GreggLD1

"Mark" likely developed the narrative structure of his story from the Jewish scriptures. The Passion account, in particular, can be reconstructed almost line by line from Isaiah, the Psalms, and other parts of scripture.

Gregg

Roland

I agree, Gregg

Roland

Every time I try to bring up the issue of the lack of biographical detail in the epistles, a believer I know hollers, "Foul! That's an "argument from silence" and can never be used." He tells me that no history professor would ever let me get away with using such an argument. It's been a long time since I've been in academia and was wondering if the "argument from silence" is really as anathema as he claims it to be - or is that just the evangelical's strongest argument and that's why he insists so vehemently on it?

I pointed out that, if historians didn't use SOME kind of argument from silence, then we would all have to accept every statement, no matter how outlandish, as historical. Joshua's stopping the sun from moving across the sky would have to be declared true since pointing out that no other document of the time reports it would be an example of "arguing from silence." I guess maybe all those other writers at the time were too busy looking somewhere else to notice and comment on it.

Bobzammel

The gospels are also filled with quite a few bloopers regarding Old Testament prophecies, history, and the mannerisms of Jewish law. It is very likely they were composed by Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles some time after following the destruction of the temple.

HomoSapien

Personally, I have never bought the argument of silence. Just because Philo doesn't mention Jesus, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. This is not the time of CNN and Barbara Walter specials.

And for all we know some wannabe historian could well have documented the "Jesus" affair and it has been lost in the sands of time.

However, as several posters have mentioned the cumulative effect coupled with Paul's almost disregard for the human Jesus (though he does mention he was born of a woman, and I believe quotes him once?) does give one pause.

We will of course completely disregard Josepheus and his well documented tampered description of Christ.

Even G.A. Wells, has recanted and hinted that there might have been an historic Jesus.

Stark in his book about early Christianity (though always not easy to follow) makes a strong case that Jesus belonged to the "end of the world" teachers in the tradition of the monastary who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. God was coming to smash the Romans, and the "children of light" would prevail.

Virtually every single NT writer felt the end was coming soon, very soon. This left poor Peter in his epistle to explain away the tardiness as the mercy of God.

Helms in his book, Gospel Fictions puts forth a very strong case for parrallism comparing OT stories with NT with frightening strong connections.

and finally from the Gospel of Mark, comes the story of Legion (a Roman term) and the swine forced over a cliff. I suspect that the number used for the swine (2, 000) is somehow connected with military partion of men. The story clearly points to the arrival of the kingdom of God, thru Jesus, and the end of Rome.

GreggLD1

I don't think the argument is something you "buy" or "don't buy." It's just one more piece of evidence that you take into consideration when looking at the COMPLETE picture.

Anyway, you are making the argument from silence look a lot weaker than it really is. Not only do you have the silence of every epistle writer (including the many "positive" silences), you have complete silence from contemporary historians.Sure, but we can only work with what we have.There's nothing to prevent a spiritual being from being mystically "born of a woman" or even being "of the seed of David." Jesus could be whatever God wanted him to be. "With God all things are possible."

The quote you're thinking of is probably where Paul talks about Jesus breaking bread and saying, "Take, eat, this is my body, which is..." As I pointed out, there's nothing to prevent a spiritual being in a sublunar heavenly dimension from eating and talking. Lots of gods did that, and more besides. Anyway, Paul claims that he has received this information about Jesus from revelation, not from oral tradition.Good idea. I can see you have done some investigating into this issue, but I think you have quite a bit more research to do before you draw any conclusions.Interesting, but so what? What's his evidence or argument? Just mentioning an authority does not a case make.Why, of these unknown "end of the world" teachers, was humble "Jesus" elevated to unprecedented heights of divinity? Particularly by Jews, for whom making a man into a divinity and worshipping him was sheer blasphemy.And this is evidence for a historical Jesus how? You can have men who believed this stuff, and believed in a purely spiritual Jesus. You don't have to have an actual Jesus heading up the early Christian movement.And this is evidence for a historical Jesus how?That might very well be the meaning of Mark's story, but it doesn't really provide any evidence for a historical Jesus.

Gregg

HomoSapien

Gregg,


While I greatly enjoyed reading your post, I still say the argument of silence is a weak one. A thousand years from now there will be no proof you existed. But clearly you do.

Thank you for the "quote" for Paul, I was embarrased I did not know it. And as you point out...Paul never met Jesus, except in vision.

As to the touchstone of your post, Why Jesus, why was he elevated.....thats the question isn't. Why him and not another?


My use of Stark and Helms is to get a more focused picture of the historical Jesus. Whats myth, whats real?

Anyway, I hope that clarifies some of my dashed off thoughts on the matter.

Roland

Again, we tend to get very focused on Paul here. The silence extends pretty much into the middle of the 2nd Century, with occasional exceptions like Ignatius mentioning Mary and Pontius Pilate around 107.

The one that strikes me as most significant is the lack of any extra-canonical reference to Judas, one of the most dramatic of all gospel figures.

The first time his name appears is in Papias and Marcion in around 135 A.D., a full hundred years after he supposedly lived. That's the same length of time as the Wright Brothers to now.

GreggLD1

While I don't agree that the argument from silence is "weak," I agree that in itself it's not persuasive evidence that there was no historical Jesus. You also have to consider all the OTHER factors. Once you've considered them, you find yourself wondering why there needs to be a historical Jesus, since it's actually far more plausible that Christianity emerged without one. The Greek concept of the Logos, the dying/rising savior god cults, the "Suffering Servant" from Isaiah, etc.--all the building blocks are in place for the emergence of belief in the salvation deity Yeshua Christos, "Annointed Savior," whose redemptive sacrifice and ascension took place in an upper-world, spiritual dimension.Actually, I think the real question is, why would Jews make a MAN an object of WORSHIP? You really have to realize just how blasphemous this would have been to Jews. From the very beginning of the faith, Jesus was an object of worship. There is no evidence of a "gradual" elevation. From the start Jesus was pre-existent with the Father and the creative agent of the Universe. He was spoken of in terms, and with reverence, once reserved solely for the One Holy God. Really, really heady stuff.

So, what's the point in trying to understand why Jews would have elevated a human being to such dizzying heights, when there's a much simpler explanation--they didn't?

Gregg

Vorkosigan

Even if we accept all these references, alas, they do not make history out of Jesus. For there are at least two other ways of reading them, (1) that James was Titular Brother of Christ and (2) that James was the spiritual Brother of Christ, like other historical figures -- Hong Xiu-chuan, Nxele.

But of course, 1 Cor is an interpolation, thus, Galatians is as well. And Josephus probably had a lot more there originally. In any case, the passage names James as the brother of Jesus, and of course, there is already a Jesus in that passage, Jesus of Damascus. The letter of Jude is profound evidence that James was a potent figure in his own right who has been swallowed up in Christian mythologizing. Why on earth would Jude call himself the Brother of James when he is the Brother of God as well?

Your vectors are air. The whole of the NT is ex post facto mythologizing by people who had no idea about the origins of their faith, and even less interest.

Vorkosigan