Peter Kirby

Hi Toto,

Thank you for your presentation of an argument along these lines. Unfortunately, it is not in a logically valid form, so it does not allow us to isolate the premises in an accurate way. Rather it is more like the series of "Whereas" statements that you might find in a legislative proposal. That is useful in its own way, but it was not exactly what I was looking for (along the lines of that which I offered tentatively in a previous post).

Toto writes: Since Paul was an active missionary who wanted to convert others, and was engaged in disputes with rivals, he would have wanted to shore up his arguments as best he could, and he would have looked for any historic remembrance of Jesus, including geographical sites and relics.

But I have seen no evidence (a) that there would have been a physical, identifiable remains of Jesus available and interesting to Paul if a historical Jesus existed or (b) that Paul would have mentioned any visit that may have been made in the seven extant letters thought to contain authentic Pauline correspondence.

By the time that Paul made his visit to Jerusalem, it is just as likely that there would have been nothing that could be proven to belong to Jesus than that there would have been something. In particular, the crossbeam and titulus would have made good firewood, and the stakes are generic and replaceable. Mentioning such a site very well could have been futile, just as moderns are not very much impressed with the alleged fact that a pool in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate with five porticoes, as described in John, has been discovered. Furthermore, even if Paul visited the verifiable location of the crucifixion of Jesus, unless some people were disputing the reality of the crucifixion among those to whom Paul wrote, there would have been no pressing reason for Paul to mention a stop that Paul made several years previous for personal reasons.

Up until now, my statement stands that we have no good reason to think that Paul would have mentioned the places that he visited, if he visited them, in letters written to distant churches years later, and we don't know enough to say with any reliability that Paul would have visited such places on the assumption of a historical Jesus. Nobody has shown the possibility that Jesus did not exist to have a greater probability than the disjunctive set of several possibilities that exist under the assumption of a historical Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

As I said, I don't think it's proof of anything, which may be why trying to turn it into a logical proof makes a parody out of it.

There is no evidence that Paul would have written about a visit to Jesus' tomb - but the probabilities are that 1. such a visit would have been an intensely emotional experience for him and 2. he would probably have referred to such an experience to illustrate something about Jesus and 3. if he had written this dramatic account of his visit to the sacred ground of Jesus' death, this passage would probably have been saved for posterity. But I can't put a number on those probabilities. If that were the only evidence, and if there were other contervailing evidence that Paul thought there was a HJ, this argument would be worth very little. Lots of improbable things happen all the time. But since there is so little evidence of a HJ to start off with, it must be given some weight in the equation.

It's not like the case of the dog that did not bark. If a dog always barks at strangers and it doesn't bark at Mr. X, that is very probative evidence that Mr. X is not a stranger to the dog. That is a strong argument from silence.

This is weak evidence. It only gains strength when considered as part of an overall pattern of silences where you might expect someone to mention Jesus.

As for physical evidence connected to Jesus - his body might be destroyed, the cross burned for firewood, and he might have been a wandering sage with no property. But his "brother" James must have had some objects from their family life. There must have been houses where he stayed, bowls that he ate out of. In fact, if there had been a HJ of recent memory, there would undoubtedly have been a market for these trinkets, and someone would have supplied the demand with whatever they could pass off as relating to Jesus. That is what happened in the fourth century and later, when Christians were convinced that there was a HJ, but we have no evidence that it happened in the first century.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Since we seem to agree that the evidential value of this argument is weak, let me finish it off with a quip. This argument seems to be the skeptical counterpart to the argument about the presentation of the body of Jesus by authorities in Jerusalem. It is based on knowing that people we don't know would do things we don't know that they didn't do. Not persuasive, for obvious reasons.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

It is based on knowing that people we don't know would do things we don't know that they didn't do. Not persuasive, for obvious reasons.

No, Peter, I can't agree with this analysis. It is based on knowledge of human beings, whose nature we know intimately, acting in ways contrary to that nature. One only need look at the vast number of "homes" of famous people located all over the world, which are pilgrimmage sites for believers/fans/the interested. Ever seen Graceland? So Doherty argues, quite reasonably in light of known human nature, that had Jesus been caulked in recent memory, a pilgrimmage site would have sprung up instantly. There would have been a robust trade in Jesus artifacts. But no such sites appear until much later (are any mentioned in the second century texts?) nor does any such trade appear to have existed. (Is a robust trade in artifacts mentioned in any of those texts?). I mean, the interesting thing about Jerusalem to Paul is not that it is the place where god died, but it is the place he has to go to confront the Church leadership. To Paul, the meaning of Jerusalem apparently has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Don't you find that odd?

It is not an argument that will carry the day by itself. But it is another one of those pesky silences. Kudos to Doherty for noticing it.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork/Peter,

While I am willing to accept that Paul probably did visit sites in Jerusalem, the argument that he should have mentioned this in his seven extant letters is poor.

I have written vast amounts about Jesus on these pages - a corpus of work far greater than Pauls extant letters - and directly relevant to the existence of Jesus and the historical fact of the crucifixion rather than doctrinal problems largely unrelated to the HJ. So could some explain why I have never mentioned the fact that I have myself visited the shrines in Jerusalem? Even when engaged in apologetics on my website I never point out I have seen the places described in the Gospels with my own eyes (at least IIRC). Why not? I would venture to say that my reason is the same as Pauls - it did not seem necessary or relevant. And I further have no doubt that some future Doherty, surveying my extant writings up this point, would claim quite wrongly, I had never been to Jerusalem.

The silence is pesky, but only because Doherty reads something into it which is wholly unjustified.

Yours

Bede

Steven Carr

Out of curiosity, do you believe that you have visited the actual places where Jesus was crucified and resurrected?

It is also true that Paul never mentions visiting the Temple in Jerusalem, although he almost certainly did do so.

foolsparade

"The persecutor of God. -- Paul thought up the idea and Calvin rethought it, that for innumerable people damnation has been decreed from eternity, and that this beautiful world plan was instituted to reveal the glory of God: heaven and hell and humanity are thus supposed to exist - to satisfy the vanity of God! What cruel and insatiable vanity must have flared in the soul of the man who thought this up first, or second. Paul has remained Saul after all - the persecutor of God." Nietzsche..

Bede

Steven,

It is as good a spot as any and people like a spot. I found the experience a bit underwhelming.

B

Vorkosigan

I knew this, though. Did you tell me in a private email? I seem to recall hearing it. In any case this is a good counterargument, which is why Doherty's point is not all that strong by itself, yet it behooves me to point out that Jesus was not executed in your lifetime, and you had no chance to talk to his mother or touch the bowls he ate out of.

Vorkosigan

Bede

But Vork, Paul does mention meeting Jesus´s brother and companions. Certainly more relevant to him than any woman could be.

B