Peter Kirby

OK, I understand that you have an interest in empirical approaches to history. And probably others too.

What I detected in some of the responses was that any interest in finding points of comparison was trumped by a subjective sense of what they know Paul must have written -- and because they know this, there has to be an "answer" to the joke of the Rutherford example of an earthly Jesus believer bereft of references to the life of Jesus on earth in a letter collection.

I agree with Raskin that the single example of Rutherford only establishes that a person like Paul could have written in the way that he did. Whether this is likely would have to then be considered. In this matter, the particular context in which Paul was writing has to be factored in.

However, I have not found any important difference in context that is known to make Paul more likely to recite details in the life of Jesus--respondents have sometimes pointed to differences that may make no difference. Or they have made claims that are questionable, such as that people in the first century who heard what Christians say would be likely to demand evidence for the basic existence of Jesus.

So I don't think that what I have done is so bad that it shouldn't have been done (not that you have said this). I agree that there is not a perfect "fit" between the situation of Paul and the situation of any other writer.

What I would be interested in doing is to collect data on the types of statements made in a broader selection of Christian epistolary literature, and after that to make judgments on what differences the context made in each case. Some will make a particular person less likely to mention a detail in the life of Jesus, while others could make a person more likely to refer to events concerning Jesus on earth, such as the use of canonical records of the life of Jesus.

But I am not satisfied with making an arbitrary and subjective decision between the many who claim that the manner of writing in the NT epistles is not extraordinary for earthly Jesus believers and those who say that it is. If these dueling intuitions are all we have, and if any attempts of doing a "reality check" (as I put it) are dismissed, then I would prefer to remain agnostic on whether the authors of the NT epistles believed or disbelieved in an earthly Jesus.

Which, come to think of it, is the position of the initial post.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jackalope

Geez, go away for a few days and see what happens.

My protest was the same as several others' here have voiced: that Rutherford is a bad control if you're going to do comparisons. First, it's thousand year time difference, written in a totally different language that itself had undergone some fairly recent major changes, and they're written as personal letters. The form that Rutherford uses in his letters is strikingly similar to that used when speaking of distant loves or people you're likely to never see again. That unfortunately doesn't prove much about Paul's epistles, because it's largely a function of culture.

The writers who note that Paul's letters follow a pattern different from other writings of the same time period may have something. Or they may not. There may not be enough evidence to do a comparison. If Paul's writings could be shown to be either very similar or very distinct from the more common writing style of his time period, then you could make some conclusions.

The major argument you're hearing is that you've picked a poor control to compare against.

Vinnie

The ongoing work of the living and transforming Jesus would not be paralyzed by a scholarly consensus against the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Vinnie

Gregg

I think it's easy enough to say that Paul wrote about Jesus the way he did because that's the way he "preferred" to write. However, I think that once someone makes this claim, the burden is on them to back it up by digging into Paul's letters and really showing why it was completely unnecessary for him to make any references to Jesus' earthly career beyond the breaking of bread, the "delivering up," the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the appearances. It would also be helpful to offer some suggestions as to why (among other many things):

1. Paul claims to have gotten his gospel from revelation, not from man

2. Paul can say things like he does in Rom. 16:25,26 and Gal. 3:5-10 without the barest reference to Jesus' earthly career or to the Great Commission

3. Paul claims that his experience of the Christ was no different from those who saw the resurrected Christ prior to the ascension

4. Paul prefers to quote the Jewish scriptures when he wants to make a doctrinal point, instead of offering a word from Jesus

5. Paul complains about the Jews rejecting the good news they heard from apostles like himself, and further refers to their habit of killing prophets (Romans 10-11), but doesn't mention their rejecting Jesus' message and killing him

6. Paul argues for the resurrection of the dead, but doesn't mention any traditions that Jesus resurrected people from the dead

The argument that Paul wrote about Jesus in spiritual and mythological terms because that's the way he "preferred" to write sounds good until you actually start looking closely at WHAT Paul wrote and WHY he wrote it. Then it no longer seems so simple. It's kind of like the way apologists try to explain away gospel contradictions by appealing to the "no two witnesses to an accident tell exactly the same story" argument. The explanation actually makes sense--as long as you don't look at the contradictions TOO closely.

IMO, what you wind up with when you read Paul is a historical Jesus who apparently said and did very little up to the point where he ate a sacred meal and was then "delivered up." And this is the same impression you get from ALL the 1c. Christian correspondence. AND the non-Biblical record is equally silent. Given this, PLUS the fact that we have a perfectly plausible scenario whereby worship of a dying/rising Son could have started without appealing to a shadowy, historical founder figure who was mythologized, I'm not sure why proposing that there was no historical Jesus is THAT big a deal, at least for people with no confessional interests. I'm not saying it must be accepted, or even that it shouldn't be attacked from every conceivable angle--that's the only way we can test the validity of ANY theory. I'm just saying, "Look, this really isn't THAT radical an idea, and it's certainly no crazier than the idea that some Jews turned an obscure, crucified nobody into God."

Gregg

Ted Hoffman

Good. Then we are making progress.

As Toto pointed out, Doherty doesn't rely on Pauls letters alone to make the AFS.

Why keep repeating this inaccurate claim? A few posters' perceived "basis" of the argument for Jesus Mythicism case doesn't make that argument the actual argument that eminent Jesus Mythicists make.

Its another form of strawman - like getting a first graders' understanding of evolution and pounding it while leaving "expert" understanding of the same untouched. Easy target.

Sounds like we are interested in drawing the bulls eye around the arrow now.

It sounds like an ad-hoc approach. It could be worthwhile however, so long as you clearly set out the basis for selection of such letters as you will select - unless you want to do it arbitrarily.

Pauls letters and writings influenced virtually every Christian after the NT Canon was written. So I think legitimate comparisons would have to involve Paul's contemporaries - people who had a chance to know Jesus or lived +-30 or 50 years after his death. With clear writing styles and knowledge concerning the historicity of Jesus.

Otherwise, we might as well get more letters from the 17th century and start comparing them with Paul's letters.

There is a huge difference between people who (a) believed in a historical Jesus and referred to him in spiritual terms (like SR), and (b)people who knew a historical Jesus, or people who knew people who knew a historical Jesus and yet wrote about him(Jesus) in spiritual terms. [Edited to add Greggs addition]

As far as people who believed in a historical Jesus, it doesnt mean squat that they did.

In any case, the terms people use(d) to refer to a spiritual being are arbitrary and cannot be used to accurately judge what the writers ACTUALLY believed (in the historicity of such beings) especially in the absence of any factual knowledge concerning the author's literary and other "spiritual" leanings [like gnosticism] especially if we are examining writings from the Hellenic times we had a number of ideologies (platonism etc) - which affected writing style and interpretation.

Occams razor would require that we regard what they wrote to be what they believed. The contrary of this is a conspiracy theory of sorts.

In that regard, what is the evidence that Rutherford believed in a Historical Jesus?

And there is also a difference between believeing in what is written in the Gospels (from a believers point of view) and believing in a historical Jesus (based on extra-biblical research or extra NT knowledge) based on personal witness.

One is simplistic and naive while the other is more sophisticated and informed. So they cant be judged as the same levels of "knowledge" even though they are about the same thing.

The simplistic one, doesn't mean squat. My fiancee for example believes a historical Jesus existed.
But that is an artifact of her belief in the Gospel stories and the Bible. Its not based on knowledge. Its based on faith.

So IMHO, that doesn't mean SQUAT as far as knowledge, or lack thereof of a historical Jesus is concerned.

Pick examples of people who did not rely on the Gospels (or on the Gospels alone) to formulate for themselves a historical Jesus. Paul is an example. These examples would of course need to be Paul's contemporaries, or others who lived before the Gospels were made available to many.

All writings you choose should fit that criteria for the match to "fit" and for the comparison to have a basis - in the absence of that, well, its just a joke.

Look Peter, take your "reality check" cum rebuttal and sit it on a table. Comb its hair, wash its dusty face with some cold water, pat it down and throw some clean, ironed clothes it so that it looks worthy of being an argument from a serious person like you. I am one of your fans you know .

Maybe someone is using Peter's Login? What was that about Apollos?

Gregg

Because I'm in agreement with 99% of your post, Iron, I thought I should "pounce" on this before anyone else tries to use it to discredit your argument.

This should actually be "people who knew people who personally knew Jesus and were still around to talk about it." As far as we know, none of the epistle writers claimed to have met Jesus in the flesh.

Still a huge difference between these people and those who had no connection whatsoever to the supposed eyewitnesses to Jesus' earthly ministry.

Gregg

Gregg

Well, although I'm an agnostic myself, I made that exact point to a "New Thought' Christian minister of my acquaintance. I also mentioned that since New Thought and Christian Science both emphasize metaphysics, even interpreting the crucifixion in spiritual and metaphysical terms, the idea of Christ as a purely spiritual being should appeal to them.

He still insists there was a historical Jesus, though.

Gregg

Gregg

Hey Peter, why'd you delete that post about the "Letters of Apollos" ? Now that really WAS a joke--although I had to do a search on Google to satisfy myself that it was.

It sure would be nice if we had Apollos' explanation for why he rejected the doctrine of "Christ crucified," though.

Gregg

Clutch

Peter,I agree. What's unclear is what actual methodology, as you called it, ever denied that Paul could have written systematically in metaphor while possessing relevant historical knowledge. Your knowledge of this area is vastly greater than mine, but that's why I said I'd have to see the quotes showing JMers asserting the logical or empirical impossibility of the prospect.

Peter Kirby

Er, I wasn't sure that anyone would appreciate my attempt at humor. Apollos is the name of an apostle as mentioned in 1 Cor and Acts. We really know very little about him.

best,
Peter Kirby