Thanks for the post, Kunigunde! If I may summarize:
(1) There is no clear access to an older layer behind the texts.
(1) (a) There is no clear access to pre-interpolated or pre-rewritten texts.
(1) (b) There is no clear access to oral stories or lost sources prior to the texts.
(2) There is sometimes relatively clear access to what an author means.
(2) (a) For example, it is relatively clear that the Paulines refers to Cephas as a contemporary.
(2) (b) By contrast, it is not clear exactly when and where the Paulines placed Jesus.
(3) There is sometimes relatively clear implication of facts known to the author.
(3) (a) For example, it is most likely that Cephas was an actual contemporary of Paul.
(3) (b) By contrast, it is not clear exactly whether Paul knew facts about Jesus.
(4) There is sometimes ambiguous indication of what an author might know. For example, if 1 Thessalonians 2:15 is authentic, it might be based at least partly on knowledge, or it might be based solely on apologetic and theological presumption. It is ambiguous.
(5) In the texts we have, all such indications regarding Jesus have some similar ambiguity (if they aren't clearly fictive and not indications at all) regarding whether the author's statement is based at least partly on knowledge of a historical Jesus.
(6) If all we have are ambiguous indications, we should suspend judgment.
(7) Because of points (1) and (5) above, all we have are ambiguous indications.
(8) Therefore, we should suspend judgment regarding a historical Jesus, neither asserting that there was one nor asserting that there wasn't one.
(1) There is no clear access to an older layer behind the texts.
(1) (a) There is no clear access to pre-interpolated or pre-rewritten texts.
(1) (b) There is no clear access to oral stories or lost sources prior to the texts.
(2) There is sometimes relatively clear access to what an author means.
(2) (a) For example, it is relatively clear that the Paulines refers to Cephas as a contemporary.
(2) (b) By contrast, it is not clear exactly when and where the Paulines placed Jesus.
(3) There is sometimes relatively clear implication of facts known to the author.
(3) (a) For example, it is most likely that Cephas was an actual contemporary of Paul.
(3) (b) By contrast, it is not clear exactly whether Paul knew facts about Jesus.
(4) There is sometimes ambiguous indication of what an author might know. For example, if 1 Thessalonians 2:15 is authentic, it might be based at least partly on knowledge, or it might be based solely on apologetic and theological presumption. It is ambiguous.
(5) In the texts we have, all such indications regarding Jesus have some similar ambiguity (if they aren't clearly fictive and not indications at all) regarding whether the author's statement is based at least partly on knowledge of a historical Jesus.
(6) If all we have are ambiguous indications, we should suspend judgment.
(7) Because of points (1) and (5) above, all we have are ambiguous indications.
(8) Therefore, we should suspend judgment regarding a historical Jesus, neither asserting that there was one nor asserting that there wasn't one.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Mon Dec 02, 2024 3:28 am