Rick Sumner

Not quite.

This only holds for textual sources that are without context--evidence that can't be anchored in the past. When that is the nature of your material, then you have no way to tell if it is historical or not when there are realistic alternatives, and therefore are only speculating when you treat them as such.



Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

graymouser

How was a religious honorific term supposed to tell the difference between two apostles named James? And what then do you do with 1 Cor 9:5, unless you invent an ad hoc religious order like Doherty does?

andrewcriddle

I think it depends on what you mean by "without context".

To take an extreme example, suppose Christianity had died out due to persecution by the Antonine Emperors. Almost no evidence about Christianity has survived, certainly no documents written by Christian believers. A modern archaeological excavation discovers a copy of Mark in the remains of a house destroyed in the civil wars following the assassination of Commodus. It would, I agree, be unclear whether this was a historical source in any normal sense.

However, despite our uncertainty about the circumstances in which the Gospels were written, they are not "without context" in this extreme sense. We know for example something about how the Gospels were regarded by Christians in the 2nd century. We know from Paul about 1st century Christian belief. This allows us to give a context to the Gospels which puts limits on the range of plausible interpretations.

Andrew Criddle

Grog

Ted, I asked you to cite the specific passage in 1 Cor or even Romans, or anywhere, where Paul states that Jesus was crucified by men. You did not do that.

You did not cite any passage that refers to government authorities crucifying Jesus.

Consider this:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

No earthly ministry of Jesus in this passage.

TedM

I pointed you to the answer. The entire context is contrasting the man's wisdom with God's wisdom revealed to certain men. The point of 2:8 was that the rulers who crucified Jesus didn't have wisdom from God. To suggest that those rulers were demons doesn't fit the context. He was talking about human rulers who simply didn't have the wisdom of God to know who they were crucifying. It's obvious once you understand the context.

Grog

I think one of your assumptions concerning the formation of the canon is flawed. You believe that Paul could not have been canonized if he were thought to have written heresy. I agree, but the heresy that was being looked for was not that Jesus never existed. Paul is required in the canon because Paul explains the importance of the Resurrection.

There is plenty in Paul that could be considered heretical. Consider:

1 Cor 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

So I think the assumption that you rest this argument on is questionable.

Sure, ok.

I am reading what he says in 1 Cor 2:8. And even throughout the Pauline writings there are references to the "rulers of this age" and elemental spirits.

Galatians 4:29 KJVBut, aa, who is the Pauline writer talking about? And! he says he is talking figuratively:

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[e]

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit.


Yes, and that is no contradiction with what I believe. Paul cannot have in mind actual events occurring in Palestine during the time of Tiberius.

How does the Pauline Jesus fit the canon of the later Church?

Rick Sumner

I agree with this, somewhat, and probably should have swapped "context" for "provenance."

I realize that this excludes massive amounts of early material generally, but so long as my epistemology is both consistent and defensible, I'm okay with that. Better to be conservative than land in a sort of historical relativism by being fuzzy on the foundations.

I'm not sure Paul tells us that much about Christian belief generally, nor how much of what he tells us is unique to Paul. I do not think it is enough to provide a tether for the gospels.

How they were read doesn't tell us much. Many things that are unquestionably outright fiction were taken to be historical. It isn't that big of a leap to suggest that they're entirely made up.

Even allowing an historical Jesus, it surely isn't much of a leap to suggest that the gospels have nothing to do with him, and represent pure fabrication. The truth of this statement precludes their use as evidence. We have to speculate just to make them count. Surely that should give us considerable pause.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Rick Sumner

You're confusing problems of epistemology generally and properly defined (and which apply to my historiography as well as they do to particle physics) and problems specific to history. Every investigation begins with assumptions about the material and the method, and then ends with assumptions about the audience. Those assumptions apply to absolutely every field, with the possible exception of mathematics. We needn't trouble ourselves with them here, or if we do, we need to distinguish them from the more specific historiographic problems.

It is often pointed out (by you, in fact, quite recently) that history isn't science. And while I would agree that this is true, I disagree with the usual reasons offered. Science doesn't exist in some pure state of classic positivism contrasted with the aesthetic of art, with history bridging the two. That view is unsustainable from the perspective of science (which isn't classically positivist) or art (which isn't purely aesthetic), and only historians seem to be unaware of this.

Science is notoriously hard to define (what makes Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype science while history is not, for example?), and is generally a case of "I know it when I see it," which is it's own set of problems. But the definitions are fuzzy enough that history, while not a science, unquestionably employs scientific thinking.

Scientific thinking comes with scientific accountability, and that accountability needs to be met, not hidden from with declarations that "we aren't a science!" Part of that accountability is eliminating as many grey areas as you possibly can. When your wave your hands and declare "It's all value judgments" you shirk that accountability. Instead of restating the problem, try and solve it.

So when I say that "evidence can not be defined by value judgments" I do not mean it in the broad, general epistemological sense. I do not mean it in a sense that questions of subjectivity can be applied to all knowledge. I mean it in the specific historiographic issue at hand. I mean it in the sense that we need to define the requirements, and then stick to those definitions, and not hide behind hillocks we build proclaiming things evidence by virtue of a method of literary criticism that is only valid if we assume it is evidence in the first place.

If we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then one history is as good as any other, and only carries weight because of the merits of the best rhetor. Cicero becomes the only father of history that matters.

aa5874

Actually Science and History are very similar.

Scientific Theories are developed from observed Data and History is re-constructed from OBSERVED DATA from the past.

A good example where Science is used for History is a court trial.

The Re-construction of a past event in a trial is DIRECTLY related to OBSERVED DATA whether through Forensics or witnesses.

In fact, without Science the re-construction of the past, History, would be severely retarded.

It was Science that caused many found guilty of past events to be Exonerated.

It was Science that caused people to abandon the Creation "history" in the Bible.

Science will show that there was NO character called Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

We can reconstruct the Past with Science. Thank G..... THANK GALILEO.

aa5874

Your very first ERROR is that you PRESUME the Pauline writings are early. I no longer accept PRESUMPTIONS that the Pauline writings are before c 70 CE. The Existing Pauline writings are dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Your whole argument about the Pauline writings is based on IMAGINARY evidence. I will NOT be entertaining PRESUMPTIONS about Paul, Jesus and the disciples. Those days are OVER.

I EXPECTED that there would be NO DATED evidence for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul from the 1st century and that is PRECISELY, EXACTLY what has been found.

1. 100% of all DATED Text with stories about Jesus, the disciples and Paul are AFTER the 1st century.

2. 100% of DATED Text from the 1st century do NOT mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

3. 100% of Texts in non-apologetic sources about Jesus, the disciples and Paul that attempt to place them in the 1st century, before c 70 CE, are FORGERIES.

I am done, done, done with presumptions about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I am dealing with HISTORY.

If you are NOT prepared to deal with the DATED Texts then I am afraid I won't be able to help you.

My postion is LOCKED to HISTORY not Myth Fables in the Canon.

My position is that the Pauline writer is a FRAUD--the writer did NOT live in the 1st century--- and it is LOCKED to DATED Texts.

As soon as I get Credible Data from antiquity my position is AUTOMATICALLY reviewed.

I have NO more time for crucifixions in the Sub-Lunar or that some James had a brother if NO-ONE is prepared to present Credible History.