Solo

I am afraid much as I respect Ben’s learning and conduct here, I am not persuaded by this sort of arguing. I have started a new thread here from the one where the refuters refuting is merrily refuted much at the expenses of common sense and formal logic. It is perhaps unfair to single out Ben, in illustrating formally unsound arguments which use circuitous references. He often makes excellent, incisive points, and overall I consider here to be the voice of reason and moderation. It is just that logic does not care about that.

The nature of things is paradoxical. Christ was the Truth to Paul because his nature was the mirror of the paradoxical nature of life itself. It is this essential element of Paul’s teaching that was later obliterated by the Church in seeking to reach a wide mass of believers, and in supplying a godhead who could touch them emotionally. Paul’s unspoken credo etsi absurdum videt became Tertuillian’s explicit credo quia absurdum est. Paul’s lowly servant of the Lord who was spared the understanding of his mortality and sin and who was crucified for the lack of understanding of God’s wisdom in his age, became a wonder of a man, born of a virgin but with a pedigree of David, who walked on the earth without fault and blemish, taught higher morals, cured the sick and brought the dead to life, just for the faith that he was what he manifested himself to be. And for all his useful, excellent work and promise of faith fulfilled in his deeds on earth, he was nailed to a piece of crude carpentry by a nation of monstrous ingrates. So how do we travel from Paul’s Jesus Christ crucified, to the ministry of Jesus Christ in the gospels ?

Certainly, the silence of Paul about Jesus’ deeds on earth, his teachings and rulings, and the factual matters surrounding his death, speaks of something. Not just to the mythicists ! It speaks to Anton Fridrichsen (The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity) , for example, about Paul’s distaste for the occultism rampant in the early Jesus movements.
To James D.G. Dunn, (whose Theology of Paul the Apostle (or via: amazon.co.uk), I have had as bedtime reading, this past week), like to many conservative scholars before, it simply means that Paul did not feel necessary to repeat information generally known to the people he was preaching to. To me speaks about the gap between what Paul taught and what the later church used his teachings for.

Ben has taken the position (in the form presented above) that Paul really was not silent, or that his silence in a particular passage cannot count since he makes reference to dominical teachings on the issue elsewhere.

Is that true ? First, let us understand the full argument of the mythicists, as presented by G.A.Wells in his books. Wells argues along the two points that Ben made. Paul (the pastorals, and other early writings) would have made the link to dominical teachings, had they been available. But he also makes it clear, that if Paul espouses ideas which are later attributed to Jesus in the gospels, without citing him as source, then it is more likely than not, that these saying originated with Paul and his churches and were later put into Jesus’ mouth by the gospellers. Wells’ argument is much more powerful than Ben seems to think – it is not one saying or isolated doctrinal point, as this board often seems to flare about, his argument relies on the sheer weight of the evidence as a whole. It cannot be ignored or deconstructed.

Ben uses 1 Th 4, to argue that it is not necessary for Paul to refer to Jesus teachings in 1 Cr 15 reference to resurrection, since he made that reference elsewhere. Now, the example is unfortunately complicated by other issues with the Cr passage, but even if I were to accept it as genuine Paul for the purposes of this argument , Ben would still need to explain why it should not be believed that the 1 Th 4 resurrectional scenario originates in the community belief of Jesus’ return to at the end of time, to which Paul spoke using his own words, and that it was Paul’s imagery that later was adopted by the writer of Mt 24:31. One cannot simply assume, that which one tries to prove.

And were this the only example ! Luke 23:34, asks the Father to forgive his tormentors for they do not know what they are doing. Again the cognitive structure here is very reminiscent of the recently much discussed topic at BC&H of 1 Cor 2:8, which naturally invites the question whether the origin of Luke’s report of Jesus’ forgiveness did not in fact originate in the Pauline church where it passed from Paul’s teachings of “hidden wisdom” of God to become the words of the man Jesus. In Acts 7:60 Luke has Stephen pray to Jesus, as his Lord, to do the same for those whose next stone will kill him.

The idea of loving one’s enemies that Jesus decreed on the Mount, has an interesting twist to it. Psychologically speaking, the beatitude though it looks like a paradox, isn’t really a paradox but an example of fusing of cognitive polarities. One cannot love one’s enemies, for the same reason one cannot say that a thing is beautiful because it is ugly. If you love them you will not call them enemies, and if you call them enemies it is not because you love them.

But does this idea come from Jesus ? Does it come from someone who allegedly proposed at the day of judgment to separate humanity to goats and sheep ?

The classical Judaism taught that even enemies deserve solicitous care and if you show magnanimity, you will shame them before the Lord. (Since Daniel (12:2) the shame of the unrighteous in the resurrection would be ever-lasting). Paul uses the saying of the antithetical Proverbs (25:21) in Romans 12:20-21, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head”. In Paul’s understanding, the proverb relates to Lord’s vengeance (upon one’s enemies), i.e. the burning coals equate hellish retribution. But the saying in Proverbs does not say anything about Lord’s vengeance. It says the Lord will reward the good that was done; i.e. the enemy will burn with shame, and (by implication) come around. That Paul would miss on this meaning is as important as the observation that he, (without reference to Jesus), asks the flock to “bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (Rom 12:14). So where the old Jewish wisdom says in effect, “do not lose cool, do not allow yourself to be dragged into a hostile tangle with those you perceive as enemies”, Paul sees in it Lord’s avenging hand that will smite the unrighteous, and the solicitous care and blessing as an opportunity to assure the “burning coals on their head”. That Paul had love, noblesse oblige, and disguised anger hopelessly mixed up is also shown by Rom 13:8. “Owe noone anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law”. There is of course nothing wrong with loving your neighbour. If at all possible, that is the optimal way. But fulfilling the law ? What love’s got to do with it ? What if the neighbour does not care for Paul’s “love” ? What if he does not care to be loved by Paul’s Jesus Christ, what then ? Bless him to hell ?

That this unique imprint of Paul’s confusion between the ethical obligation to be decent and spontaneous, “genuine” love, which informs the notion of “loving one’s enemies” was just a copy of Jesus’ point of view, does not seem all that probable to me. At minimum it needs some demonstration.

best
Jiri Severa

Ben C Smith

This is always a good way to start.

This long introduction appears peripheral to the case, so for now I shall skip it.

Actually, just to be clear here, my argument is about the perils of the argument from silence. It is an experiment, an exercise.

The usual arguments from Pauline silence point to an epistle or passage and note that a particular dominical teaching does not appear there when, to all appearances, it would have suited the occasion nicely. This factual datum is then pressed to mean that Paul did not know that dominical teaching, which is then pressed to mean that such a dominical teaching did not exist in his time, which is then sometimes lumped together with other instances of silence to show that no Jesus ever even existed to give such dominical teaching.

My argument is an attempt to break this chain of reasoning at its very first link. Just because Paul does not cite a dominical teaching in an appropriate passage does not mean that Paul does not know it.

If I understand you correctly, this really has nothing to do with my argument. I read you as referring to a passage like Romans 13.7, which bears a resemblance to the dominical saying in Matthew 22.21 = Mark 12.17 = Luke 20.25. But Romans 13.7 is not attributed to Jesus in any way, right? It is possible, then, that the saying was actually Pauline and was attributed to Jesus in the gospels only later.

I agree with this possibility, and for that reason relied only on instances in which Paul specifically attributed the saying to the Lord.

Note that it does not matter whether it was the earthly Jesus or the heavenly (risen) Jesus to whom the saying was actually attributed, since my argument is only at this stage about the fitness of the argument from silence, not about the derivation of each saying from an historical Jesus.

That is not exactly my argument. My argument is that it is not necessary for Paul to refer to dominical teachings, period, whether or not he used the reference elsewhere. But I am forced to use instances in which he did elsewhere use an appropriate dominical saying because, if he did not, then my debating partner can easily chalk such an instance up to his or her category of dominical sayings that Paul failed to use because they did not yet exist.

(Yes, my argument depends on the notion that Paul wrote both 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.)

I am very willing for the sake of this argument to suppose that 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 has nothing to do with an historical Jesus. Let us imagine that Paul got it in a vision; it was the risen Lord, and not any sayings tradition, that told Paul about the resurrection. The point here is that Paul used this dominical saying as an authoritative source for the Thessalonians, so why did he not use this dominical saying as an authoritative source for the Corinthians (for whom it would have been most appropriate, since it features the Lord affirming the very resurrection the Corinthians were doubting)? This is the peril of the argument from silence. Had 1 Thessalonians not been preserved, it would be possible for someone to argue that Paul knew no dominical resurrection sayings, because he would surely have used them in 1 Corinthians 15. But 1 Thessalonians, happily preserved for posterity, gives the lie to that line of reasoning.

1 Corinthians 2.8 is not, as a saying, attributed to the Lord in any way. I intentionally stuck to those (relatively few) instances in which Paul explicitly says that the Lord gave the teaching.

In short, I think your response, while thoughtful and insightful, misapprehends my argument. My argument depends only on (A) Paul demonstrably having access to a dominical saying on a certain topic and (B) Paul failing to use that dominical saying in an appropriate context. The lesson is that the appropriateness, relevance, and fitness of a datum do not mean that a writer has to use that datum.

Thanks for the interaction.

Ben.

Steven Carr

'Paul did know at least one dominical resurrection saying; he uses it in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17.'

What saying is in 1 Thess. 4:15-17? Why doesn't Paul say the same thing to the Corinthians? Perhaps Paul simply forgot it. Perhaps he thought his other arguments were better, or said the same thing in other words.

And in both cases, there are much clearer statements by Jesus in the Gospels about a resurrection than a statement which the Gospels don't record.

Galatians 6:6 needs no exhortation from Jesus for what is almost an off-hand remark at the end of the letter. I can't remember anybody ever making an argument from silence here in Gal. 6:6. Did I miss one?

Steven Carr

'In Romans 7.1-4 Paul makes an argument that depends on marriage being binding until death. Jesus, according to the tradition, uttered sayings that affirmed that marriage was so binding that even formal divorce could not abrogate it. Why did Paul not quote these dominical sayings? Could it be that Paul did not know those sayings (argument from silence)?'

Has anybody ever made the argument that Paul should quote the divorce sayings in Romans 7:1-4? If not, then what is the point of refuting arguments from silence that nobody thinks are good arguments from silence?

Solo

Ok, getting to the brass tacks: Wells argues ably that Paul's theology was not in any way dependent on the gospel portrayals of Jesus of Nazareth. I am in agreement with that view. Wells also used to argue, but does not any more, that Paul's silence in certain matters, where it presumably out of respect for the Lord he would have attributed his own pronouncements to Jesus, is in the aggregate, an argument for Jesus non-existence. I accept that argument hypothetically, but consider it logically unsupported to be conclusive, i.e. other possibilities for Paul's "silence" exist.

Now, where I think you and I have a differ, is that when you, as you say "in an exercise" to refute the mythicist case for silence, offer a scenario in which you assume that this or that saying by Paul draws on the dominical tradition. It's fine by me as a hypothesis to be tested, but the existence of this hypothesis by itself does not have any probative value. Methinks.

....true, because, hypothetically, he does know it. How is that hypothesis warranted ?


I do not understand the first sentence but for the rest, yes, that would be my submission.

But the problem with that view, Ben, is that the argument from silence (and again I am referring to the way Wells argues it, not the way Earl argues it)
says in effect, it was the risen Lord that engaged Paul, to the exclusion of the earthly figure, if Paul in his reverence for Jesus Christ omits "regularly" to mention the rightful author who by the gospels made these rulings on earth. So, it does matter ! And apropos, an argument is no less fit by the finding it is inconclusive.

...which, in the eyes of the mythicists and other skeptics is a case of "begging the question".

Again, you are assuming that these sayings were dominical sayings available to Paul by an ordinary process of information transimission, when in actuality, Paul could have received them by revelation, or as Earl would say, invented them.


I think it would be useful to stay focused on the issue here: did Paul's information about the risen Lord originate in revelation or external information. I am not aware of any "peril" in arguing that Paul's silence, in the aggregate, makes the former more probable. It is entirely something else to argue that Paul's "silence" proves Jesus non-existence. Wells was very careful not to make that statement.


....you mean "would give the lie" and "hypothetically assumed line of reasoning", right

...and that's fine with me

...to which I would answer that it does matter whether the presumed source dominical saying is "revelatory material" or "information", since if it is the former your "proof" is demonstrably circular.

Always my pleasure, Ben

Best regards,
Jiri

gstafleu

I wonder if your view of the AFS isn't a bit on the narrow side here. As I understand it, the AFS says that, given the enormous importance of JC to Paul, we would expect lots of references to events in his life and quotes by him. As an analogy, if you founded a movement in which John Lennon was the main source of inspiration, you would expect references to Liverpool and quotes from his songs. If you found neither, you would start to wonder if they were talking about the same John Lennon. Even if you at some point found a reference to a field where strawberries were growing, that would not make up for the general lack of life facts and song quotes.

Hence I think that pointing out the odd dominical teaching in Paul does not do a lot to counter the overall AFS. The AFS expects lots of instances like "when Jesus was changing water to wine..." or "As Jesus remarked when hanging on the cross..." The dominical bits that you point to are, I think, simply not specific enough to counter he AFS. The AFS, in other words, concerns itself with what it sees as a massive lack of Jesus facts and sayings. Countering that with the odd dominical statement doesn't do all that much.

BTW, these "dominical" teachings are apparently not called dominical for nothing: in all places you mention the teaching is attributed to an anonymous "Lord," not explicitly to JC. Could Paul have meant JC? Well, of course. But in the current debate this fact is of some significance. The teachings could just as well have come directly from God, be it via a direct revelation of via scripture. This viable alternative explanation takes away more of the anti-AFS punch of these dominical bits.

gstafleu

And, by slight extension, did he attribute external, non-revelatory, information to anybody?

Paul uses the same "appeared" here to describe the way JC manifested to him (Paul) and to the others. Now we know that to Paul JC's manifestation was spiritual (even Acts does not try to make it look like the kind of event where a doubting Thomas gets to do a touchy-feely). From this it follows that, given that the modes of manifestation are the same, in Paul's view the experience the others had of JC was also a revelation, not a more or less physical encounter such as the gospels present.

This is perhaps an even more positive instance of "silence." Not only does he not mention facts mentioned in the gospels, he seems to actively indicate that the Gospel version of a more or less physical appearance is wrong. And that meshes very well with the conclusion that for Paul JC was a spiritual being, not a physically historical one.

David

First time poster, long time lurker.

Aren’t Paul's silences even further compounded by the supposed existence of a Q type document. Is it not odd that on the one hand we have this hypothetical sayings gospel as the earliest (and one must assume somewhat important) Christian writing. While on the other hand we seem to have someone of Paul's importance not referencing it at all?

David

Ben C Smith

No, recall that in my example for you I stipulated that Paul could have received the resurrection word by revelation:

I think you have completely missed the thrust of my argument here. I am not arguing specifically that any dominical sayings are genuine, or that Paul knew them, or that Jesus existed. I am arguing very generally that the argument from silence is perilous. One could apply my argument to virtually any historical inquiry as a matter of weighing the argument from silence overall.

How can that be begging the question? I argued from the known (the dominical resurrection saying) to the unknown (any silence in an appropriate context).

If Paul can spend an entire chapter convincing the Corinthians of the resurrection without once referring to a dominical resurrection saying that we know he has in his repertoire, then the argument from silence is a perilous argument. I am not saying it never does any good, but it is dangerous.

No, recall that I assumed for the sake of argument that Paul received the resurrection saying from a personal revelation. Granted that Paul thought it was authoritative enough to use on the Thessalonians, why did he not use it on the Corinthians?

You made that an issue, not I. I have been willing to stipulate from the beginning that every saying Paul has was given to him in a vision or such.

A confusing statement. I do not think you understand the argument yet.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Is this the same Steven Carr who argued not long ago that Paul did not know any dominical resurrection sayings precisely because he failed to use any with the Thessalonians and the Corinthians? And that Paul did not know any because they did not exist?

And this egregious Pauline silence can suddenly be explained by his having forgotten or used a better argument than a dominical saying would afford?

Why the paradigm shift?

The Corinthians doubted the general resurrection. The dominical resurrection saying in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 has as its main point the idea that the dead in Christ will be raised (even before the living are raptured).

I agree. In fact, Paul is never forced to cite an exhortation from Jesus.

Not to my knowledge.

I am not certain you are in a position to distinguish the good arguments from silence from the bad ones. It was you, after all, who argued that Paul should have used a dominical resurrection saying in 1 Corinthians 15 had he known one, when all along 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 had a dominical resurrection saying that Paul did not use in 1 Corinthians 15.

Ben.