Chris Weimer

I'm sorry Amaleq - I don't see it either? Why are you totally disregarding Q and the earliest strata in the gospels?

Vorkosigan

So that would be Judas the Galilean? LOL.

Jesus, leave for three days and you fall out of threads entirely.

Back to page 3....

Here's my take:

the problem in the HJ/MJ argument should first be approached by distinguishing between data and evidence. Data is something constructed out of What's Out There by a reliable and valid methodology -- say, the way a validated questionnaire can obtain data like 63% of women prefer strawberry tea, but only 39% of the men. Evidence is data that you have spun through a methodology which you can then assemble to support an argument.

To discuss 'evidence' for the whole HJ/MJ question is pointless unless we can talk about a shared critical methodology. The historicist side has previously functioned by failing to distinguish between "data" and "evidence" and acting as though its position is the default position. We have data -- that's the critical Greek text of Paul. What we don't have, IMHO is a critical methodology for Paul, not even a significantly impaired one like the one used in the historical Jesus studies of the gospels. There just isn't one at all.

The recent threads that Ben Smith has generated on Paul have been very important for me in understanding how difficult it is to find support in Paul for the position of either side; in fact, reading Paul, I think there are three more or less equally possible positions:

1) there is a (Weimer-defined) HJ and Paul just doesn't feel like discussing him.

2) there is a (Weimer-defined) HJ and Paul just doesn't know a thing about him

3) there is no (Weimer-defined) HJ and Paul's religion is a Heavenly Savior cult religion in which Paul's knowledge is mediated by a combination of invention and visions

I cannot chose between them based on Paul alone. Even if we concede that all other documents from early Christianity do not know an HJ and speak only of a Heavenly Savior, it does not follow that they are not in the position of (2) above, but simply further along than Paul, having lost touch completely with any HJ. Perhaps we should redirect this problem to "what methodology can we adopt that tells us how to interpret Paul?" or something similar....

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

I didn't realize that Judas' sect later became Christians, or did you miss that part.

Did you just make a funny? :grin:

I think you can add a couple of more options to there. The one I feel is best so far is

4) There is a (Weimer-defined) HJ but the details of his life are not only a) not very known by Paul but b) unimportant compared to the significance of what he accomplished with his death and resurrection

Yes, this is very important. But Paul isn't the only concern resource out there. Even though you may disagree, I do find some early traditions in Mark, and Q, and Thomas, though if I recall correctly you deny the former and debase the latter. This is particularly why I stayed out of the HJ discussion for so long - there's so much preliminary work that needs to be done before hand. That is also what I've been trying to do with the series on my blog. As for now, I still see this bickering as useless unless a someone can come up with a comprehensive theory explaining the data. Doherty has done this, but from what I've read of him I disagree on many points. I haven't found too much from the historicist camp either, though to be honest, I haven't read all that much. This really is a sidetrack for me.

Vorkosigan

I was only teasing....

I don't debase Thomas, unless you think it is "debasement" to believe that Thomas depends on Mark. Right on others -- I think there is no Q, and no early traditions in Mark. The whole concept of "early traditions" presupposes a detection and definition methodology, of which there is none.

Agreed, totally.

Vorkosigan

jjramsey

I don't think it is helpful to use the words "data" and "evidence" in the way that you describe.

I can see a couple reasons for this:

• The evidence we have is trivially explained by the existence of an HJ.
• Mythicists have had a couple centuries to make their case, but they have had little to show for it. At best, they have shown that the evidence can be read in a way consistent with an MJ, but haven't shown that this way of reading the evidence isn't strained and ad hoc. At worst, they have been grossly dishonest.

jakejonesiv

Traces there are, but we need to do some spadework first.

The questions about interpolations are only significant after you have established the origin of the text. You guys have not done that, or even considered the question. Paul allegedly wrote in the middle of the first century. The earliest extant texts are in the third century. What level of confidence do you have that nothing changed in 150-200 years???

Since you guys are reluctant to answer the obvious I will give you the answer. You don't know what Paul wrote in the first century. There is no first century edition of the Paulinics. You are taking a third century text and making the completely naive and unsupported assertion that it dates to the first century.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

I think my irony meter broke. Let me guess, Jake, you have the complete and unadultered letters of Paul, right? You've identified all the interpolations and filled in all the lost omissions and when is your new book coming out?

In case you accidentally ignored my post: "We can only go by what we have. Unless you have some different information, I'll go by what I have."

So spit it up, Jake. You say we don't have the original Paul - what is the original Paul? Otherwise your statements are meaningless and serve no purpose here.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

I am still waiting on your positive evidence that Quetzalcoatl and Zeus were ahistorical. Once you clarify that maybe we will know what kind of evidence will pass muster with you concerning the same question with Jesus.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

NO. My statements are not meaningless and it does serve a purpose here.

I am saying the correct starting point is agnosticism about the Pauline material. My interpretations may be worng, I have changed my mind before. But at least I know that what we have (to borrow your phrase) needs to be put to critical scrutiny before we can say what the alleged St. Paul wrote or didn't write.

In order for you to "go by what you have" you will need to establish a chain of possession and transmission without alteration from the first to the third century.

If you want to leap over that 150-200 year interval without thought, then be my guest.

There are some readers who "get it", but I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point since it is spiraling down the toilet. You guys can have the last word.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

Keep telling yourself that.

Yeah, sure. Who has disputed this? As I repeat for the umpteenth time, we'll never know for sure. You haven't really been following along well, have you? I think I said that at least once on each thread containing this discussion. Did you ever go to the blog link that I gave Amaleq13?

Until you can show the interpolation, there's no valid reason to doubt the text as it stands.

No I don't. You need to show that the text is adultered and where.