ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver has a website, Was there a real Jesus?, to which he recently referred me in order to express his position and arguments for the conclusion that there never was a real Jesus. He is thinking about making extensive revisions to it. I offered to review it, in order to guide such revisions. It is probable that he is already aware of the criticisms to many of the arguments and claims, but perhaps my criticisms will bring focus to the greatest problems.

I would like to emphasize, first of all, that I appreciate arguments that lead to conclusions. Doug Shaver and Earl Doherty (Doug Shaver's primary inspiration) should be applauded for that. It is a heckuva lot better than discouraging probabilistic historical inferences (in my opinion).

There are seven parts to Doug Shaver's website. I have no objections to the first three parts--the "Introduction," "The groundwork, and "The usual thinking." These pages form the explicit premises of Doug Shaver's arguments, and I didn't catch anything wrong, so that is an encouraging state.

Problems emerge from the page, "What's wrong with the picture?" and onward. This page is key, because it proposes problems for which a controversial solution is offered. If the problems of the "conventional" (mainline secular) model are greater than the problems of Doug Shaver's alternative, then Doug Shaver has successfully made his case. If not, then Doug Shaver has more work to do.

There are four listed "probabilistic difficulties" with the conventional theory, but we can focus on only the first one for now.

Probabilistic Difficulty #1:

Of the 27 canonical books, only the four gospels say anything about the life that Jesus might have had before his crucifixion. From the epistles, we learn nothing of what he said or did between his birth and his death. To those authors, his life apparently meant nothing. To them, for all we can tell from what they wrote, Jesus was born to unknown parents in an unknown place at an unknown time, and he died at the hands of unknown assailants in an unknown place at an unknown time.

First of all, it is not explicitly clear what the problem is. Doug Shaver was more specific with the claimed silence than may be expected--it is a point about the silence of the life of Jesus before his crucifixion. Is it really a problem if the non-gospel New Testament says nothing about Jesus before his crucifixion? Is it expected that they should write about it?

I will explain that counterpoint further, but, before I do so, the claim should be corrected by shedding more light on the evidence. Typically in debates like this, a claim much like this is made, but the claim is not so broadly applied to include all of the non-gospel NT canon. Per the theory of Earl Doherty, the claim is typically excluded to the seven authentic Pauline epistles: First Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, First Corinthians, Galatians, Second Corinthians, and Romans. Even when we focus on the authentic Pauline epistles, we find plenty of exceptions to the claimed silence.

The following list is the set of passages where Paul writes about the life of Jesus before his crucifixion.

• Paul believed that Jesus was born from a woman as the Son of God in a Jewish society - Galatians 4:4-5.
• Paul believed that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3.
• Paul believed that Jesus taught that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" - 1 Corinthians 9:14, see also Luke 10:7.
• Paul believed that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me," took the cup, said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" - 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
• Paul believed that Jesus was crucified by rulers of this age who did not understand that Christians speak God's wisdom - 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.
• Paul believed that Jesus commanded that a wife should not separate from her husband and a husband should not divorce his wife - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, see also Mark 10:11-12.
• Paul believed that Jesus had a brother named James - Galatians 1:19.

Be sure to realize that this list is not meant to demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person. It is only meant to show that the prima facie evidence does not clearly demonstrate that Paul was silent on the life of Jesus.

If the claim were expanded to include all 23 non-gospel New Testament books per Doug Shaver, then the proposed difficulty would seem even more forced. The book of Acts makes mention of "Mary, the mother of Jesus" and the baptism by John. Though, to be fair, Acts is often regarded as an extension of the gospel of Luke (composed by the same author). Ignoring Acts, 1 Timothy claims that Jesus gave "testimony before Pontius Pilate," which rebuts the claim that Jesus "died at the hands of unknown assailants" according to such writings. In Hebrews 5:7, it is claimed that, "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." It is conceivably an allusion to possible prayers and supplications that Jesus had on the cross, but it is more fittingly connected to the episode before the arrest that is told in Mark 14:32-42 and the two corresponding synoptic passages, where Jesus is praying and grieving strongly for his coming death.

So, if there is a probabilistic difficulty here, then it was inaccurately stated by Doug Shaver. It is simply incorrect to claim, "From the epistles, we learn nothing of what he said or did between his birth and his death." How should the problem be restated in light of the above evidence? We can more accurately say, "From the epistles, we learn little of what he said or did between his birth and his death." If it were truly an absolute silence, then a radical solution may be in order. If it is a mere tendency for silence, then perhaps a more ordinary solution will do:

The authors of the epistles did not care so much about the details of the life of Jesus for the purposes of their epistles. Why would they? To very many of them, the destruction of the world and the beginning of the kingdom of God was close at hand (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 2 Peter 3:3, 2 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 12:28, James 2:5, and 2 Thessalonians 1:5). The whole purpose of the life of Jesus was the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. That isn't to say that the details of the life of Jesus were irrelevant in all respects--they were valuable enough to fill the gospels--but the gospels served one purpose (evangelizing and founding the faith for non-Christians and new Christians), and the epistles served a different purpose (reinforcing, defending and refining the faith for established Christians). The details of the life of Jesus were mentioned in the epistles only as often as needed for the purposes they served.

No doubt Doug Shaver's general case is made stronger when combined with the remaining arguments, but there are enough talking points wound up in this particular issue that I don't want to overwhelm the debate.

Thoughts?

Steven Carr

We have the author of Hebrews carefully explaining who had heard and rebelled.

‘As has just been said: “Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion.”

Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?’

Doesn’t the author realise people had heard Jesus himself and rebelled?

Didn't the author of Hebrews want to talk about the elephant in the room when he turned his attention to the subject of elephants and what rooms they inhabited?

'Paul believed that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me," took the cup, said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" - 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.'

I see Abe keeps regurgitating this, although his Hero, Bart Ehrman rejects the idea that this is historical.

I guess if Abe read a story where Satan tells his followers how to conjure up his body, Abe will point out that it must be historical.

ApostateAbe

You would expect that the author would bring up the people who disbelieved Jesus and encouraged his crucifixion? I think that is a mild expectation at best. The point of the author's quotation (or mis-quotation) or Psalms is to discourage unbelief among the Christians of the present, as reflected in the passage in Hebrews that follows:

Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today’, so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

I think we have been over this point twice, now, make it three times. I even anticipated that you in particular would miss the point again, and I wrote immediately after the list, "Be sure to realize that this list is not meant to demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person. It is only meant to show that the prima facie evidence does not clearly demonstrate that Paul was silent on the life of Jesus." It was apparently for naught.
Why is that?

Steven Carr

Think again, but deeper and more clearly.

Yes, indeed your argument is naught.

Paul producing something which does not come from the life of Jesus is naught evidence that Paul talks about the life of Jesus.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks.
If it is claimed that the evidence shows that Paul and the other authors of the epistles held beliefs about the life of Jesus that were all mistaken, then I can grant it for the relevant purpose of the argument. It is no solution to then claim that such Christians actually believed that Jesus was merely a spiritual being. Either way, such a solution contradicts the evidence.

Toto

This thread appears to be duplicative of others.

It seems abusive for Abe to repeat his talking points without making any effort to respond to criticisms. How many times need we read that

=Paul believed that Jesus was born from a woman as the Son of God in a Jewish society - Galatians 4:4-5.
=Paul believed that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" - Romans 1:3.

without Abe addressing the charge that these are 1) formulaic, with no identifying personal details about Jesus and 2) probably anti-Marcionite interpolations into the original text?

bacht

Yes, and apparently this author thought the crucifixion took place on the Day of Atonement rather than Passover, quite a mistake for a contemporary to make.

It's also interesting that he talks about the tabernacle rather than the temple, focusing on the Pentateuch era like the gnostics.

ApostateAbe

The first argument seems irrelevant, and the second seems unlikely. I will explain further only if anyone else cares.

aa5874

Again, once the Pauline writings are introduced as evidence then the Pauline evidence can be CROSS-EXAMINED.

HJers claim that they have EVIDENCE from from "Paul" that his Jesus was a just a man.

But, when "Paul" is CROSS-EXAMINED he CONFESSES that he was NOT the Apostle of a Man, that he could NOT please man to be a servant of Jesus and that he did NOT even get his gospel from man.

This is the Pauline writer in his CONFESSION.

We call "Paul" to the stand to be CROSS-EXAMINED.

"Paul", are you the Apostle of a Man?

"NO! I am NOT".

"Paul", can you please Man, to be a servant of Jesus?

NO!!

"Paul", did you get your Gospel from Man?

NO!! I did NOT.

"Paul" tell the court about your apostleship and where you got your gospel?

Galatians 1 Let it be ENTERED into the records that the Pauline WITNESS has REFUTED any claim that his Jesus was a man.

Let it be ENTERED into the records that HJers are providing BOGUS information about the Pauline Jesus when they claim the Pauline Jesus was just a man.

"Paul" who was Jesus Christ"?

"God's OWN Son"!!! See Romans 8.3 &32

We have NO further questions for the Pauline Witness.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

It is clear to me that in Hebrews, the writer is talking about Joshua of Nun when he refers to Jesus/Joshua.


Moses is the builder of the house (of God) - just like a servant builds a house.
Joshua is like the son in the house (of God)

Joshua was naturally the Christ, anointed by Moses to rule over and lead the Israelites in Israel.

The reference to Joshua is made explicit in 4.8:

As far as this Hebrews passage

It refers to the passage in Joshua 7:

Joshua of Nun was the Joshua who was heard by God because of his piety.

Throughout the work, the writer of Hebrews is arguing against the idea that Joshua of Nun was an angel. He is saying that Joshua of Nun was an actual man of flesh who only became an angel after his death. Apparently, this was the topic at hand amongst the Jewish scholars at the time or at least the debate over whether God gave the angels to rule Israel or to Joshua (a religious debate that probably reflected the debate over war and peace - peace if the angels rule/war if the warrior Christ Joshua ruled).

Compare this to Stephen Huller's recent brilliant work:


Warmly,

Jay Raskin