PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

While reading Bart D. Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist," HarperOne, 2012, I noticed what appears to be a Paradox. Ehrman claims that we can know some opinions Jesus expresses in the gospels were the historical Jesus' opinions because they match Paul's opinion. A few pages later, he claims that we can know some opinions of Jesus from the gospels are the opinions of the historical Jesus because they do not match Paul's opinion.

Here is the first passage in question from pg: 303:

We can know that Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher because Paul, the earliest writer of the earliest Christian Communities, wrote things similar to it that agrees with it.

Here is Ehrman arguing ten pages later, on page 312:
We know that Jesus was concerned about helping the poor, oppressed, and needy, because he said that was the way to get to heaven, and "later Christians--including most notably Paul" did not hold that opinion.

In the first case agreement with Paul because Paul is early means we have a true opinion of Jesus. In the second case disagreement with Paul, because Paul is later, means we have a true opinion of Jesus.

Worse, Ehrman even cites the same passages in Paul to prove both cases. In the First case Thessalonians 4:13-5:12, and in the second case, Thessalonians 4:14-18, which is certainly is a part of 4:13-5:12.

Thus we have a true opinion of Jesus because it matches the earliest source - Paul, but then invoking the principle of Dissimilarity, we have a true opinion of Jesus because it does not match the later source Paul.

Not only does Paul prove Jesus held an opinion when he agrees with it or disagrees with it, but it seems that Paul is both the earliest source when we invoke the principle of similarity (which Ehrman labels the principle of "multiple attestation," but the same words of Paul magically become a later source when he invokes the "principle of dissimilarity."

We can formulate Ehrman's Paradox this way:

When Paul agrees with Jesus, this proves the historical Jesus held that opinion
When Paul contradicts Jesus, this proves the historical Jesus held that opinion.
Therefore Paul proves the historical Jesus held an opinion because he agrees or contradicts it.

Perhaps somebody wiser than I in ways of New Testament Scholars can help me understand this Paradox.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Perhaps Carrier can.

See http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/...d-jesus-exist/

outhouse

its all context of each statement that stands or falls under its own merit.

And descriptions were given as to why context was applied as such.


is straight foward


and its not because paul agrees, but he uses paul as a example, and cites why and where.

and he doesnt state paul is his sole source either.


you have taken out of context and dissimilarity is applied to Gmatthew.


again paul is only used as a example for what context he applies to "later christians"

PhilosopherJay

Hi outhouse,

If someone says on one page that Snow White exists because the Seven Dwarfs exist and says on another that Snow White exists because the Seven Dwarfs don't exist -- it really does not matter whatever other evidence is presented to prove the existence of Snow White. What counts is the contradiction in logic. You may say that young women often lived with multiple lovers or that men were typically shorter in 18th Century Germany, etc. What counts is that the writer appears to be in contradiction with him/herself.

I am not arguing that Ehrman is right or wrong in his arguments, but only that he uses contradictory methodologies. In argument A, Paul is early and matches Jesus' opinion and therefore the opinion derives from an Historical Jesus. In argument B, Paul is described as "later" and does not match Jesus' opinion and therefore somehow Ehrman argues that the opinion derives from an Historical Jesus.

If Ehrman does or does not make other statements to bolster his arguments, it is irrelevant to demonstrating this methodological contradiction. If on one page of a story, it was stated that the lead character was born in Chicago and on another page it was stated that the same lead character was born in Memphis, it would certainly appear to be a contradiction, no matter what other non-contradictory information might be given. To say that I created the contradiction by taking the information out of context is silly.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

you are mistaken


this is a comprehension issue


you have not demonstrated, contradictory methodologies

outhouse

false

he does not state a opinion derives from a historical jesus, because paul matches


he does however talk of communities that had shared belief, which by all accounts has its own historicity not derived from paul, even though paul is one source, and example given.


you took it out of context, and im not sure if its on purpose or comprehension issues due to pre existing beliefs

PhilosopherJay

Hi outhouse,


Here is the passage in question:

Here is the first passage in question from pg: 303:

Quote:
You are saying that Ehrman is not offering the writings of Paul as evidence of Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

in context paul is used for what these communities and paul were like, not jesus


he uses paul as a example more then evidence, you only percieve it as evidence due to preconcieved personal beliefs. It was never about evidence, he claims that from the start, claiming he already knows how jesus started, without using paul as a example


he wouldnt beat around the bush, if he thought paul was evidence for a HJ he would state, when, why, where, and how. In this case its about the beliefs of a movement

Toto

I think that outhouse is trying to say that Paul and early Christian communities were apocalyptic, as evidenced by Paul's writings, but that this is not evidence that Jesus was apocalyptic.

This would make Ehrman consistent, at least.

However, in the sentence before that, Ehrman has also claimed that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher (as evidenced by forged writings that can only be accepted after being subjected to the various criteria.)

I feel my head spinning....

Steven Carr

I think what Ehrman is saying is that a Christian like Matthew would not invent a saying of Jesus where Jesus says people are saved without belief in Jesus, and put it in the mouth of Jesus before Jesus gives the Great Commission to spread the word about him.

That would be like inventing a story about a Presidential candidate who is not worried that his opinion polls show non-existent name recognition because he has not yet launched his campaign to get his name known.

Who would do that?