Steven Carr

On page 209 of 'Is John's Gospel True?' (or via: amazon.co.uk), Professor Maurice Casey concludes that Lazarus was not an important figure. 'His fate is not recorded because he was not an important figure.He does not turn up in Acts and he neither wrote nor figures in any epistle for the same reason’.

It is interesting how easily and naturally arguments from silence flow from the pens of mainstream /independent Biblical scholars. They use arguments from silence as naturally as breathing.

Casey’s whole sentence is predicated on the rather natural assumption that you expect important figures to appear in Epistles.

On page 38, of 'Jesus of Nazareth' (or via: amazon.co.uk), Professor Maurice Casey writes about GA Wells as follows :-

'His (Paul's) epistles mention neither John the Baptist,... nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. They give no indication of the time or place of Jesus's earthly existence. They never refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as his place of execution.'

How does Maurice Casey explain the way these things never figure in the Epistles?

'All this means is that Paul wrote epistles about the problems which he found in his (largely gentile) churches in the Graeco-Roman world, not an account of the life of Jesus, which the epistles take for granted. Consequently, they mention only a few main points, mostly when there was some point of controversy.'

So do mainstream Biblical scholars have a methodology which is not ad hoc?

It seems not, as Maurice Casey can use arguments from silence in one book as though they were so obviously correct, that it would be a sheer waste of time to try to gainsay them.

And in another book, he can heap venom on people who point out vast silences in the Epistles.

Later in 'Jesus of Nazareth', on page 513, Maurice Casey trashes the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, pointing out 'Lazarus is never mentioned in the synoptic Gospels, and he does not appear in John before the story of his resurrection.'

Another argument from silence! And another place where Casey regards arguments from silence as so powerful that he sees no need to waste ink on any possible objections.


But in case anybody has any doubts, Casey then wheels out his big gun - an argument from silence. 'Nor does he appear in the early chapters of Acts, as he surely would have done if this story had been true.'

So when Wells points out that the Epistles never mention important figures, and surely Lazarus would have been an important figure, then Casey produces a take-down move on Wells.

And when Casey wants to knock down the resurrection of Lazarus, he can think of no greater knock down blow than wheeling out arguments from silence - one of the most powerful arguments he can wield in his analysis of John's story about Lazarus.



There is no methodology, which is why Biblical scholars have crashed and burned when trying to find an historical Jesus.

dog-on

Perhaps Casey should stick to what he does best, deriving the original Aramaic writings from the later Greek translations...

(What a fucking quack...)

Vorkosigan

Orz. Orz. Orz.

For Casey, one can only say:
"For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

jgoodguy

When all you got is silence, then arguing from it is the only course of action.

aa5874

There are hundreds of books from antiquity about Jesus of the NT. Perhaps Jesus of the NT is by far the most written about character in all extant antiquity.

But, what is extremely odd is that Jesus of the NT is probably that best well known character only from apologetic sources and unknown among from non-apologetic sources.

From apologetic sources, Jesus of the NT was the Prophesied Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth and had a name above the Deified Emperors of Rome.

But, from non-apologetic sources we have SILENCE.

Philo wrote about a Mad Man called Carabbas and was silent about an expected prophesied Messiah called Jesus Christ.

Josephus wrote about a declared Mad Man called Jesus son of Ananus and was silent about an expected prophesied Messiah called Jesus Christ.

History cannot be argued from SILENCE.

Without Philo we could NOT argue about the historicity of Carabbas.

Without Josephus we could Not argue about the historicity of Jesus son of Ananus.

What credible historical source of antiquity can we use to argue the historicity of "HJ"?

SILENT HISTORY.

jgoodguy

The mere mention of silence, breaks it.

aa5874

What!!! Silence BREAKS Silence!!!

Please, Please, Please.

Don't let anyone hear you say such a thing.

It is NOISE that breaks the Silence.

It was the in the 2nd century that there was NOISE about the Jesus stories.

It was in the 2nd century that the Silence was BROKEN.

It was the 2nd century that the Jesus stories were written based on the NOISE.

It would be expected that there would be NOISE about the Jesus stories from non-apologetic sources in the 1st century especially After the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

After all, it should have been KNOWN that Jesus supposedly PREDICTED the Fall of the Temple and that books were written that DOCUMENTED his PRECISE Predictions.

Yet, when Josephus wrote about the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem he remembered a declared Mad Man, Jesus Son of Ananus, not the documented written prediction of Jesus.

The Gospel of gMark should have been written and "Paul" should have preached and written lettters about Jesus Christ for about 20 years all over the Roman Empire and people of Judea should have REMEMBERED that Jesus predicted the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

We have NOISE about the declared Mad Man ,Jesus Son of Ananus, who predicted the calamities of the Jews, but SILENCE about the MESSIAH whose predictions were DOCUMENTED and CIRCULATED through "Paul" and the people of Judea.

The SILENCE was broken in the 2nd century because that is when the Jesus stories were fabricated.

James Brown

I had a teacher argue the same thing. After Judas accidentally killed himself in Acts, the remaining disciples cast lots for a new twelfth member, and the fates chose Matthias. My teacher argued that since he was never heard from again for the remainder of the New Testament, then casting lots was a poor method for them to use.

Of course, one could make the same argument for other disciples as well. There are some disciples who only mention in the NT is when they are named as a disciple.

Steven Carr

Stephanie Louise Fisher has kindly posted a big chunk of Maurice Casey's writings so that people can confirm just how greatly mainstream Biblical scholars rely on arguments from silence, which they deploy as though no ink need be wasted justifying an argument from silence.

Who can the doubt the validity of arguments from silence, when renowned scholars deploy them routinely?

'On pages 208-9 of Is John’s Gospel True?, Casey wrote (and obviously this is only part of his argument),
“The Lazarus story is a Johannine composition from beginning to end (n.15. see pp. 55-7). The narrator tells us that many of `the Jews’ believed in Jesus because of this miracle (11.45). The reaction of the chief priests and the Pharisees is remarkable. They convened a sanhedrin and said, `What are we doing? – for this man is doing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy our place and people’ (11.47-8). Widespread faith in Jesus would not have given the Romans cause to do this. This is an extraordinary perception, formed by the Neronian persecution, which showed genuine Roman hostility to Christianity, and by the destruction of Jerusalem after the Roman war of 66-70CE.

Some Jews attributed this to failure to observe the Torah, and Christians did not observe it. From this perspective, everyone having faith in Jesus could indeed lead to the destruction of the place and the people. This perspective has however no place in the Judaism of 30 C.E.. It leads through the prophecy of Caiaphas to the decision to have Jesus put to death. This is also profoundly ironical. Jesus has been presented as the Resurrection and the Life, and the source of life to those who believe in him. His gift of life to Lazarus is now presented as the reason why the chief priests and Pharisees seek to have him put to death.

After the anointing story, things get worse and worse. At 12.9-11, many were leaving `the Jews’ and believing in Jesus, and consequently the chief priests took counsel to kill Lazarus. This begins a set of statements, according to which Lazarus was exceptionally important.

If this were true, we would not be able to explain the omission of Lazarus from the synoptic Gospels.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Secondly, the plot is incredible. Killing someone raised from the dead is not a feasible Jewish reaction to such a miracle, and the plot is never mentioned again.

(Yep, another argument from silence - Carr)

It either worked or it did not. It is difficult to see how the plot against Lazarus could fail, when that against Jesus succeeded. Nonetheless, it is not acted upon , yet Lazarus does not reappear in the early chapters of Acts.


(Another argument from silence - Carr)


Nor does he appear again in the fourth Gospel, surviving an unsuccessful plot.


(Another argument from silence - Carr)


Finally, in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, having faith in Jesus did not mean `leaving’ in any reasonable sense. The fourth evangelist has imposed on the Judaism of Jesus’ time the situation of his own, when Jews converted to Jesus did indeed leave the Jewish community.

But the narrator has not yet finished. Verse 12.12 slides into the old tradition of 12.13-15. More trouble begins at verse 16, where the disciples are to `remember’ what they had not previously known. It becomes serious in verses 17-19, where the crowd bear witness that Jesus had raised Lazarus, so the Pharisees declare, `the world has gone after him.’ Lazarus, however, is heard of no more. The Johannine narrative is thus internally incoherent, as well as inconsistent with synoptics. The decisive incoherence is that the story of Lazarus just stops. With so many Jews `leaving’ because of the raising of Lazarus, with the crowd who saw this miracle bearing witness to it, with a crowd meeting because they have heard of this sign, with a plot against Lazarus’ life, Lazarus was such an important figure that his further presence, and his fate, were bound to have been recorded.



(Another argument from silence - Carr)


But they are not recorded.



(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Why not? The only possible explanation emerges from the absence of Lazarus from the synoptic Gospels.



(Another argument from silence - Carr)


His fate is not recorded because he never was an important figure.



(Another argument from silence - Carr)


He does not turn up in Acts, and he neither wrote nor figures in any epistle, for the same reason.



(Another argument from silence - Carr)


This also tells us something about the way in which this Gospel has been written. The profound and real feeling that Jesus brought life and `the Jews’ brought death (cf. 16.2) to the Johannine community is presented in story mode. Hence the stress on the love of Jesus for Lazarus, as even `the Jews’ notice (11.36), and for Martha and Mary (11.5), for Jesus loves his disciples. Hence also the narrative precedents for Jesus’ own resurrection, especially the difference in the graveclothes, for Lazarus came forth bound (11.44), whereas Jesus left the graveclothes behind and vanished, a difference great enough for a disciple whom Jesus loved to come to faith (20.7-8) Such factors have quite overridden the historical inconsistincies which we can see.”

andrewcriddle

Casey's argument is that the raising of Lazarus could not have historically been as central an event as John's gospel presents it as being, given the non-mention of Lazarus anywhere outside of John.

Whether right or wrong this argument seems quite consistent with holding that Paul dated the death of Jesus to the governorship of Pilate although this is not stated in the authentic Paulines.

If Casey was arguing that there cannot have been a historical Lazarus supposedly raised by Jesus from the dead, just because there is no mention of this Lazarus outside John, then I think he would be being inconsistent. But I don't think that is what he is arguing. He is claiming that either there is no historical basis for the Lazarus story or John has exaggerated the significance of this event.


Andrew Criddle