Layman

Hi Toto,

Thank you for contributing to the waste of bandwidth. I never claimed that refuting this one stupid idea refuted all of Doherty. In fact, I was clear that it did not. I just thought this was a particularly stupid argument.

And you are wrong about Acts. Doherty's argument fails if Acts accurately records the beliefs of the early Church. If it is dated to the mid-second century and is only a response to Marcion, it's less likely to have such information. But if it was written much earlier -- and by an associate of Paul -- then Acts is much more likely to record accurate information about the early Christian church.

Doherty knows this -- even if he attempts to downplay it -- which is why he and his doters like you, fight against the idea so strenuously. Only when you know you are losing that argument (like arguing about the census in Matthew) do you retreat back into "it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter."

Layman

I did not just heap corn on the idea. I heaped corn on the idea and have explained why it has zero probative value re: establishing the Jesus Myth.

Clutch

And I didn't just accuse you of heaping scorn. I also argued against your defences of the Pauline silence.

Maybe my arguments are misplaced; I don't mind being educated if they are. But your evasion here serves only to support the conjecture I offered in closing, and which you quoted.

Layman

This does not compute. You admit I made arguments, then you claim I am doing nothing but evading the issues.

You can't have it both ways fella.

Clutch

Now you are evading, and transparently at that. Look, your arguments were, first, that Paul was too busy with proselytizing to visit Calvary and check out the details of JC's life and death. And you argued that even had he done so, there is no reason to expect this to be mentioned in the extant letters. If you had other arguments, fine -- they went under my radar, but I am happy to have you point them out as well.

But these two arguments strike me as falling way, way short of rendering the Silence argument risible, for reasons I outlined above.

Now, you wanna stop dodging and answer? I am no expert here; I'm prepared to learn how my points are mistaken, if they are. But I'm rather underwhelmed by your response, such as it's been, so far.

Layman

Dodging what? Answering what? I made my argument and your only response is that you don't buy it. What is there to respond to?

And I think you have the burden of proof all wrong. We are not assuming that Jesus did not exist unless Paul writes about his trip to Calgary. You are making an argument from silencethat is three steps removed.

You have no evidence that Paul would have wanted to (or even could have) visit the site of Jesus' death. This point is entirely speculative and so anarchonistic its pathetic. And even if you could just show that he "might" have wanted to do such a thin, you still have to make a compelling evidence that he must have written about it. And even if you could show that, you still have to make a compelling case that he must have written about it in one of the few letters of his that survived to us today.

And you ignored other parts of my argument, which noted that Paul's freedom of movement in Jerusalem was hampered by his the hostility of the Jewish authorites. Paul himself notes that he had been punished by Jewish leaders on many occasions and he eventually caused a riot in Jerusalem that lead to his arrest by Roman forces and trial in Rome.

I have made my arguments and you have said you don't accept them. But, the only reason you guys give me to think that he MUST have visited these sites and MUST have written about them and MUST have written about them in letters that surived is that you know Evangelicals today who want to visit Palestine. Indeed, arguably, "pilgrimages" become more popular with later generations than with the first.

Paul was focused on Jesus' resurrection and glorification. He claimed that Jesus had appeared to him personally. He was a wanted many by Jewish authorities. He was focused on spreading the Word before the coming of Jesus' Kingdom. He probably already knew of the places related to Jesus' Passion Narrative.

There is no compelling reason to conclude that Paul must have wanted to visit Calgary. And even less of a reason to conclude tha the must have written about it and that the writing he wrote about it in would necessarily survive.

I give you the same challenge I gave above. Find for me in Ignatius' seven authentic letters where he claims to have visited Calgary himself and used that as some sort of personal testimony? Afterall, we know that Ignatius believed in the historical Jesus. So according to you guys he must have wanted to visit those sites.

And as long as you guys are being anachronistic, I have known many people who have visited Palestine. Many pastors too. And they almost never even mention their trip, except perhaps right after they got back -- and none of Paul's letters were written shortly after his first return visit to Jerusalem. And although I've known several pastors who have visisted the Holy Sites, I've never heard one of them preach about that fact on Sunday morning. Never. Not once. And I'm willing to bet I've heard plenty more such sermons as you guys have.

So don't tell me I haven't answered you guys when all you have in way of rebuttal is uninformed speculation and anachronistic assumptions spanning 2000 years of cultural development.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Nice analogies.

Skeptical

I wasn't suggesting you "give up", I was suggesting that you seemed to be ignoring my point because you seemed to think I was trying to make Doherty's entire argument. My only point was that it certainly seemed as if you were dismissing Doherty's arguments out of hand because he is a JM'er. You say you were not. It certainly seemed as if you were, but if you say you were not I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Clutch

Really?
In short, (i) if he didn't want to see and write about the places where GOD HIMSELF walked and died just decades earlier, then human nature has changed enormously since then; and (ii) the project of converting pagans and consolidating the faith of converts is obviously bolstered by the sort of detailed evidence, including physical evidence and direct, quoted, eyewitness testimony, that Paul might have unearthed had he looked, and which he would have the best possible reasons, vis a vis proselytization, to disseminate as widely as possible.

That's what you might respond to. Your listening-to-sermons research is rather less than relevant here, since none of your pastors was in a position to say "Guys, I saw it! The tomb, maybe even the cross. I talked to people living along the path to Calvary, who remember exactly what he looked like, and who recall the earthquake and the darkness when he died." And if they were in a position to have learned this, but didn't -- would you consider this normal behaviour for someone concerned to spread the word about Jesus?

Finally. So you recently learned (or half-learned) the word 'anachronistic'. So what? If you simply assume that Paul must have thought differently about these things, you engage in special pleading. He might have thought differently about them, of course; I'm only talking about what it's reasonable to expect, not (as you irrelevant keep attacking) what necessarily would have happened. But why on Earth should it be the default assumption that Paul's behaviour cannot be understood by our lights? You will quickly find yourself hoist on your own petard in interpreting the gospels if you reject the idea that one can make of sense of the infelicities, gaps, and so forth, by appealing to what it's reasonable for the disciples and gospel writers to have said, thought, and done. For any such assumption of reasonableness will simply be -- golly! -- "so anarchonistic [sic] its [sic] pathetic".

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Clutch writes:

Layman, Peter,
I don't see what's so strange about assuming that Paul, devoted worshipper and impassioned convert, would go to see, eg, where God incarnate had suffered, died, been entombed, etc. Nor that, having done so, he would then write not just to someone, but to everyone about the evidential import of this. Guys, I saw it! The tomb, maybe even the cross. I talked to people living along the path to Calvary, who remember exactly what he looked like, and who recall the earthquake and the darkness when he died. This would be powerful, powerful stuff to tell other converts and prospective converts.

Of course there's no logical necessity that Paul would do this, nor even an indefeasible empirical probability. But it sure seems to stand to reason. The idea that Paul would have had more important things to do is less plausible the closer he is to these sites anyhow; if any evangelical Christian, however committed to spreading the word, learned that Jesus himself had slept in the next room, would it be ridiculous to find it puzzling that s/he would not even bother to open the door, take a peek in, maybe lie on the bed and pray? The putative relative recency of Jesus' life in Paul's day means that presumably lots of evidence about the man, his life, his and his teachings, would be available -- the actual physical evidence, perhaps. Again, it hardly seems lame, pathetic, or risible to suppose that the man had reason to go there, and reason to write widely about what he found. The heaping of scorn on the idea strikes me as just a means to avoid engaging the matter.

Hello Clutch,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Let me clear up one thing right away. I have not said that it is strange, lame, pathetic, risible, or worthy of scorn to make an argument along the lines that you describe. Whether it may or may not be, I don't really care. (It is possible that your comments were aimed at Layman, not me, but since my name was mentioned, I thought that I should clarify.) I am concerned with whether the argument is sound, i.e., that the argument is logically valid and that the premises are known to be true. If I were claiming that the argument is utterly stupid, I might have some kind of burden of proof with relation to that claim, but I am only disputing that the argument is successful.

Another thing, about avoidance. If I did "avoid engaging the matter," which is not my understanding (as I certainly did not heap any scorn in this thread), it is only with the best intent for intelligent discussion of Doherty's case as a whole, which I think is better served by focusing on more important arguments.

Anyway, I had some time to scribble in computer science class, and I came up with this argument. If it reflects the logical structure of the argument that you would make, then the logically valid part would be nailed, and our focus could turn to the soundness of the premises. In my experience premises are the sticking point in most arguments.

Here is the argument in one logically valid form.

1. If a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (premise)

2. If a historical Jesus was crucified Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (premise)

3. If Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion, Paul visited the site of crucifixion. (premise)

4. If Paul visited the site of crucifixion, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

5. It is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

6. Assume that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (assumption for the reductio)

7. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (1 and 6)

8. ---- Therefore, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (2 and 6)

9. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty, and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (7 and 8)

10. ---- Therefore, Paul visited the site of crucifixion (3 and 9)

11. ---- Therefore, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (4 and 10)

12. ---- Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters, and it is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (5 and 11)

13. Therefore, it is false that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (6 and 12)

I will stop here. Please let me know whether you think that this represents the sense of the argument. If not, please make suggestions for its improvement or replacement. Once you have a logically valid argument (or if you use this one), please explain informally why you think that the premises are justifiably true, if you think so. Premises (3) and (5) are fine by me for now, so you might want to concentrate on (1), (2), and (4). Then we all can discuss whether this argument is successful.

best,
Peter Kirby