DaBuster

I’ve been lurking on this forum for a couple of months now, and have read many arguments against a historical Jesus (HJ) that are based, at least in part, on the lack of references to HJ in Paul’s epistles –- the so-called argument from silence (AFS). I’m relatively new to the forum so perhaps this has been discussed before, but isn’t it possible that Paul never talks about a HJ because he was at a serious disadvantage in discussing HJ compared to those who HAD known Jesus?

Consider that in his epistles, Paul is seen to be at odds with those who would teach "another Jesus". It seems possible (assuming an HJ, or course) that those who were opposing Paul's teachings could be using arguments based on a personal connection to Jesus or his immediate followers. Thus, when taking on these opponents, Paul would likely have been on the defensive if he resorted to citing Jesus’ own words or actions, since his opponents could counter that their teachings were more authoritative because of their closer connection to Jesus. Under these circumstances, Paul’s silence about HJ could be due not to a lack of knowledge of Jesus, but instead because he made a conscious decision to avoid playing to his adversaries’ strengths. By relying on what he claims is a gospel he received by direct revelation from Christ (Gal 1:12) and avoiding discussion of HJ, Paul placed himself in a position in which he could claim his teachings were as authoritative as those of any opponent.

If this is a plausible explanation of Paul’s silence, then it would seem the AFS isn’t a valid argument against a HJ.

gnosis92

good point, although I would add that Paul obviously imagines in terms of heavenly realms and savior deities, as Doherty documents, but I still think there's a HJ behind all the wisdom-speculation in Pauline corpos. I don't think the MJ hypothesis is completely false, as the early Jewish-Christians did have a wisdom traditionl reflected in other works such as the Wisdom of Solomon. The Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of a Teacher of Righteousness.

Other posters and scholars have pointed out Paul does make contact with Gospel traditions, in "words of the Lord", teachings on divorce and money, the eucharist (on the night he was betrayed) etc. Paul even makes contact with the Gospel of Thomas (such as circumcision). The explanation that academic historians find most credible is that Paul was drawing on a oral tradition of sayings attritubed to Jesus, as opposed to JOhn the Baptist, because Jesus is a figure of history.

The other explanation popular among academic historians is that Paul was writing occassional letters, on specific issues the Church had asked him about, so there was no need to go into HJ which was presupposed.

S.C.Carlson

Bingo!

Steven Carr

Perhaps their teachings were more authoritative.

Ben C Smith

What a great first post here. Very insightful.

Ben.

Toto

It's hard to put oneself back in the first century, but if I were in Paul's position, and my opponents had the competitive advantage of having actually known the founder, and I wanted to compensate, I think I would not avoid the subject of the founder's life. I would appropriate it - weave in well known stories of times when his disciples didn't get his message or betrayed him (sort of like the gospels, come to think of it...)

Rick Sumner

This has always been one of the key reasons I've never found the "Argument from Silence" not to have much in the way of substantial weight behind it. No rhetor worth his salt sacrifices the legitimacy of his own authority.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

DaBuster

Toto, you’re right in that Paul could have responded to his opponents by appropriating and reshaping their HJ, but all we have is the evidence of the epistles, where Paul has obviously not used the approach you suggested.

gnosis92, I have seen this reasoning before, but I have always found it a little hard to believe (as do those who propose an MJ) that in all of the correspondence that we have from Paul that he wouldn’t have slipped-in at least one reference to HJ unless there was an overriding reason he chose not to. As I merely alluded to but Steven Carr makes clear, Paul may indeed have had a very good reason not to reference HJ.

GakuseiDon

I agree. Even if there were a HJ, Paul's lack of historical references related to a HJ still need to be explained.

But I think one thing that I've rarely seen looked at (and never by mythicists) is that Paul doesn't provide many historical details about anything or anyone. The same is true with early literature in general. That's why they are so hard to date.

Does anyone know if there is an explanation for why there is a general silence in those writings? And does that affect the arguments about Paul's own silence?

Steven Carr

Have you looked at Galatians recently, where Paul gives dates for his conversion and experiences?

Who was the first convert in Asia? Is Paul silent on that matter?