TedM

Mr Doherty has compiled a list of his Top 20 silences in the early epistles (especially those of Paul) of a historical Jesus as found in the gospels. One of my responses was to come up with 20 other silences in those epistles that might not be expected either. The difference with mine is that we can reasonably assume the authors weren't silent out of ignorance or due to a lack of historical information. Rather they were silent for other reasons not explained. The purpose was to illustrate the idea that silences are not always as unusual as they might seem to us, given the fact that the epistles weren't written FOR us. Comments?

These are taken from the conclusion of my review of Doherty's Top 20, found at http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...op20/id24.html



1. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell us why he used an Aramaic word for "Abba" (Father)? Why didn't the writer of the Didache or Paul make an occasion to explain the use of Aramaic "Maranatha" (Our Lord, come!)?

2. Why didn't the author of 1 John make an occasion to tell us who the antichrists were, and the details of their objections?

3. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell us how Jesus was originally revealed to him, and why he believed? And why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell us how Jesus was revealed/appeared to others before him?

4. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell us more about how the scriptures foretold the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah?

5. Why didn't Paul, or the authors of 1 Peter make an occasion to tell us how the early tradition of baptism began?

6. Why didn't the author of the Didache make an occasion to explain the origin of the Eucharist?

7. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tout and discuss the "signs and wonders and miracles" he performed among the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:12) anywhere in his epistles?

8. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell more about who the pillars or the "twelve" really were? Why didn't he make an occasion to identify any of them by referencing their father and hometown, ala "John of Capernaum, son of Zebedee"? And why didn't he make an occasion to explain the reason(s) he was perceived by some as inferior to them?

9. Why didn't the writer of 1 Peter make an occasion to explain what sufferings of Christ he says he witnessed?

10. Why didn't the writer of 1 John make an occasion explain what exactly he meant by Jesus having come by water and blood?

11. Why didn't the author of James make an occasion to tell us where all of the sayings that are remarkably similar to those of the gospel Jesus and weren't derived from scriptures came from?

12. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain how he could receive the account of the Lord's Supper from the Lord, if the implication of the word he used does not apply?

13. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain why the "brothers of the Lord" and "James, the Lord's brother" were called that if they weren't references to biological brothers?

14. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain why Jesus' appearance to him was "last of all" and "as to one untimely born"?

15. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain the tradition that "the Lord commanded" that apostles of the gospel be paid for their work, and be allowed to eat and drink whatever is set before them?

16. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain why the Messiac kingdom didn't get established as expected?

17. Why didn't the author of Hebrews make an occasion to tell us more about when Jesus "in the days of his flesh" offered up prayers with "loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death."?

18. Why didn't Paul or James make an occasion tell us why the early saints in Jerusalem were so focused on helping of the poor?

19. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to tell us why he was so concerned with having the approval of the pillars as he himself implied and clearly showed by his actions?

20. Why didn't Paul make an occasion to explain that the 92 times he referred to Jesus in a way that normally is used to describe a human being on earth, really applied to a heavenly figure that lived and died somewhere else if that were the case?

Rick Sumner

I've recently come to the conclusion that arguments based on what we would expect someone to say are really quite arbitrary, rougly equivalent to Rorshach's inkblots--what you see in the image is a reflection of self. Because what the statement amounts to is "If I was so-and-so I would have said such-and-such." Which really doesn't say much--there is no quantifiable measure for it.

If MGM was at all familiar with Baum's books, we should expect that Dorothy Gale would have been blonde, with silver slippers, and Oz wouldn't have been a dream. While the first two are cosmetic, surely the last--which really changes the moral of the entire story--is a rather drastic alteration. And yet they were familiar with the books, but Dorothy will nonetheless forever be remembered as an auburn haired Judy Garland, with ruby slippers, and--of course--there's no place at home.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

Yeah, that's pretty much my take too. So many options are available to a speaker/writer, and each person has his unique filter through which he expresses himself, that the chance that someones expectation projected onto someone else is simply unreasonable is fairly high IMO. Good Oz example..

ted

youngalexander

Why didn't Paul...

I suppose that one could reply ubiquitously - he had no reason to, as per J.P. Holding.

Yet that does not answer the query.

Compare these twenty 'silences' with those of Doherty "TOP 20"
Here we have case (a quote), context, cogent reason for expectation and demonstrable lack of response.

I say TedM needs to do better in presenting his 'whispers'.

Vorkosigan

Actually, it is because TedM's argument is different from Earl's. If there is one consistent thing about Earl's critics, they just don't get it. Earl's argument is not that Paul fails to flesh things out, as TedM's "silences" below mostly are. Instead ED's argument is twofold -- that the silences on the "history" are pervasive and specific, and that Paul read correctly explains why he doesn't appear to know any of the Gospel fictions. Further, Earl argues that this pattern extends all the way across the epistles of nascent Christianity.

TedM's approach neither addresses the negative part (silences) or the positive. Instead, TedM wonders about random unexplained references in the letters. These form no clear pattern -- whereas the pervasive historical silences on Jesus' life do -- nor do they form a collective phenomenon that can be explained by reading the letters in a new way.

Unlike ED's silences.

Vorkosigan

TedM

I've argued that in Doherty's Top 20 cases we either have LITTLE reason to expect an allusion or mention of the historical gospel Jesus, or that we actually do have an allusion or mention of him. As such , Doherty's case is not necessarily as cogent as it appears at first pass and he has not demonstrated beyond question the lack of mentions he claims. Feel free to pick out those I've reviewed (see 1st post) and discuss it. So far, TedH has attempted to discuss #1, Vork has discussed #13, and Doherty has discussed #17 (on Yahoo). I"ve responded to #1, and part of #13.

ted

TedM

True, but this is way overblown IMO given the contexts and the relative lack of material, as well as Paul's gospel which is salvation to Gentiles--a concept found NOT from the gospel Jesus (for the most part) but from scriptures. And, the demonstration that Paul doesn't flesh things out by referring to historical details (what are the names of Paul's parents?, where is Peter from--or even Alexander?, during whose reign did Paul meet with the pillars in Galations?, etc..) DOES need to be considered when he references Jesus. IOW, if it is not Paul's nature to speak in terms of historical details much, that would apply to ALL that he writes--including references to Jesus.


"read correctly" is the key phrase. How to read certain passages is very debatable. My historical reconstruction in the conclusion section of Paul is quite similar to the Jesus of the gospels.

Very debatable. His exclusion of the many gospels and other early writings is questionable from a scholarship standpoint. It results in a potentially very warped perception. My "historical Jesus" as reconcstructed from the very works he pulls his Top 20 from (Paul's, Hebrews, Didache, 1 Clement, 1 Peter, 1 John) has a Jesus that is similar to that of the gospels, AND similar to each other. His reliance on these to support a more Logos-type of Christ as seen in a few of the early writings again amounts to the creation of a pattern that only exists when one "read's correctly" material with plenty of orthodox concepts.

The primarly problem is that these early documents don't have historical references to time and place and specific events with other people on earth which are so clear that their dismissal requires an unreasonable amount of creative interpretation or a claim of interpolation. This is the great strength of Doherty's argument--he can always fall back on silences and reinterprations of less-clear references to Jesus "woman" as something other than "woman", the Lord's Supper as something Paul basically borrowed from pagan religions, "descended from David" as something that simply "must" have happened even if not on earth, etc..

ted

Vorkosigan

What? The mission to the Gentiles is part and parcel of the Gospels. The Gospel Jesus is a Pauline fabrication, in any case.

It's not merely historical details. It is also sayings, pronouncements, miracles, everything. No Jesus. Ain't there.

That Jesus of the Gospels was created off the references in Paul. Whoever wrote Mark has read the Pauline letters and drawn on them.

Doherty does not "exclude" the Gospels. He simply regards them as later fictions, part of an evolution from a heavenly mediator/redeemer figure to the earthly Jesus. The Gospels are integral to his work.

Your HJ is a doctrinal frankenstein. There is no HJ in any of the texts you refer to.

Incorrect. Hebrews refers to several ancient Jewish heroes.

That would be true....if Doherty's argument were only about silences. But it is more robust than that.

Vorkosigan

TedM

What are you talking about? The mission to the Gentiles is almost non-existent in the Synoptics, as is the concept of "salvation through faith in Jesus' resurrection". Even the disciples didn't know what he was talking about when he PRIVATELY discussed his death and resurrection.

Paul's gospel builds on early Christian belief in the resurrection--NOT on teachings of Jesus. It uses SCRIPTURE to support the idea that Gentiles can be saved by faith. To look for a historical Jesus in this context or to look for proof from Paul that Jesus was the Messiah in a context where Paul was writing to believers is to not understand the origin of Paul's gospel nor the reasons why he was writing. The mystery hidden that Paul writes about is NOT what Doherty repeats over and over. It isn't about a risen Christ in the heavens at all. It IS about the plan of salvation to gentiles through faith in the resurrection. I provide the evidence for this under #2 in my review. IOW Doherty has misunderstood the filter through which Paul was writing as being something that raises a high expectation for mentions of a historical Jesus. Once we understand what the actual message Paul had was about, this expectation is greatly reduced. It's a problem of perception on Doherty's part. Paul simply has very little NEED to discuss events of Jesus' life in order to write about his gospel.

I would have to read more on this to respond. I guess one can always argue that if X looks like Y then X depends on Y. Just because Paul's letters don't reflect much of what is found in Mark doesn't mean that Mark relied on Paul, or that Paul wasn't drawing on a tradition which originated from the same person Mark was writing about.

The key word is "later". I know that the dating of the gospels is always subject to debate, and I don't claim to know who is right, but my understanding is that the dating of Mark for example is based not on a bias toward orthodoxy, but on clues within the work. Your theory that Mark is a total fiction is interesting, but by no means definitive. And correct me if I'm wrong but you yourself have proclaimed it to be the greatest piece of western literature ever produced. I think that is highly unlikely, and my opinion comes after looking at a number of your arguments for such genius. It is much more likely to be an account based on a real man, which was written through a theological filter and included hearsay events that likely were embellished in the generation that followed this man's death.


Nice phrase It is more likely that 1 Clement was referring to a man on earth than a pseudo-man in an unexplained sphere where the demons lived when he quoted words of Jesus and said he had come in the flesh, don't you think? I suspect you don't like my use of the word "historical". Perhaps I should change it to "earthly".


I was referring to with regard to Jesus.


ted

Rick Sumner

But herein lay the problem--the only thing that is a fact is that there are things not mentioned in Paul. That's it. What that means--Earl suggests it means that he's never heard of historical details, others suggest it's that his audience was already familiar with it, etc.--is read into the text. It has no real meaning except that which is ascribed to it, and how well such an ascription fits the evidence is purely subjective. It can't be quantified--there is no tangible measure for "Paul should have said this."

This is a separate issue from the question of the silences. I am addressing the legitimacy of one line of reasoning, not of the entire position.

As above, this has no relevance to the significance of Pauline silence. I will, for purposes of this thread, readily concede that Paul read correctly indicates that he did not believe in an historical Jesus, because it has no bearing on the caveat I am raising.

That Paul read correctly indicates ahistoricity does not mean that Pauline silence has any significance other than that we ascribe to it, and that ascription is inherently arbitrary--it cannot be any other way. That is the point of my post, regardless of what TedM's points may be.

Let me provide an example:

Raymond Brown argues that the denial is historical from the criteria of embarassment. Crossan (and others) argue that it is not because Paul fails to mention it. Personally, I favour the latter interpretation: but why?

Because it works for me, that's really all it boils down to. Both arguments are easily falsifiable--that is, there are incidents that might be considered embarassing that are still fiction, and there are things Paul might benefit from mentioning but doesn't--one could find dozens of scriptural passages, for example, that would bolster Paul's arguments, yet he doesn't use them. Neither argument can be quantified--there is no tangible measure of "degree it is embarassing" or "likelihood Paul would mention it," the weight we attach to either is arbitrary. It is that arbitrariness that results, in my opinion, in the bankruptcy of the entire argument, and to no small degree the impossibility of the entire venture--"The Quest for the Historical Jesus" is utterly impossible because of the lack of the tangible. It is every bit as impossible for Earl Doherty as it is for John Crossan, as neither has any more tangible evidence than the other.

Regards,
Rick Sumner