Ben C Smith

Before I make any attempt to grope through what at first glance appears to be a heaping pile of assumption, I would like to know what your position is on the authorship of the pastorals. I assume you think, as I do, that the apostle Paul did not pen them, but do you think that all three share the same author?

Thanks.

Ben.

TedM

Hi Earl. It is true that in this one verse the author doesn't reference a historical Jesus as having lived between the 'promises' and the current 'declaration'. Certainly a strong case can be made that Paul's Jesus did 'live' and die between these two events, whether he was historical or mythical. Paul DOES place Jesus after certain events and before others. If no mention of a historical Jesus is blatant and unexplainable here, can't the same be said of a mythical Jesus? Is it not a blatant and unexplainable silence that Paul doesn't EVER indicate that Jesus' act of redemption was NOT between these two events, if that is what he really believed?


I understand Paul's gospel to have been a message of salvation to Gentiles through the death and resurrection of the Jesus. It wasn't that Jesus lived recently and did and taught a bunch of wonderful things. That Paul's focus is on his gospel and not that of an earthly Jesus is not a contradiction, nor necessarily unexpected given his audience. Paul's message of Gentile salvation and freedom from the law was HUGE, with profound implications, so it is understandable that he dwelled on this 'declaration'. This is the mystery that is declared through scripture and the Holy Spirit. He states this in a number of places, but none so clearly as Ephesians 3:4-7

It IS a movement that did NOT arise by means of clear preaching of the Jesus on earth. As such, there is no real silence with regard to the source of the declaration. Such an expectation ('Jesus is the source of my gospel') is inaccurate. With the exception of post-resurrection charge in the gospels, the picture of Jesus in the gospels is quite consistent with Paul's statement that he came as a servant to the Jews and the implication from Paul that the gospel to the Gentiles was revealed at a different time than during the life of Jesus. Paul saw himself as preaching something NEW, so why should we expect his letters to be full of references to Jesus' own preachings?

(edit: remove and replace) God acted on his promise of salvation to the Gentiles through revelation, but not through revelation coming from the lips of Jesus. The action of revelation to Paul didn't require a historical Jesus or a mythical Jesus! Of course, Paul does credit Jesus' redemptive act as making such salvation possible.

It seems most likely that Paul believed Jesus (historical or mythical) lived and died between God's promises and the revealing to Paul of the mystery that salvation was for everybody. I submit that the absence of a historical Jesus in this one verse pales in comparison to the absence of an explanation by Paul of a mythical Jesus not only in this one verse but in all of his writings--where, when did he live, get crucified, and rise, if they happened not on earth and not at any particular point in time.

If I understand you correctly, 'positive silence' is the existence of an alternative explanation which clearly excludes a historical Jesus. I agree, but it is the very nature of the alternative explanation (a gospel that originated AFTER Jesus as a result of his believed resurrection) in conjunction with the fact that Paul's letters were understandably concerned with defending and explaining his gospel, as well as the fact that this 'silence' was not part of a long chronological description of the promises and the declaration but was only one verse, that I conclude that the silences you find here are neither blatant NOR unexplainable had Paul's Jesus lived between the promises of the prophets and the revealing of God's mystery to Paul concerning Gentile salvation.

take care,

ted

Doug Shaver

Two questions.

1. What did Jesus do, besides get himself crucified, that made a few people think he was God incarnate?

2. Whatever that was, how could Paul not have known about it?

jgibson000

What is your evidence that anyone, let alone "a few people", before Paul thought Jesus was "God incarnate"?

Aren't you reading Nicean, if not Chalcedonian, christology and creedal formulations back into NT texts?

Jeffrey Gibson

TedM

If I might jump in, it is possible in answer to #1 (Jeffrey's objections noted) that Jesus was known as a pure, sinless Jewish man who was crucified during Passover in Jerusalem, and was believed to have been resurrected. Paul's writings support knowledge of all of these.

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
I think we would all agree that whatever Paul heard about HJ was unpersuasive to him before Revelation (The Damascus story is not believable as Paul would be arresting Rabbi N'dick in Damascus while Rabbi Peter in Jerusalem was left alone). That Paul would be Converted by Revelation rather than stories about HJ is perfectly Natural as the Jesus of History could never match the Jesus of Paul's Imagination.

Just as HJ (Peter's Jesus) and MJ (Paul's Jesus) were two different Jesuses, so too were Paul's Paul and "Luke's" Paul. Personally, I think Paul would be a better Source. Paul's Paul writes like a Historical person with Specific context. This Paul is explaining to Real people How to believe in Jesus to people who already believe in Jesus. The Evangelist "Luke" is writing as an Evangelist explaining why you should believe in Jesus (a much broader subject).

A valuable peace of information here is how Prophecy Fulfillment is used by the author. "Mark" for instance, uses Ironic prophecy fulfillment because he wants to emphasize the Irony of his Jesus. "Matthew" uses Exodus references because he wants to emphasize the Os-Moses of his Jesus. "Luke" uses everything because she wants to emphasize the Jesus of her Jesus. Prophecy Fulfillment is the author's Commentary on information that was inherited.

So how does Paul's Paul use Prophecy Fulfillment? What do the apparent references to a Historical Jesus such as "born of a woman" mean? If most of Paul's references to a Historical Jesus are in the context of supposed Prophecy Fulfillment does Paul only use them because his Source for Prophecy Fulfillment, the Jewish Bible, prophesied a Historical Messiah, which Paul than give Mythical Significance to? Or, does Paul use HJ Prophecy Fulfillment because he heard and believed in a historical Jesus?

Seems like a double edged Stauros.



Joseph

krosero

I really had decided to stay out of these debates because I’m traveling in a few days, but since Earl has mentioned my review of his book and both he and everyone else are throwing out important issues that I’m intensely interested in, I’m going to make the time.

If this means that I'll have to drop out of the argument while others go on with it, I'll have to accept that.

I think it's unjustified, Earl, for you to describe your argument of silence as unique. When you describe your argument from silence as somehow better than the “simple” argument from silence because yours actually contradicts the HJ or is in tension with the HJ, you’re implying that most arguments from silence really are without this tension. According to what you’ve said, the ordinary ones look like this hypothetical argument:

Your argument from silence, as you describe it, looks like this:

It's hard to believe that your argument from silence is unique. The truth must be that any document focused on one fact will be in some kind of tension with the absent fact – especially if we’re not privy to the author’s exact thoughts and motives for focusing on the recorded fact. I can’t imagine there are too many arguments from silence where the absent fact could easily fit, like a fill-in-the-blank, into documents that have their focus on something else.

Do you know of some arguments from silence, actually used by historians, that are that “simple” – where little or no tension exists between the stated fact and the absent fact? Can you show us that such arguments are typical, making yours atypical?

What you’re really talking about, Earl, is positive evidence. “Positive silence” is a contradictory term that is bound to be unhelpful and confusing (though perhaps confusing to the advantage of mythicism, since you use the term to bolster your case when confronted with the charge that arguments from silence have a high burden of proof).

What you’re really saying is that there are certain passages in the epistles which, pointing positively to a faith in a celestial Christ, contradict a historical Christ and leave no room for him. So what you’re pointing to is positive evidence for the celestial Christ – but because this evidence is found in the passages where the HJ is said to be missing (i.e., all of them), you just collapse positive evidence into silence and end up calling your argument “positive silence.”

It would be better to say “positive evidence”, in sum, because all proponents of an argument want to exempt their argument from normal standards, and are tempted to present their argument as somehow stronger and more sophisticated, when of course it should only face the tests that every other argument faces.

Further, “positive evidence” would be better because it would focus all observers on the question of just what exactly serves, in Paul, as positive description of a celestial Christ, or as positive expression of faith in such a being. What serves as positive description, and how much? Whatever answers are given, it’s a necessary question. But focusing on “positive silence” helps us neither to test to the silence properly or to inventory the positive evidence.

Here’s a little shorthand, so that no one is confused about what you’re referring to with the phrase “positive silence.”

Your “positive silence” is like the following hypothetical argument (deliberately exaggerated to make the point):

My point: the crucifixion in the firmament is positive evidence. You may call it "positive silence," since you think of ALL the verses in Paul as "silent". But that term will not help clarify anything.

************

On the other matter, you’re right, my review of your book leaves the question of positive evidence – as spoken by Paul and the other epistle authors – without any serious treatment. That was a choice, because I wanted to keep my review under a certain length, without entering the question of positive evidence as enunciated by people reporting their own beliefs. The question of what Paul and the others were proclaiming is difficult to treat briefly, other than in the way that I did in the review; and I also felt that it had been treated many places before; we’re all haggling all the time over what Paul’s beliefs were. So I focused on something that I do not see much: positive evidence of the celestial Christ in the form of writers describing the beliefs of other people.

krosero

Yes, I think this hits the nail. Let me try to work this out by quoting Earl’s arguments from silence, but applying them to the celestial Christ (bracketed, and in bold ALL CAPS):

Perhaps, Earl, that will strike you as a cheap and literal exercise. But the fact is that your arguments above all speak of God’s promises and the missionary movement (preaching), and then describe the gaping hole where the crucifixion should have been. But your mythical Jesus had a crucifixion, too. Your Paul spoke of decisive events enacted by God and Christ – events which followed upon ancient promises and were followed in turn by preaching.

In your scenario, a certain small group had visions of the celestial crucifixion. In the HJ scenario, a certain small group, at best, could have witnessed the crucifixion as sympathetic followers. In both scenarios, preaching followed. When subsequent authors then spoke about Christ being “revealed,” and God’s fulfillment of his promises made known, they could have meant either the revelation to the initial band (either on Golgotha or, in your scenario, on meditation cushions), and at other times they could have described the preaching that followed as the thing that really made the truth known to the world at large.

It would be interesting to turn all your arguments of silence against the mythical Christ, for Paul is truly silent about him, in the sense that he doesn’t give us the details, as you so often say about Paul with regard to the details of the HJ.

Good to see you here, TedM.

Ben C Smith

He got resurrected.

Paul did know it.

Ben.

Roland

It's funny because I've heard apologists use the AFS themselves when convenient to make their point.

The most common example is the argument they use for dating Acts early. Because the book ends before the death of Paul, apologists often state that Luke must have written it before Paul's demise or, otherwise, why wouldn't Luke have included that fact? If Luke knew about it, surely he would have mentioned it.

:huh: