ApostateAbe

There is a fallacy that I think is common among both the scholarship and among us about accusations of "arguments from silence." Robert E. Van Voorst made this error when he indicted the mythicist argument about Paul's relative silence about Jesus, saying,

Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous.

Perhaps he didn't mean it this way, but it is easily understood (or misunderstood) to imply that arguments from silence are always faulty. They are not. Silence of a certain topic within a set of evidence, in fact, almost always deserve an explanation. The fault is not the argument from silence, but the fault is the relative unlikelihood of the propositions chosen to explain such silence. We need to choose the best explanations for the silence, and it is typically not enough to use silence as evidence--unless you successfully argue why your explanation for the silence is better than the competing explanations.

The relative silence of Paul about the human nature of Jesus is a good example. The phrase, "relative silence," is chosen because, in fact, Paul is not completely silent about the human nature of Jesus. Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual in large part, but there is also a small handful of times when Paul seems to be explicit about Jesus being a physical human.

• "born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
• "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
• "I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
• "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
• "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
• "You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
• "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

The best explanation, therefore, covers both the tendency of Paul's silence and the small handful of times that he breaks that tendency.

The mythicist explanation for both the tendency of silence and the breaks of the tendency:

Paul thought of Jesus as merely spiritual, and the above list can have these explanations:

• Interpolations.
• Forgeries.
• Alternative interpretations (i.e. "the Lord's brother" may also mean a metaphorical brother of high status).

My explanation for both the tendency of silence and the breaks of the tendency:

Paul believed that Jesus was human and spirit both, but he very much focused on the spirit nature of Jesus. Why? Paul never met Jesus, but he was a rival of the apostles who were reputedly disciples of Jesus (Galatians 1-4). His rivals had authority on the human nature of Jesus. However, Christians also believed that Jesus was spiritual, someone who rose from the dead and existed as a spirit, so Paul took the only available opportunity for apostolic authority--he preached as an authority on the spiritual nature of Jesus. He taught that he himself converted to Christianity, not through human communication, but through direct spiritual contact with Jesus (Acts 9). He encouraged a spiritual connection with Jesus and God (Romans 8), and he preached as though he gained his information from Jesus as a spirit (Romans 9:1). This avoids the sectarian problem of relying on the authority of Christian myth about Jesus' human sermons, because his rivals would have much more authority on that matter than Paul.

Which explanation is better? I believe that the best explanation is the one that scores highest on the Argument to the Best Explanation. My historicist explanation has explanatory scope (#2 of ABE) and plausibility (#4 of ABE) with evidence reflected in the passages that I cited, without the need for many ad hoc explanations (#5). An ad hoc explanation is defined as:

...new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

The ad hoc explanations for each individual break in the tendency of Paul's silence would not be a problem if they were more directly implied by the evidence. The mythicist hypothesis has excessive need for ad hoc explanations. Therefore, I believe my own explanation covers the evidence better. I do not know if the scholarship generally shares my explanation. If not, maybe they should.

James Brown

I am by no means an expert on this, but it is interesting to me that Paul uses so many unique phrases re: Jesus compared to the Gospel writers, given that they are writing about the same person. No one in the gospels said that Jesus was born of a woman, or that he died according to the scriptures.

Toto

Abe, this is just getting annoying.

Your "explanation" - that Paul didn't want to credit his rivals - is not new. It is an ad hoc explanation fails to really explain Paul's silence.

If you want to talk about Paul's silences, you need to address Doherty's 20 instances when Paul does not mention a historical Jesus or his teachings where he would be expected to mention them. And you need to address an additional silence that was brought up on this board - was Jesus married? How can Paul talk about marriage without either telling his followers to strive to be unmarried as Jesus was, or to strive to be unmarried in spite of the fact that Jesus was married?

Your ad hoc explanation for Paul's silence on all but a few key points (some of which reflect an orthodox anti-Marcionite interpolator at work) - just fails. The best explanation, with the least amount of fudging and ad hoc speculation, is that Paul did not know anything about a historical Jesus - in spite of every opportunity to have met him or met people who did know him, if your interpretation is correct.

yalla

Way past annoying Toto.

ApostateAbe

OK, Toto, I am game. Can you please direct me to where I can find Doherty's 20 instances? I don't mean to be annoying, and it hurts me to see you write that. I am trying to be civil, and I am doing my best to engage the arguments. Tell me what I can be doing to be less annoying. yalla, I am sorry.

Toto

Abe - didn't you just claim that you had read Doherty's website? Evidently you didn't read it carefully enough. This is why this conversation is getting annoying. You can be as polite as you want and all all sorts of smilies, but when you keep repeating bad arguments . . .

The Sound of Silence

There are actually more than "200 Missing References to the Gospel Jesus in the New Testament Epistles."

Kapyong

Gday,

According to Paul, who was the woman?


Paul says Gentiles are the "seed of Abraham",
a NON literal meaning.


James has a title "the Lord's Brother".


Where did this happen?


The "rulers of this age" are demons/spirits in the heavens.



Probably an interpolation.



Paul has realised what the scriptures mean about Jesus.


None of the "breaks" are actual historical references.


kap

ApostateAbe

Thanks, kap. In New Testament scholarship, explanations to make a theory consistent with the evidence are OK. If a theory is inconsistent, then it is plainly dead. Such explanations are not enough, however. The Biblicist apologists have vast libraries of interpretations to make their model of the Bible and history logically consistent. If you care to argue with them like I have, then you may find that their interpretations are possible and their general model of the Bible is consistent, at least trivially. But, of course, that is not enough. Read the rest of my OP. The end goal is to find the most probable explanations, not just to find explanations to fit the theory you already have. Anyone can do that. Compare my explanation to your set of explanations, and tell me which is better.

show_no_mercy

The silence isn't about the human nature of Jesus. Someone's human nature could simply be asserted without any sort of evidence, as the later heresiologists do. If you notice, most of your examples are instances of creeds or dogmas. If you were writing a letter to someone and were talking about a third party that both you and your receiver knew, would you use a phrase "...and yeah, Joe Smith was born of a woman."? Of course not; that's pretty axiomatic. Do you think if I wrote an email to someone talking about you and wrote "...and ApostateAbe's human nature is of the seed of King Arthur" they would think I actually knew you? It reads more like a formulaic dogma or creed, not an anecdote about a recently deceased human being.

The silence is more about Paul actually knowing anyone that had any sort of non-spiritual encounter with Jesus -- without appealing to later gospel material. Which is especially damning because Paul argues a lot of the same points that Jesus argues in the gospel narratives, yet Paul doesn't quote him on those.

Here are some places in Paul's letters where we would expect him to quote Jesus, but doesn't:

Mark 14:58 / Matt 26:59 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" (i.e. the body is the new temple)

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cr 6:19)

(2 Cor 6:16) What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God

---
Matt 5:39 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Romans 12:17-21
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." (Prov. 25:21,22 ) 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

---

Mark 7
What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.

Colossians 2:14-16 [Jesus] canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross, having spoiled the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through it therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths”

---

Mark 12:13-17
13: And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans, to entrap him in his talk. 14: And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? 15: Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." 16: And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." 17: Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him.

Romans 13:6-7: This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: if you owe taxes, pay taxes. If revenue, then revenue. If respect, then respect. If honor, then honor

---

Mark 2

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Colossians 2:14-16 [Jesus] canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross, having spoiled the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through it therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths”

-----

Paul even contradicts Jesus:

Mark 10:18
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

2 Cor 5:21
God made [Jesus] who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul even argues that Jesus (nor any apostles) did no miracles, in opposition to the gospel narratives:

Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
----
1 Cor 1:22-23
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Paul says that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day "according to the scriptures", not because anyone saw such. Paul also says in Ephesians 4 that Jesus ascended to/descended from heaven using Psalm 68 as an argument, not because anyone saw such a thing.

Paul says that "the mystery of Christ" was hidden for generations and recently revealed to him:

Ephesians 3

4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past

If we take all of this into account, it seems as though Christ was revealed in scripture, not due to anyone actually witnessing anything miraculous. This is how Paul can quote the LXX and claim or infer that it points to "Jesus" (as the non-titular "the Lord") in places like Rom 10.9-13; 1 Cor 1.31; or 2 Cor 10.15-18.

You might argue that Ephesians is a contested letter, but then you're citing 1 Thes 2:14-16 as evidence though you're unable to comprehend that even if 1 Thess is considered an "authentic" Pauline epistle, this doesn't mean that it's 100% pristine and free of interpolations. Worse yet, this would count as another time where Paul makes the same argument that Jesus (or the gospel authors) makes in the gospel narratives (cf Mark 12:1-9).

And then note that 1 Cor 11:23-30 is also contested. Either as an interpolation, or is argued to not an authentic quote of Jesus.

Lastly, Paul doesn't mention meeting anyone who was any sort of "disciple" of Jesus. His Jesus didn't have any students, just those that are sent out (i.e. apostles). Saying that Paul met disciples is projecting later written "facts" from the gospel narratives into Paul's letters. The trend seems to be that as soon as Jesus is given "disciples" by the gospel narratives in the late 1st century, that Gnosticism (i.e. some concept of "secret teachings") begins to explode in the early 2nd.

GakuseiDon

Slightly tangential: Paul does claim miracles occurring in the early church, including apparently by himself:

Rom 15:
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1Cor12:
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by *the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

1 Cor 12:
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts.

Gal3
5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?