What is it about the mythicist project that has robbed so many of the ability debate and discuss using evidence-based arguments, logic, reason and probabilities?
It’s a simple solution to a complex historical problem. What’s really depressing is that many assume mythicism is the default skeptic/atheist position. That has changed somewhat since Prof Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. I think that was the first time that many folks heard actual historical arguments.
Stephen said
What is it about the mythicist project that has robbed so many of the ability debate and discuss using evidence-based arguments, logic, reason and probabilities?It’s a simple solution to a complex historical problem. What’s really depressing is that many assume mythicism is the default skeptic/atheist position. That has changed somewhat since Prof Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. I think that was the first time that many folks heard actual historical arguments.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
vergari said
JAS said
Jarek said
. . . To convince me otherwise I need another me
That seems strange to me since I have not found any of your claims to be the least bit convincing. It all presumes a ridiculous amount of planning, control, consistency of motivation, careful execution and prescience (choreographed over a huge span of time) that I cannot accept in any way.
Not to mention, it’s an evidence-free narrative. There’s not a trace of what he’s pushing from extant documents.
That’s right. It’s just an interpretation. Better than others because I have been shaving with Occam’s razor from the very beginning ;->
JAS said
Jarek said
. . . To convince me otherwise I need another me
That seems strange to me since I have not found any of your claims to be the least bit convincing. It all presumes a ridiculous amount of planning, control, consistency of motivation, careful execution and prescience (choreographed over a huge span of time) that I cannot accept in any way.
Market competition, the struggle for power triggers intuition in people. If they are aware of the goal they pursue, they share a common understanding of issues and problems. They do not need to have contact with each other and they will know what to do and they will know what the competitors are doing. It can be seen in every field of business or politics
Jarek said
Market competition, the struggle for power triggers intuition in people. If they are aware of the goal they pursue, they share a common understanding of issues and problems. They do not need to have contact with each other and they will know what to do and they will know what the competitors are doing. It can be seen in every field of business or politics
I suppose it is possible that in the original Polish this is all something more than mere blathering, but in English that is all it is. The struggle for power triggers intuition? Utter rubbish and wild assertions filled only with whatever meaning one wishes to ascribe. Market competition is barely a real thing even in economics, where the concept of a market has at least some nominal existence. If such concepts really cannot explain economics, they certainly have no hope of explaining religion or philosophy.
Jarek said
Stephen said
What is it about the mythicist project that has robbed so many of the ability debate and discuss using evidence-based arguments, logic, reason and probabilities?
It’s a simple solution to a complex historical problem. What’s really depressing is that many assume mythicism is the default skeptic/atheist position. That has changed somewhat since Prof Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. I think that was the first time that many folks heard actual historical arguments.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
Jarek the reason Prof Ehrman was amused is that he realizes that if you reject the authenticity of the Pauline corpus you must also reject 99% of all the ancient historical sources we have. Why? Except for a small number of folks whose reality we can verify archeologically, we either have writings by people or about people and sometimes both when we’re lucky. There’s no magic here. We have seven letters that are stylistically and theologically identical, written by the same author, who identifies himself as Paul. The milieu demonstrated in these letters reflects the situation we understand in the 50s of the common era. This author makes certain claims, some of which can be corroborated by other sources. And there were later writers who considered them important enough to create forgeries.
If you want to reject them fine. But be consistent. You don’t get to reject one ancient source and accept another when you’re in the exact same situation with both! If you do that you’re just being arbitrary. You are either going to do history or you’re not.
Stephen said
Jarek said
Stephen said
What is it about the mythicist project that has robbed so many of the ability debate and discuss using evidence-based arguments, logic, reason and probabilities?
It’s a simple solution to a complex historical problem. What’s really depressing is that many assume mythicism is the default skeptic/atheist position. That has changed somewhat since Prof Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. I think that was the first time that many folks heard actual historical arguments.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
Jarek the reason Prof Ehrman was amused is that he realizes that if you reject the authenticity of the Pauline corpus you must also reject 99% of all the ancient historical sources we have. Why? Except for a small number of folks whose reality we can verify archeologically, we either have writings by people or about people and sometimes both when we’re lucky. There’s no magic here. We have seven letters that are stylistically and theologically identical, written by the same author, who identifies himself as Paul. The milieu demonstrated in these letters reflects the situation we understand in the 50s of the common era. This author makes certain claims, some of which can be corroborated by other sources. And there were later writers who considered them important enough to create forgeries.
If you want to reject them fine. But be consistent. You don’t get to reject one ancient source and accept another when you’re in the exact same situation with both! If you do that you’re just being arbitrary. You are either going to do history or you’re not.
If you asked Ehrman about it, I trust he answered you that. Only some of these claims are irrelevant. The fact that the material for the 7 letters comes from one author does not give a clear answer whether it is an authentic correspondence or an invented tradition that is an extension of the figure of the legendary apostle. Ehrman publicly stated that no one ever had access to the letters from the alleged primary circulation. Letters are available as the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE. In the year 100 CE, there is no trace of Paul’s missionary activity. What’s more, Paul is immediately assigned to the letters of other ghost-writers and no one will even stutter that it is a forgery. Nobody exposes the counterfeiters, even in the case of correspondence with Seneca. The “original letters” are treated in the same way as the others – they are all elements of historical politics, they are a great intellectual value of early Christianity, selected fragments are read in public. Everything else is recognized today as an invented tradition made without eyewitness, falsely attributed to Jesus’ disciples.
Subsequent authors were inspired by these letters, but I doubt they believe their authenticity. They just joined them with their own creation.
Robert said
Jarek said
That’s right. It’s just an interpretation. Better than others because I have been shaving with Occam’s razor from the very beginning ;->
Jarek, are you really shaving with Occam’s razor? It seems to me you are positing hypothetical figures and forces for which there is no evidence. For example, instead of seeing Paul as the author of his authentic letters, you imagine that someone else had these letters written as part of a conspiracy for which there is no evidence.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
I’m vaguely aware of the debate Price and Ehrman had about the existence of the historical Jesus–in this debate did they also discuss the authenticity of Paul’s letters in any depth? Are you saying that Price’s paradigm is less hypothetical than Ehrman’s? Or that both paradigms are equally hypothetical?
Which is it?
Robert, they definitely discussed toward the end of the debate.
Bart was stunned (and a bit incredulous) that Price didn’t believe Paul wrote Galatians.
One of the many frustrating aspects of trying to have a sincere dialogue with Price is that nearly all of his arguments derive from parallelisms; he likewise posits what he concedes are speculatively hypotheses, selectively apply standards and advances arguments with any hint of falsifiability. It’s almost stream of conscious argumentation, with Price drawing upon his knowledge of antiquity to make parallel arguments.
Jarek said
If you asked Ehrman about it, I trust he answered you that. Only some of these claims are irrelevant. The fact that the material for the 7 letters comes from one author does not give a clear answer whether it is an authentic correspondence or an invented tradition that is an extension of the figure of the legendary apostle. Ehrman publicly stated that no one ever had access to the letters from the alleged primary circulation. Letters are available as the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE. In the year 100 CE, there is no trace of Paul’s missionary activity. What’s more, Paul is immediately assigned to the letters of other ghost-writers and no one will even stutter that it is a forgery. Nobody exposes the counterfeiters, even in the case of correspondence with Seneca. The “original letters” are treated in the same way as the others – they are all elements of historical politics, they are a great intellectual value of early Christianity, selected fragments are read in public. Everything else is recognized today as an invented tradition made without eyewitness, falsely attributed to Jesus’ disciples.Subsequent authors were inspired by these letters, but I doubt they believe their authenticity. They just joined them with their own creation.
“Ehrman publicly stated that no one ever had access to the letters from the alleged primary circulation. Letters are available as the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE. In the year 100 CE, there is no trace of Paul’s missionary activity.”
We have a member of the Christian clergy writing in 97 CE from Rome to one of the churches established, in part, by Paul’s missionary activity; that writing references both Paul and his writings to that church.
Robert said
. . . I think Jarek probably follows the minority views of Markus Vinzent and a few others in dismissing the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp and redating Papias much later.
Obviously, these are forgeries made by the illuminati (or whoever) for the sake of selling the project. (And, yes, I am kidding)
Robert said
vergari, are you thinking of Clement of Rome? I think Jarek probably follows the minority views of Markus Vinzent and a few others in dismissing the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp and redating Papias much later.Thanks for the link to the Ehrman-Price debate. I will try to listen to it later.
Oh, good point. Of course he does.
Subsequent authors were inspired by these letters, but I doubt they believe their authenticity. They just joined them with their own creation.
Jarek what’s really amusing is your willingness to ascribe intentions and motivations to people from ancient cultures that you don’t even know. And there’s poor Prof Ehrman meticulously poring over the sources gleaning what he can from them. If he only knew how much easier his life would be if he just pulled his ideas out of his butt!
I knew of Robert Price for years as an interesting critic of supernatural fantasy literature. It was only when mythicism became popular that I found out he was a New Testament scholar. C S Lewis*, first rate scholar of Medieval literature and very bad Christian apologist, once wrote perceptively I think of his friend Charles Williams**, that he put things in his theology that he should have left in his fantasy novels and put things in his fantasy novels that he should have left in his theology. I think something similar could be said about Price’s scholarship respecting both supernatural fantasy literature and the NT.
*Lewis is in many ways a fascinating and even tragic figure. His current sainted status among evangelicals is very sad. Lewis is celebrated for the least valuable portion of his oeuvre. His academic credentials have been almost entirely occluded. Lewis’ study of courtly love, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, is a brilliant study of the waning of the Middle Ages and the development of the Renaissance and thus the beginnings of modernity. One of my favorite books. Lewis had a fine novelistic imagination. But like his philosophical enemy H G Wells he didn’t take the novel seriously except as a vehicle for his views. Both wanted to save the world and neither writer understood that one imaginative piece of literature is worth more than all the political and religious tracts ever written. Both are largely remembered for books they wrote very early in their careers. (Lewis would have probably regarded the suggestion to take the novel more seriously as somewhat blasphemous.)
**I must confess I find Charles Williams’ supernatural thrillers largely unreadable but he has his devotees. Williams was definitely the most interesting person in the Lewis circle. He was somewhat leftist in a group of social reactionaries. He did not reject modernist literature wholesale like Lewis and Tolkien. Williams knew Yeats and T S Eliot. He had a “dark side” as the saying goes. Williams practiced occultism with Yeats in the infamous Golden Dawn and he had a rather sadomasochistic aspect to his sexuality. Let me recommend Gevel Lindop’s 2015 bio ** you do not have permission to see this link **. A welcome respite from the holy glow usually associated with Lewis and his friends. I wish I liked Williams’ work better.
Robert said
Jarek said
That’s right. It’s just an interpretation. Better than others because I have been shaving with Occam’s razor from the very beginning ;->
Jarek, are you really shaving with Occam’s razor? It seems to me you are positing hypothetical figures and forces for which there is no evidence. For example, instead of seeing Paul as the author of his authentic letters, you imagine that someone else had these letters written as part of a conspiracy for which there is no evidence.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
I’m vaguely aware of the debate Price and Ehrman had about the existence of the historical Jesus–in this debate did they also discuss the authenticity of Paul’s letters in any depth? Are you saying that Price’s paradigm is less hypothetical than Ehrman’s? Or that both paradigms are equally hypothetical?
Which is it?
When you look at the content market of early Christianity and you see that 95% of these are ghost writers’ works assigned to legendary characters for markting purposes, what is the rule and what is a conspiracy? Everyone refers to invented tradition because it pays off. Even anonymous books acquire great patrons over time. Some part of the early Christian movement came closer to the risen Jesus only through the revelation of the great apostle and his teachings in the letters. They didn’t come up with the idea to bring Jesus of Nazareth to life and tell about him. The legendary Paul was their closest contact with Jesus.
Did any of these ghost writers believe that these lists are the only authentic ones when they added the fictitious authorship of their own productions? Already in the year 100 you have the first 3 fakes in Pauline Corpus. In the NT, at least four authors wrote alleged letters from Paul. Why did the counterfeiters risk taking into account the short period of time between them and the original Paul? Why has no one exposed the counterfeiters and why has no one stigmatized them?
Because they were rational about it. For them Paul was just attribution of their competitor’ work.
“Great idea, great job, I wish I had figured it out first. I’ll also add something myself.”
Both paradigms are interpretative statements. I chose what Bob chose using different authentication criteria. I do not share the opinion of Detering and Bob that it is the work of Marcon, I do not fight the dating of the writings of Ignatius or 1Clem. I accept Zuntz’s thesis about Pauline Corpus dating.
vergari said
Jarek said
If you asked Ehrman about it, I trust he answered you that. Only some of these claims are irrelevant. The fact that the material for the 7 letters comes from one author does not give a clear answer whether it is an authentic correspondence or an invented tradition that is an extension of the figure of the legendary apostle. Ehrman publicly stated that no one ever had access to the letters from the alleged primary circulation. Letters are available as the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE. In the year 100 CE, there is no trace of Paul’s missionary activity. What’s more, Paul is immediately assigned to the letters of other ghost-writers and no one will even stutter that it is a forgery. Nobody exposes the counterfeiters, even in the case of correspondence with Seneca. The “original letters” are treated in the same way as the others – they are all elements of historical politics, they are a great intellectual value of early Christianity, selected fragments are read in public. Everything else is recognized today as an invented tradition made without eyewitness, falsely attributed to Jesus’ disciples.
Subsequent authors were inspired by these letters, but I doubt they believe their authenticity. They just joined them with their own creation.
“Ehrman publicly stated that no one ever had access to the letters from the alleged primary circulation. Letters are available as the Pauline Corpus collection from 100 CE. In the year 100 CE, there is no trace of Paul’s missionary activity.”
We have a member of the Christian clergy writing in 97 CE from Rome to one of the churches established, in part, by Paul’s missionary activity; that writing references both Paul and his writings to that church.
We have an anonymous letter of 9,400 words with references to several of Paul’s epistles and to the Acts of the Apostles, dated 70-140 CE. I have no problem with 97 CE because Zuntz is not there either. Zuntz states outright that the letters are only known from the Pauline Corpus. And since in 1 Clem we have material from the Acts of the Apostles, we have confirmation of this thesis.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
That’s right. It’s just an interpretation. Better than others because I have been shaving with Occam’s razor from the very beginning ;->
Jarek, are you really shaving with Occam’s razor? It seems to me you are positing hypothetical figures and forces for which there is no evidence. For example, instead of seeing Paul as the author of his authentic letters, you imagine that someone else had these letters written as part of a conspiracy for which there is no evidence.
During the RMP vs. BDE, the question of the authorship and authenticity of Paul’s letters was raised. The RMP stated that they are not authentic, which amused BDE. The laughter of the BDE pissed off the RMP and the debate would be over. The RMP said the debate was pointless due to the “different paradigms adopted” by both interlocutors. And here it turned out that there is no evidence, only “accepted paradigms”. The BDE proved nothing. He has not proved the correctness of his paradigm. He couldn’t do it then, and he can’t do it today.
I’m vaguely aware of the debate Price and Ehrman had about the existence of the historical Jesus–in this debate did they also discuss the authenticity of Paul’s letters in any depth? Are you saying that Price’s paradigm is less hypothetical than Ehrman’s? Or that both paradigms are equally hypothetical?
Which is it?
When you look at the content market of early Christianity and you see that 95% of these are ghost writers’ works assigned to legendary characters for markting purposes, what is the rule and what is a conspiracy? Everyone refers to invented tradition because it pays off. Even anonymous books acquire great patrons over time. Some part of the early Christian movement came closer to the risen Jesus only through the revelation of the great apostle and his teachings in the letters. They didn’t come up with the idea to bring Jesus of Nazareth to life and tell about him. The legendary Paul was their closest contact with Jesus.
Did any of these ghost writers believe that these lists are the only authentic ones when they added the fictitious authorship of their own productions? Already in the year 100 you have the first 3 fakes in Pauline Corpus. In the NT, at least four authors wrote alleged letters from Paul. Why did the counterfeiters risk taking into account the short period of time between them and the original Paul? Why has no one exposed the counterfeiters and why has no one stigmatized them?
Because they were rational about it. For them Paul was just attribution of their competitor’ work.
“Great idea, great job, I wish I had figured it out first. I’ll also add something myself.”
Both paradigms are interpretative statements. I chose what Bob chose using different authentication criteria. I do not share the opinion of Detering and Bob that it is the work of Marcon, I do not fight the dating of the writings of Ignatius or 1Clem. I accept Zuntz’s thesis about Pauline Corpus dating.
All that, but I don’t think you answered my question. Are you claiming that your paradigm is less hypothetical or equally hypothetical? Are you really shaving with Occam’s razor or just claiming that your paradigm is equally as hypothetical as that of Ehrman and the vast consensus of critical scholars?
When you look at the content market of early Christianity and you see that 95% of these are ghost writers’ works assigned to legendary characters for markting purposes, what is the rule and what is a conspiracy?
About half of the Pauline letters are considered genuine so that’s around 50٪. And there are a few later forged letters, some clearly meant to characterize Paul and his ideas.
The authors of John and Acts try to represent themselves or one of their sources as having a better claim to historical knowledge of the life of Jesus or Paul than was so but the gospel genre is vastly different from occasional letters; Luke’s implicit claim in the ‘we passages’ of Acts is not to a legendary character; and the gospels are not attributed to authors until later.
Thus, though I apply the idea of nonpseudepigrahic forgeries more broadly than Ehrman, I still think your 95% figure is based on faulty and insufficient reasoning about the letters of Paul. If you want to make a claim of forgery, you need to speak specifically much more intelligently about each of the letters you are claiming are forgeries. And, as Stephen pointed out, the value of a forgery presumes the existence of a genuine article.
You’ve yet to make a case, even the beginnings of one, let alone a credible case that the authentic letters were forgeries.
Both paradigms without argument are sides of the coin. They are hypothetical to the same extent. Heads or tails. You have a document and you don’t know if it’s fiction or truth. You are looking for helpful criteria, you prioritize them, you are looking for arguments. After analyzing the pros and cons, you define your opinion. So your decision is influenced by the choice of criteria, their priority. Price gives particular importance to sycretism. I give particular importance to competition, project management and power struggle.
According to some criteria, the document is true. According to other criteria, it is exactly the same creation of another ghost writer as 95% of early Christian literature is attributed to invented tradition. The originals are unicorns in the case of historical politics
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)