Pauline Silence is the observation that St. Paul does not mention much about the life of Christ in his epistles. Carrier believes this indicates Jesus was not an historical figure.
Ehrman argues a couple point about this:
>Christianity was not focused on the life of Christ as this was before the Gospels were written
>Paul does in fact mention several important things: the crucifixion, resurrection, the apostles and Jesus' kinsmen, that Jesus was born of woman, from the line of David, etc.
>The life of Jesus simply wasn't very important to early converts; rather, what was significant was how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies
Ehrman's points are further validated by Acts, in which the focus is once again the same: Jesus' life is very secondary to his death and resurrection, as well as his fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Obviously Carrier is a hack fake scholar who sells atheist "spirituality" books, so it's not really a discussion, but the Pauline Silence is extremely interesting to me.
Thoughts?
Well, an important thing to note about Paul's writing was that they were letters to churches and were written to clear up disputes about practice. Paul was writing about things in debate, and certain things that were common knowledge or weren't relevant to the topic weren't worth writing about. That explains a lot of the "silence."
And, like Ehrman says, early Christianity really doesn't seem too focused on the life of Jesus. Mark, which is probably the earliest Gospel, is the shortest and doesn't really say much about the life of Jesus.
Reviews of Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem (lol):
>To convincingly make [the] case Bayes theorem can advance history one needs lots and lots of worked-out examples. Unfortunately the book contains nearly none of these, and I would say the only time it tries to venture into the historical method -- the case of the criteria of embarrassment -- it does so in a fashion that is both distinctly non-Bayesian and without a way to encode something is actually embarrassing to the author.
>I will admit after six readings I am still not quite certain what exactly is being argued above and put generously I think it is another example of the book's sometimes less than lucid style of writing.
>As a mathematician, I really must object to Carrier's fast-and-loose treatment of mathematics and logic. While Bayes Theorem is a well established part of statistics, his methods press well beyond the confines of any form of axiomatic probability theory. Most irritating was Carrier's insistence that proving something to be unlikely is equivalent to proving something false. In general, heuristic arguments are not only invalid but also useless from a purely logical framework. One can easily conjure up a wide array of theorems in mathematics that hold true in spite of rather damning heuristic evidence, such as the Banach-Tarski Paradox. I would consider his entire premise suspect, due to his insistence on applying subjective quanities to an objective theorem and general lack of mathematical rigour.
>>71361
kek Carrier is such a hack. Atheists latch onto him because his books sound convincing, but they are the lowest, most deceptive form of pseudo scholarship. This is why atheists should not be welcome on this board.
>muh bad mouthing religion
>muh fast and loose facts
>muh religion is the cause of all problems
>muh Christ Mythicism
>>71078
As far as non-Christian biblical scholars go, Ehrman is one of my favourites. Granted, I disagree with quite a few of his views, but he certainly has chops. He wrote a book concerning if Jesus existed, and even as an agnostic, he basically says that it's ridiculous to not believe that He existed.
I agree, Carrier is a hack.
>Who /garyhabermas/ here?
Or it's just because Paul never met Jesus?
Leave the gospel to the disciples, the life of Jesus was told four times over, why would Paul who didn't even know him do it all over again?
>>71531
If Ehrman were slightly less fedora I would admire him greatly. I don't even care that he isn't Christian, but he carries a chip on his shoulder because he was a dumb biblical literalist when he was younger.
Post good things about Habermas; not really familiar.
>>71586
Well, and this too. Keep in mind when he does talk about one key part of Jesus' life, the last supper, he makes mention that it was passed onto him. Now people get hung up on him saying he received it from the Lord.
From what I've read, the Greek can be interpreted as he received it second hand from the Lord basically.
Is there a reason more people are posting in the atheist troll thread than in this actual discussion of history and historical methods and recent research?
Is this board this bad already?
we need some autoban filters in this board
>>71886
what is this post even in reference to?
>>71907
hopefully 'fedora'
>>71949
I have no problem with atheists being kicked off this site. The only thing I've seen them do thus far is shitfling in perfectly good/intellectual religion discussion.
>>72025
>blanket ban on perceived religious viewpoint
You don't sound like the kind of person who would be willing to discuss topics in good faith.
>>71648
It's a pity what happened to Ehrman. Apparently he initially lost faith because of the problem of evil, not the reliability of the Scriptures. I think he just dug himself into a fedora-shaped hole. It's sad, really.
Habermas is an expert on the Resurrection: he did his PhD on it, which can be found here:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/books.htm
He has something called the "Minimal facts theory", which basically means that he only takes data that is incontrivertibly reliable, as per agreed upon by the great majority of historical scholars (irreligious, Christian, Jew, liberal, conservative, etc), and uses only that to argue for the Resurrection. He has quite a lot of videos on YouTube; he's very dry, but interesting nonetheless.
>>72107
Show me one place on this entire board where atheist posting hasn't just been shitflinging, and I'll concede the point. However, I have not seen this to be the case, and I'm agnostic. I don't mind atheist discussion, but this shit has to stop.
>>71078
Jew weighing in, and not much read on the subject, but I don't know how much stock you can put into "Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies", because he kind of didn't. And Matthew especially quotes a lot of them out of context, when he's not making them up out of the whole cloth.
There's a reason that Christianity didn't get too far with the actual Jewish population and had much better luck with the surrounding "Pagans".
>>72473
>my non Christian interpretation is fact and yours is made up
Yeah nah senpai. Christianity did "get far" with the Christian population, desu. It's just that those Jews became known as Christians. Let's not forget Paul, Matthew, etc. weren't exactly slouches when it came to Jewish scriptures.
>>72528
Matthew has Jesus enter Jerusalem riding two asses because of a misreading of Zechariah 9:9.
>>72528
>hristianity did "get far" with the Christian population, desu
I assume you mean "Jewish" population, which is why things like Acts records a tiny Christian community at the death of Jesus, and why all of the huge early Christian strongholds are in Asia Minor and Egypt, and eventually Rome, and NOT in Palestine proper.
> Let's not forget Paul, Matthew, etc. weren't exactly slouches when it came to Jewish scriptures.
Yes, yes they were.
Please cite exactly what OT prophecy Matthew is referring to in 2:23?
Please tell me why Paul conflates Jesus's crucifixion with both a Paschal sacrifice and a sin offering (1 Corinthians 5:7 and Romans 8:3 respectively) despite the two offerings having nothing to do with each other?
>>72654
Explain how it's a misreading and not just a different interpretation of scripture than you prefer, otherwise there's no point in this discussion. Just because Matthew doesn't agree with your false religion doesn't mean his interpretation is wrong lol
>>72658
>Please tell me why Paul conflates Jesus's crucifixion with both a Paschal sacrifice and a sin offering (1 Corinthians 5:7 and Romans 8:3 respectively) despite the two offerings having nothing to do with each other?
Because that's what Jesus' sacrifice was? I really don't see your point. Are you seriously arguing that because Christian theology doesn't agree with Jewish theology that somehow means something? No Christian or Jew would expect that to be the case. This is a different brand of shitposting than I've ever seen
>Christian theology isn't Jewish, so it's wrong
Fuck off?
>>72738
>Because that's what Jesus' sacrifice was?
Which one was it? A Paschal sacrifice is one of national self-affirmation, and bears most resemblance to a Thanksgiving offering, not a sin offering. Sin offerings, I would note as per Leviticus chapter 4, are supposed to be bulls, and if you can't afford a bulls, are supposed to be a female lamb.
They are not the same thing. That Paul equates the two demonstrates ignorance of the Old Testament.
> Are you seriously arguing that because Christian theology doesn't agree with Jewish theology that somehow means something?
No, I'm arguing that the "focus on fulfillment of OT prophecy" doesn't make a lot of sense, given that the acts of Jesus comport very little to OT prophecy, and that furthermore, the claim that was made in post >>72528 that guys like Matthew and Paul had expertise with the Jewish scriptures is simply incorrect, or at the very least undemonstrated.
>>72528
Matthew is by far the slouchiest author in the NT when it comes to the OT.
>>72879
Oh, I don't know. Mark gets a quote wrong literally in the second verse.
>>72827
You're not contradicting the point here: >>72738
The fact that Paul conflated the two only means that: He interpreted Jesus' passion as a sacrifice that conflated the two. Do you see how what you're saying doesn't matter?
Also the fact that Paul was a Pharisee and Matthew was an educated man writing for Jewish audiences begs to differ. Your Jewish education is just biased apologetics, and doesn't appear to be very logical. Your entire argument is still "it's not the interpretation of the people who don't agree with Christianity and therefore it's wrong". No shit.
>>72130
When you do nothing but textual criticism, and nothing is as you were taught EVER and then you start getting into historical criticism in your phd, there is a reason so many of theses guys go into unitarianism.
btw, does anyone else agree that Bart Ehrmans non scholarly publications (ie not his new testament primer and his essays) reek of pop history and money grubbing?
Any Burton Mack fans?
>>72966
>there is a reason so many of theses guys go into unitarianism
because people who get phds in history are raging liberals who like uninteresting raging liberal churches?
>>71531
Which specific views do you disagree with Ehrman? His stuff about biblical interpretation or his whole reason for losing faith stuff?
>>73022
nice source.
>>72708
>false religion
you are attempting to troll
>>72950
>Matthew was an educated man writing for Jewish audiences
Evidence?
>>73004
For instance Ehrman and Dale Martin are emotionally damaged because they went into seminary/bible school to become preachers, and they end up being professed agnostic frogposters because they cant reconcile biblical literalism with the timing of the crucifixion in John vs the synoptics.
>>72950
>everybody who disagrees with me was educated by Jews
>Paul and Matthew were educated Jews
jooooooooos
>>72856
Do you know why he uses these texts? Because they are unanimously agreed upon to be reliable. If all these professionals in the field are attesting to the reliability, then they must be reliable. If a large majority of doctors said that medicine X treats illness Y, would you reject it because it's argementum ad populum? No, it's because there is ample evidence to its reliability; and that's exactly what Habermas is doing with these texts.
>>73042
Myth of Innocence by Mack is a good one, but Bart talks about it himself in his New Testament lecture in the ole Great Courses series. Thomas Sheehan concurs on christ myth in the synoptics in his stanford open course. Go to it
>>73047
>Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom
What is the kingdom of God? What are the apostles, disciples, saints, and martyrs? As I pointed out already, you're trying to pretend as if your interpretation is somehow fact. This is pathetic. And it's insanely disingenuous.
>>73132
None of those sources addresses the fact that there is no reason to believe that the massacre didn't involve an incredibly few number of children, and as such would not be recorded by subsequent historians besides those directly interested in the story of Jesus' birth.
>>73131
Then he should use the best evidence for the reliability of each text, not a list of scholars who may or may not support it with the same reasoning. It's an unnecessary shifting of the burden of proof because one no longer knows on what basis or in which context a given text is considered 'reliable'.
>>73055
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=D3DD5FED10DE8C06BCC9A74C367F4F49
In his chapter on Matthew.
>>72856
Not, forged, anonymous. These epistles don't say in the header WRITTEN BY PAUL, they were incorrectly attributed to him by people far removed from him. The epistles written by Paul were Romans, Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Philemon, and another which I can't remember right now.
>>73188
>the incredible shape-shifting non-falsifiablility argument
Better known as the argument of convenience when apologizing for lack of evidence. However, I agree that it's far too reaching to say that "everybody knew" it didn't happen.
>>72950
>You're not contradicting the point here
Other than, you know providing an explanation as to the limited Christian success vis a vis Jewish populations as opposed to non-Jewish populations, and attacking the claim that he was OT knowledgeable,
>The fact that Paul conflated the two only means that: He interpreted Jesus' passion as a sacrifice that conflated the two. Do you see how what you're saying doesn't matter?
When, among other things, you argue to his expertise with the OT, it does matter. There is 0 scriptural basis before Paul comes along to even associate the two beyond the level of "well, they're both sacrifices".
>Also the fact that Paul was a Pharisee
>Paul
>Pharisee.
Are you joking? Even Acts clearly states that he hung out with Sadducees, had the ear of the Sadducee High Priest, went to said priest for a ( illegal under the Mosiatic Law he claimed to adhere to before his conversion) warrant to go prosecute Christians with, and his entire outlook of do it perfect or its useless, regarding the Covenant is pure Sadducee theology.
The guy was almost certainly a Sadducee.
>Your entire argument is still "it's not the interpretation of the people who don't agree with Christianity and therefore it's wrong". No shit.
No, my argument started off by noting how Jesus did not in fact fulfill quite a few of the OT prophecies, and claiming that Early Christainity focused on such is disingenuous, especially given how Matthew alone of the Gospels puts a lot of reliance of fulfillment of OT prophecy, and wouldn't be something you'd expect non-Jewish populations to care about in any case.
You then made later claims, very few of which hold any weight. Your entire explanation is Christian apologetics, and not really grounded in any of the texts that are relevant to the period.
>>73188
lol, you already listened to them?
It only appears in Matthew. The only source. We have fucking Josephus writing on the finer points of Herodian history almost to when he took a shit, and this is the only source. Dont be obtuse
Where are your concurring sources that it happened?
>>73031
His view on the problem of evil, his methodology of research, and his hypothesis of the beginning of the Christian Church.
>>73207
1 Thessalonians, which is also the oldest christian source i believe
>>73207
Philippians and 1st Thessalonians. You're right that not all of them were forgeries, unless they claimed to be written by him.
>>73197
>Then he should use the best evidence for the reliability of each text, not a list of scholars who may or may not support it with the same reasoning
He does, he cites the scholars and their works/evidences that pertain to the topic.
>>73264
>his research methodology
That's literally everything.
We all agree that Elaine Pagels>Ehrman right?
>>73206
So what you actually mean is that the author(s) of gMatt appears to be writing for a Jewish audience.
>>71078
Even today, theologically, every Christian should be aware that the basic root of the faith is his death and resurrection, paying for sin. His teachings in life are only supplementary to what he paid.
>>73357
http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-matthew-and-the-law/
Here is Ehrmans post on it. It goes paywalled (Ehrman is the Jew here) but in essence he is saying that yes, it is highly likely he is writing for a non-pagan (but possibly jewish-christian) audience due to the sheer amount of referral to jewish scripture/
