Torah and start a new, anti-Torah, Jew-hating Gentile, semi-pagan religion just for spite! And here is another problem. Though Maccoby thinks he can isolate a historical core to this bit of vilification, we must ask with Strauss why we should bother once we recognize, form-critically, that the story is simply a piece of sour-grapes ad hominem? We are today disinclined to believe the similar stories told by Christian apologists at the expense of both Marcion and the Prophet Muhammad. Why should we believe this one? The tale exists for the sake of the 'Tendenz'; why keep looking for a historical residue?

from a generally favorable review.

NOGO · 03-03-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Vinnie
Rebuttal: Against this we cite three problems. The problems become increasingly more difficult as we go:

1. The very urgent eschatology in Paul's earliest surviving letter. The Thessalonians (1 Thess 4) were shocked that some brothers had died before the Lord's return.

2. Paul himself thought he was marshaling in a new era in God's kingdom. Whatever "inaugurated" this kingdom must have been "relatively" recent.

3. Paul knows several people (pillars) who tie directly into a recently crucified man. Peter, James (Jesus' brother!), the Twelve, John, etc.

All those signs point to a very recently crucified man and point us towards a core level of contemporary-primary source data. Game over

Game over?
Really? Things are never that simple.

1. The very urgent eschatology in Paul's earliest surviving letter. The Thessalonians (1 Thess 4) were shocked that some brothers had died before the Lord's return.

The word return is a biased translation. The text reads ... before the Lord's coming.

Next, you admit that Paul and other early Christians expected Jesus' coming and the end of the world to happen quite soon.
You should know that some Christian groups still expect the end of the world to come soon.

I have a question. Why is must this state of affairs be necessarily tied to the crucifixion of a man?

You are assuming here what the Gospels say about Jesus predicting the end of the world. Then we are to believe that a man died and resurrected and sent off a bunch of people believing that the world was about to end and it did not.

I believe that the very urgent eschatology in Paul's letter may be a product of the times. It was not limited to Christians. I would venture that it produced Christianity and not the reverse.

2. Paul himself thought he was marshaling in a new era in God's kingdom. Whatever "inaugurated" this kingdom must have been "relatively" recent.

I agree. But this in itself does not produce an HJ. A MJ would do just as well.

3. Paul knows several people (pillars) who tie directly into a recently crucified man. Peter, James (Jesus' brother!), the Twelve, John, etc.

This is the crux of the matter.
How are you going to prove this refers to a recent historical event?

The fact is that there is much that Paul says about Jesus that is contrary to the Gospels.

I don't buy the idea that whatever is common between Paul and the Gospels must be history.

capnkirk · 03-03-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

Quote:

But his reconstruction of Paul's role in the Jerusalem persecution of the High Priest seems to take too much as historical. Given the anachronisms involved, why not rather follow Haenchen and others in excising Paul from the Stephen episode altogether, and with it any role in Jerusalem? And thus would disappear any link to the High Priest. But that link comes in handy for Maccoby as a hook on which to attach the Ebionite tradition about Paul as a disappointed convert.

This needs to be completely turned around. Here the reviewer practically accuses Maccoby of creating Paul's link with the High Priest, yet this link appears both in Acts and in Paul's letters. So, the question should be: If the story would have been so much simpler without it, then why would interpolators add it?

Quote:

The full form of that tradition makes Paul a rejected suitor for the hand of the High Priest's daughter. It is this rebuff which leads Paul to renounce the Torah and start a new, anti-Torah, Jew-hating Gentile, semi-pagan religion just for spite!

Yes, this tradition exists, but in the Essene scrolls. Maccoby does not present this "full-form expansion, but the reviewer chooses to gratuitously offer it anyway so as to impune Maccoby's acceptance of Saul's relationship with the High Priest.

Quote:

And here is another problem. Though Maccoby thinks he can isolate a historical core to this bit of vilification, we must ask with Strauss why we should bother once we recognize, form-critically, that the story is simply a piece of sour-grapes ad hominem?

Since Maccoby discards this sour-grapes version as well, and accepts only what appears in both Acts and Paul's letters, this begins to sound a bit like argumentum ad hominem itself.

Kirk

capnkirk · 03-03-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
I believe that the very urgent eschatology in Paul's letter may be a product of the times. It was not limited to Christians. I would venture that it produced Christianity and not the reverse.

I would concur with this, but only up to a point. It was a product of the times, and it wasn't limited to Xtians. It predated Xtianity in both Jewish Messiah tradition and Greek mystery-god cults. But I think it is an overstatement to venture that it produced Xtianity. Rather, I would say that it would explain why it was such a prominent feature of Xtianity (since both of Xtianity's alleged parents featured it prominently). Certainly not the reverse (since a parent can't inherit from its children, so to speak).

Quote:

Vinnie said: 3. Paul knows several people (pillars) who tie directly into a recently crucified man. Peter, James (Jesus' brother!), the Twelve, John, etc.

NOGO said: This is the crux of the matter. How are you going to prove this refers to a recent historical event?

Capnkirk: Unfair question. We all realize that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove (or disprove) anything. The best any of us can hope to do is to decide if it is reasonable to accept these references as evidential or not.

NOGO said: The fact is that there is much that Paul says about Jesus that is contrary to the Gospels.

Capnkirk: Agreed. At best, the redactive campaign to acheive harmony between Paul and the Gospels was far from perfect.

NOGO said: I don't buy the idea that whatever is common between Paul and the Gospels must be history.

Capnkirk: Nor do I. My argument in favor of a historical Jesus (not Christ) rests on the presence of extensive residual evidence of a human Jewish messiah candidate in the deeper exegetical layers of the Synoptics that has been seriously interpolated in the harmonization effort; a presence that is difficult to explain in the absence of a HJ of some sort.

Toto · 03-03-2004, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
,.

This needs to be completely turned around. Here the reviewer practically accuses Maccoby of creating Paul's link with the High Priest, yet this link appears both in Acts and in Paul's letters. So, the question should be: If the story would have been so much simpler without it, then why would interpolators add it?

Paul's link with the high priest is evident in Acts but not in his letters, unless you infer that from Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians. Maccoby did not create this link - the author of Acts did. It was evidently added for dramatic effect.

Quote:

Yes, this tradition exists, but in the Essene scrolls. Maccoby does not present this "full-form expansion, but the reviewer chooses to gratuitously offer it anyway so as to impune Maccoby's acceptance of Saul's relationship with the High Priest. . .

Since Maccoby discards this sour-grapes version as well, and accepts only what appears in both Acts and Paul's letters, this begins to sound a bit like argumentum ad hominem itself.

I don't get this. I don't think it was offered to impugn Maccoby - just to give the full story. Are you trying to say that Maccoby does not use the Ebionites?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.