In Case You Noticed All the Recent Comments…

103 thoughts on “In Case You Noticed All the Recent Comments…”

1. @William
   Yes, he mentions Paul in 1 Clement.

   Why, in your opinion, do you believe there is no mention of Saul/Paul the notorious Christian hunter among Jewish literature?
   Just curious.

   LikeLike

2. Ark, you make many good and valid points. I can’t deny it, which is why I do not plan to argue over it.

   You have a good question, and I cannot answer it.

   I could make guesses, but that’s all they are.

   Good question… I just don’t know.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

3. Good question… I just don’t know.

   And neither does anyone else … apparently.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

4. lol, nice

   LikeLike

5. Nan

   Just by reading your last comment, it would appear you believe in the authenticity of the bible as you tend to reference it as “historical evidence.”

   The books of the New Testament are authentic written texts dating from the mid first century until the late 1st or early 2nd century. Whether they are accurate is a completely different question and irrelevant to whether the texts themselves are historical evidence. Even inaccurate texts count as evidence.

   Nonsupernaturalist:

   I seriously doubt whether Paul knew much at all about this historical Jesus.

   Yes, Paul does not seem to have known a great deal of detail about the life, activities and sayings of Jesus. As I said before, many/most of those details you mention him overlooking (sayings, parables, sermons, etc) were almost certainly developed over time. The adultery story was not even original to gJohn, but was added by a scribe centuries later. Paul almost certainly knew some basic details about Jesus — I have trouble imagining her was persecuting Christians without having some basic familiarity with their movement — but his “gospel” was about the meaning of the death and resurrection, not the details about Jesus life. Those details were probably invented/developed over the decades by different communities.

   Arkenaten:

   No, it doesn’t count as there is no mention of the character outside the bible. Anyone could have written the letters, thus there is no way to verify whether there is an authentic ”Paul” behind them.”

   97 minutes after posting that “there is no mention of [Paul] outside of the bible”, you wrote that Clement “mentions Paul in 1 Clement.” Paul was also mentioned by Ignatius and Polycarp. In addition to his own authentic writings — some of which indicated he signed them (the autographs, obviously) with his own hand — we have other people later on forging letters in his name.

   So we have his own writings, and numerous written records by other people that talk about him. If this does not constitute adequate evidence of the historicity of Paul, I’m not sure what would.

   one would expect there to be some mention of him somewhere other than from the hand of christians.

   No, one really would not. You seem to think we have extensive records of a lot of people from that time. We do not. We have very, very few records of individuals from that area in the first century, and those we do have are rarely multiply attested. Why in the world should we expect to have written records of a partially disabled traveling evangelist for some minor sect of Judaism? Why would we expect that some degree of harassing/persecuting the relatively small following Jesus had accrued (probably in the low hundreds) would justify people writing about Paul? Even if somebody did, why would we expect the record to have survived?

   Paul became (eventually) an important figure within Christianity, but Christianity itself was not very important for a long time. We see Paul as important today, because the path of history made Christianity, and therefore Paul, important. At the time he was alive, Christianity was just a trivially small movement, one of many sects within Judaism. And there weren’t exactly scribes documenting trivial things like that. Hell, there weren’t many scribes documenting much bigger things. We barely have any historical records of the existence of Pilate — just the references in the Bible, a 1st century reference from Philo, a 2nd century reference by Tacitus, and an inscription that was not discovered until the 1960’s! — and Pilate was the Roman Governor of the entire region! If there are barely any surviving references to the Roman Governor, why would we expect to have many references to a couple of unimportant (until long after) traveling preachers?

   As far as the rest of your questions about evidence, I don’t think you have a good grasp of what “evidence” means. The texts themselves are evidence. They are not proof of the claims made within the texts, but the texts are evidence.

   Ultimately, there is no amount of historical evidence that can *prove* the existence of an ancient figure. Even Alexander the Great. Nobody can *prove* that he said, authored or accomplished the things attributed to him, that the people who wrote about him did not make him up, or that the visual representations of him were not actually based on somebody else. But that is not how the field of history works. Historians can only determine what is most likely. If you want to set a higher bar, you’re certainly welcome to do it, but don’t confuse that with the field of history.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

6. Jon

   You make very good points in regard to Paul. Unlike Jesus, we do have historical references to the physical description of Paul.

   I was interested in your observation:

   Historians can only determine what is most likely.

   The irony is that this is the approach championed by Dr Richard Carrier in regard to whether or not Jesus existed. He claims to use probability techniques to determine the likelihood of Jesus being a real or imaginary figure. He argues on this basis the odds are very much weighted toward Jesus being mythical.

   Of course whilst Dr Carrier’s approach does sound objective, it is formidably difficult for any person to be truly objective in assigning probabilities in such an exercise.

   LikeLike

7. @Jon
   The more you comment the more you come across as a dogmatic apologist.

   The references to ”Paul/Saul// are all in reference to the epistles or Acts.
   There is no contemporaneous evidence for the character, something any reasonable person would expect considering his influence on Christianity.

   There is no correspondence with the Churches he supposedly wrote to.
   No one made any enquiries after the character Jesus of Nazareth. Not a sniff. Why not? Were they not in the least bit curious? I would be, wouldn’t you?
   Alas not even a copy from a single presbyter asking what he looked like, what was Jesus’ favorite food, could they meet his mum or his brothers, or even an inquirt after what shampoo he used or his inside leg measurement.

   For all intent and purpose ”Paul” was writing in a vacuum.

   As a (claimed) student of Gamaleil one would also expect the Sanhedrin – who supposedly sanctioned his initial ”bounty hunting ” expedition – would have some record of him. But oops, no. Not a peep.

   I have a perfectly understanding of what evidence means, thanks all the same, and your continual hand-waving is not going to alter the fact that we do not have a single secular reference for the character.

   It’s also worth noting that he was supposedly in Jerusalem around the same time Jesus was. Odd that he provides no witness to the god man either. Odd that he made no move on the Christian ringleaders in his midst.

   Didn’t he also supposedly make a trip to Epheus? And wasn’t Jesus mum living only a couple óf hours up the road?
   Yet he made no effort to go see the mother of the creator of the universe. Not even to pop by for a cup of tea? You’d think if he had of he would have mentioned it.

   ”Ooh, he was a very naughty boy. I don’t know about messiah, but his room was always a mess.”

   So with all this spurious nonsense surrounding the character you want to hang your hat on the a few supposed autographed ”letters” and claim historicity of someone for whom there is not one secular reference?

   You should become a Christian apologist, you’d be a shoe-in.

   LikeLike

8. @Jon
   I would like to hand out the olive branch for a moment and back this up a bit and try something.

   See if you can dig up a single mention of Saul/Paul among any Jewish rabbinic writing or secular sources of the 1st and 2nd century.
   Let me know if you come up with anything?

   LikeLike

9. Peter:

   The irony is that this is the approach championed by Dr Richard Carrier in regard to whether or not Jesus existed.

   Indeed. I actually think the idea of applying Bayesian reasoning to history is quite interesting. But, as you point out, the mere act of determining categories and assigning probabilities can be problematic, especially in a field like history. Unfortunately, Carrier jumped straight to a particularly difficult case instead of proving the methodology in peer reviewed literature first.

   Arkenaten:

   The more you comment the more you come across as a dogmatic apologist.

   What I am describing is the near-universal consensus of scholars, including atheist scholars. If you think “Yes, there was probably a real apocalyptic preacher who was killed by the Romans and his followers became the earliest Christians and made up stories about him” sounds like dogmatic apologetics, then I can only accept that you disagree and politely suggest that if you (a layman, I presume) reject the consensus of an entire field, perhaps you might be the dogmatic one.

   No one made any enquiries after the character Jesus of Nazareth. Not a sniff.

   This is a bit like saying we have no birth records for anybody in 2500 BC, therefore we must conclude that nobody was born in 2500 BC. We have very, very few records of any kind from that era. It’s hardly surprising that we have no records of the vast, vast majority of correspondence, much less records of conversations Paul may have hard. I think you are seriously overestimating what kinds of records we should expect to have.

   As a (claimed) student of Gamaleil one would also expect the Sanhedrin – who supposedly sanctioned his initial ”bounty hunting ” expedition – would have some record of him. But oops, no. Not a peep.

   What contemporary records of Gamaleil’s students do we have? What contemporary records do we have by the Sanhedrin? According to Jewish Virtual Library, “The earliest record of a Sanhedrin is by Josephus who wrote of a political Sanhedrin convened by the Romans in 57 B.C.E.”

   Didn’t he also supposedly make a trip to Epheus? And wasn’t Jesus mum living only a couple óf hours up the road?Yet he made no effort to go see the mother of the creator of the universe.

   Paul’s trip to Ephesus is dated to around 52-55 AD. If Jesus was born around 4 BC, then his mother probably would have been long dead by then.

   It’s also worth noting that he was supposedly in Jerusalem around the same time Jesus was.

   I’m not sure anything in the textual record suggests this. Remember, Jesus was only (according to the gospels) in Jerusalem for a very few days. Even if Paul (who was not from Jerusalem) was in Jerusalem at the time, the odds of him meeting Jesus seem about as low as the odds of you meeting a person who visited your city. Regardless, Paul is pretty clear that he only “saw” Jesus in a vision, not in the flesh.

   See if you can dig up a single mention of Saul/Paul among any Jewish rabbinic writing or secular sources of the 1st and 2nd century.

   I’m not aware of any. Can you tell me why we should expect to have such a written record? Can you tell me how many minor sectarian preachers were written about in the extant Jewish rabbinic texts? How many contemporaneous texts do we have that discuss the students of Gamaliel by name? What percentage of 1st century preachers were discussed in 1st and 2nd century Jewish texts?

   If you can answer those questions, I can accept that you have a substantial basis for your question. If you can’t, then I would again politely suggest that you are mistaken about what we should “expect.”

   LikeLike

10. One more thing. I would highly recommend this Quora answer by Tim O’Neill explaining why historians “generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure “Jesus Christ” is based, did exist.”

    https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

    He answers a lot of the questions that keep coming up here.

    LikeLike

11. I’m not aware of any. Can you tell me why we should expect to have such a written record? Can you tell me how many minor sectarian preachers were written about in the extant Jewish rabbinic texts? How many contemporaneous texts do we have that discuss the students of Gamaliel by name? What percentage of 1st century preachers were discussed in 1st and 2nd century Jewish texts?

    Because He was supposedly sanctioned by the Sanhedrin to specifically seek out Christians.
    He would thus have been regarded as somewhat of a rebel or renegade and one would expect, because of his supposed impact, at fame ( notoriety?) been mentioned at least somewhere.

    To phrase it in another fashion: What percentage of 1st century preachers were claimed to be responsible for the establishment and indirect spread of christianity in direct challenge to the Judaism of the day, including challenging such practices as circumcision, who was supposedly a Roman Citizen, travelled all over the place, was imprisoned several times and escaped/freed, met with numerous dignitaries and those in high office, was sent to Rome for trial and was eventually jailed and (presumably) martyred … and went completely unnoticed by every single Jewish and secular witness, and were also students of Gamaliel,

    Neither is he mentioned (as far as I am aware) by any of the more well know historians,Tacitus Pliny, Philo.

    It is the very absence of evidence for what we would expect for such a character, coupled with the apparent erroneous nonsense in Acts that one would think should give pause for thought.

    LikeLike

12. @Jon

    We have very, very few records of any kind from that era.

    That’s not exactly true.

    A written tradition was very much alive and well across 1st Century Palestine, and although papyrus imported from Egypt might indeed have been considered expensive (monopolised products typically are) a quick search through the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Papyrus Collection, reveals numerous contemporary examples of the medium in wide use across the eastern Mediterranean for such mundane purposes as receipts, lists, lease agreements, marriage and divorce documents, and even run-of-the-mill business letters. The cost however of papyrus is entirely irrelevant. Far cheaper and more readily available parchment fashioned from lime treated animal hides (vellum) was the medium of choice and although subject to rot when exposed to humidity documents considered important enough were repeatedly reproduced, as exampled in the library of Qumran.

    Now, according to Christians, Jesus was the greatest person ever; a god born of a virgin who as a two year-old toddler slaughtered an entire gaggle of hideous fire-breathing DRAGONS, performed mass exorcisms, breathed life into clay statues, brought eight very dead people (two of whom he murdered) back to life, blew snakes apart with a word, transformed into a ball of light and met with spirits, controlled the weather with a wave, walked on water, fed 5,000 awestruck people with next to nothing (not once but twice), healed the blind, reanimated limbs, defied chemistry by turning water into wine, and performed so many other miracles that John (21:25) said “If every one of them were written down the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” All this and more was done, we’re told, and yet no one in all of Palestine was apparently moved enough by any of it to scribble down a single word. Not even a single piece of graffiti.

    It’s rather awkward.

    LikeLike

13. I agree with Ark that IF Jesus was the great phenomenon that the Gospels make him out to be, we should at least read something about him in Philo. Philo said quite a bit about Pilate, after all.

    But if Jesus was NOT a great phenomenon during his lifetime, but only an insignificant flash in the pan, one in a long line of messiah pretenders who was unceremoniously snuffed out as a minor nuisance, then it is not surprising that Philo nor anyone else mentions him.

    But the fact that multiple first centuries authors wrote about this character as if he were a real historical person IS evidence. Whether the claim is true or not we will never know.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

14. Is it possible for everyone to be correct?

    I see the good points of Ark and the others, but I think Jon has his point – I’m pretty well uneducated on this, so take it for what it’s worth.

    But could it be that both Jesus and Paul were smaller characters than the gospels make out, while still being real people? Like where the gospels and letters were embellishments, based off of these people?

    I think everyone in this discussion agrees the bible is full of errors, fallacies and non-truths, but then we also recognize that there are some real parts to it, like certain people and locations, etc.

    Again, for me, it does seem to make more sense that Jesus was a real guy, although initially pretty low on the radar, and same with Paul, albeit their claimed exploits have been wildly embellished overtime.

    There is mention of both these men in the first century. And besides that, there were clearly those who followed or believed in these men during that time, so I can see where that’s viewed as evidence that a guy names Jesus and a guy names Paul likely existed, that these latter legends were attached to.

    to me, the real question is, who actually nailed Jesus to the cross, because he/they is a god killer, and is likely a god himself.

    LikeLike

15. Because He was supposedly sanctioned by the Sanhedrin to specifically seek out Christians. He would thus have been regarded as somewhat of a rebel or renegade and one would expect, because of his supposed impact, at fame ( notoriety?) been mentioned at least somewhere.

    Ok, how many records do we have from that time period of other rebels, renegades and sectarian preachers sanctioned by the Sanhedrin?

    What percentage of 1st century preachers were claimed to be responsible for the establishment and indirect spread of christianity in direct challenge to the Judaism of the day … and went completely unnoticed by every single Jewish and secular witness, and were also students of Gamaliel…

    I don’t know. Can you tell me about the contemporaneous records we have of other 1st century preachers and students of Gamaliel?

    You keep saying that we should “expect” such records to exist, but you have not shown that such records should be “expected”. Please show me why we should expect that.

    You also keep talking about the importance of Christianity, as if that was a reality in the 1st century. You are imposing later facts on an earlier context.

    That’s not exactly true. A written tradition was very much alive and well across 1st Century Palestine…

    Of course there were written records. We just don’t have very many of them, particularly in the region around where Jesus lived and died. Heck, Josephus is our only source for a *lot* of the things he wrote about. Think about that for a moment. We have major historic events for which Josephus (writing decades later) is our ONLY textual source.

    Now, according to Christians, Jesus was the greatest person ever; a god born of a virgin who … All this and more was done, we’re told, and yet no one in all of Palestine was apparently moved enough by any of it to scribble down a single word. Not even a single piece of graffiti.

    Yes, it’s almost as if those claims were legendary embellishments, the kind of miracles and “wonders” that were common in greco-roman biographies. Which is exactly what scholars say, and what I said earlier in this discussion.

    Fundamentalists believe the Bible must either be completely true or completely false. Historians do not have the luxury of dealing with sources they can simply classify as 100% accurate or inaccurate.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

16. could it be that both Jesus and Paul were smaller characters than the gospels make out, while still being real people?

    That is exactly what scholars of the historical Jesus argue. Jesus and Paul are only major figures now because Christianity did grow far, far larger. But that was a much later development. At the time, it was just one of many Jewish sects and Jesus was just one of the many minor leaders. He was, at the time, no more important than some pastor who starts a few churches today, but he lived and died in a time when there were no newspapers to document every little thing.

    Read the O’Niell post I linked earlier. That explains it far better than I can.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

17. “there are more genuine peer-reviewed scholars who question abiogenesis (they are still a minority) than question Jesus’ existence.”

    There’s another of your broad, sweeping generalities without a shred of evidence to back it up! Love how often you like to use the word, “consensus” –!

    LikeLiked by 1 person

18. UnkiE is notorious well-known for his frequent references to, “the general consensus of most biblical scholars,” the majority of which he never names, and of those he does, many, if not most are not acknowledged in the field/fields referenced by the topic, so when I ran across this one, I was excit4ed to be able to offer it to unkiE for his collection.

    You will note that the author of this quotation was considered by many, if not most, of his time to be an authority on most matters biblical:

    “It has served us well, this myth of Christ.”
    — Pope Loe X
    16th century CE —

    LikeLiked by 2 people

19. Alas, it appears apocryphal.
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

    “Widely attributed to Leo X, the earliest known source of this statement is actually a polemical work by the Protestant John Bale, the anti-Catholic Acta Romanorum Pontificum, which was first translated from Latin into English as The Pageant of the Popes in 1574…”

    The link also notes that somebody named Tony Bushby, writing in a paranormal/conspiracy theory magazine, claimed it was also reported by one or two other people, but I can’t find much clear support for that online.

    LikeLike

20. Yes, I meant to say “Leo” but clearly hit the keys in a different order – I also threw a “4” in there at no extra charge.

    LikeLike

21. Ha! I didn’t even notice that.

    I guess I withdraw the response. I mean, it seems unlikely that Pope Leo said it, but I can’t say what Pope Loe might have said.

    LikeLike

22. “The choice is not between ‘Jesus was exactly as described in the Gospels’ and ‘Jesus was a myth.’”

    Please note, Jon, that in my quotation regarding Pope Leo, Leo didn’t imply that Yeshua was a myth, only that Christ was. One can have it both ways if one declines to believe that Yeshua was the Messiah.

    LikeLike

23. “even if Matthew’s guard story is true”

    The guards weren’t posted until the next morning, that’s a lot of time to a grave robber —

    LikeLike

24. “But feel free to demonstrate I am off my rocker. Surprise me with evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.”

    Are those two inseparably connected –?

    LikeLiked by 1 person

25. Paul died before the3 gospels were written, and knew only that which he had heard, word of mouth – the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery wasn’t even added to the NT until the 4th century, and then it was added to Luke before it was moved to John.

    LikeLike