Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-16-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Silence is more often taken as a sign of guilt. The account of the silence of Jesus in that passage (and the corresponding passages in all of the gospels) I think can be much more easily explained as the Christian interest in Jesus fulfilling the perceived prophecy of Isaiah 53:7 ("He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."). Jesus was probably not silent against accusations when he had an opportunity to defend himself--his life was on the line after all--and we do see Jesus opening his mouth to defend himself in all other occasions in court. But we know that Christians wanted to fit Isaiah 53 to Jesus, and, if Jesus was not silent against at least some accusations, then Isaiah 53 would directly contradict the gospels.

This could very well be the opposing view to that of Pilate, the prophetic explanation for Jesus silence. But Pilate 'marvelling' would not be explained in those terms. When asked by Pilate if he was 'the King of the Jews' Jesus replied 'you have said so'. This would be the referent to Jesus' silence in Pilate's mind.

Jiri

Yes, that is sort of my explanation as well. Pilate was cast as someone who was reasonable and reluctant to crucify (in contrast to the blood-thirsty Jews), and Christians wanted the silence of Jesus against accusations to be seen as something venerable. An impartial listener may think that Jesus responded with silence because he had no defense. So the Christians had Pilate play the role of making Jesus' silence look good.

ApostateAbe · 12-16-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Silence is more often taken as a sign of guilt. The account of the silence of Jesus in that passage (and the corresponding passages in all of the gospels) I think can be much more easily explained as the Christian interest in Jesus fulfilling the perceived prophecy of Isaiah 53:7 ("He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."). Jesus was probably not silent against accusations when he had an opportunity to defend himself--his life was on the line after all--and we do see Jesus opening his mouth to defend himself in all other occasions in court. But we know that Christians wanted to fit Isaiah 53 to Jesus, and, if Jesus was not silent against at least some accusations, then Isaiah 53 would directly contradict the gospels.

To the Jewish community it may have seemed like a reference to Isaiah but to the Greek speaking community it may have seemed more like a play on Socrates and his philosopher's mentality to accept death.

“For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is ever pursuing death and dying; and if this is true, why, having had the desire of death all his life long, should he repine at the arrival of that which he has been always pursuing and desiring?” Phaedo

And in Gorgias he talks about the reasons to not use rhetoric to defend himself.

”Whether the greatest of evils to a guilty man is to suffer punishment, as you supposed, or whether to escape punishment is not a greater evil, as I supposed.”

“Callicles And do you think, Socrates, that a man who is thus defenceless is in a good position?

Socrates Yes, Callicles, if he have that defence, which as you have often acknowledged he should have-if he be his own defence, and have never said or done anything wrong, either in respect of gods or men; and this has been repeatedly acknowledged by us to be the best sort of defence. And if anyone could convict me of inability to defend myself or others after this sort, I should blush for shame, whether I was convicted before many, or before a few, or by myself alone; and if I died from want of ability to do so, that would indeed grieve me. But if I died because I have no powers of flattery or rhetoric, I am very sure that you would not find me repining at death. For no man who is not an utter fool and coward is afraid of death itself, but he is afraid of doing wrong.”

“And you must not be offended, my dear Socrates, for I am speaking out of good-will towards you, if I ask whether you are not ashamed of being thus defenceless; which I affirm to be the condition not of you only but of all those who will carry the study of philosophy too far. For suppose that some one were to take you, or any one of your sort, off to prison, declaring that you had done wrong when you had done no wrong, you must allow that you would not know what to do:-there you would stand giddy and gaping, and not having a word to say; and when you went up before the Court, even if the accuser were a poor creature and not good for much, you would die if he were disposed to claim the penalty of death.” Gorgias

I don’t know if it would be seen as a sign of guilt or insanity back then but something that was expected of someone studied in philosophy. Online “they” are saying that there was a tradition that Socrates remained silent at his trial back in ancient times but I couldn’t find the source and I’m sure it’s like Jesus where being silent is relative to what he could have said instead of complete silence.

The myth of Socrates must have been an undercurrent in the myth of Jesus--Socrates was well-known among Greeks and the myths have corresponding elements. Isaiah 53, I think, remains the best explanation for the "silence," because we know for sure that Christians wanted Isaiah 53 to look like fulfilled prophecy (John 12:37-38 explicitly quotes the first verse in the passage), and a talkative Jesus against accusations would sever the connection outright.

Chili · 12-16-2009, 08:43 PM

The beheading of John the baptist was the efficient cause of Jesus' silence so in the end he may re-appear as the man who was reborn of old = the flesh of David made manifest through Jesus-the-Word who came after becasue he was before John.

ApostateAbe · 12-16-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

The beheading of John the baptist was the efficient cause of Jesus' silence so in the end he may re-appear as the man who was reborn of old = the flesh of David made manifest through Jesus-the-Word who came after becasue he was before John.

Sort of. Isaiah 53 was not always a messianic prophecy. The first portion of it, the portion that is in past tense, wasn't even intended as a prophecy at all. It was Christian creativity that spun it into a prophecy, giving the past tense verbs a sort of mystic effect, similar to how a guru may refer to himself in third person. Isaiah 53 seemingly had a tremendous effect on Christianity. Many elements of the passion narrative seem intended to fit Isaiah 53, which has always been a huge evangelical advantage. Not all elements of Isaiah 53 fit, such as the actual predictive portion of it (Jesus never had any offspring), but that can be explained by evangelists as metaphorical.

Steven Carr · 12-17-2009, 12:18 AM

What silence of Jesus before Pilate?

Luke 23
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

How can this be historical, and used by Ehrman, an allegedly serious historian, as a source about what happened?

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

What silence of Jesus before Pilate?

Luke 23
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

How can this be historical, and used by Ehrman, an allegedly serious historian, as a source about what happened?

Ehrman's model of the trial, as I remember, contains very little detail, probably because there were no Christians there to witness it, and it is uncertain that there was ever a trial at all--more likely Pilate just ordered his soldiers to crucify Jesus with no rigmarole (that was the historical personality of Pilate). Each gospel seems to have its own unique version of the "silence" from Jesus to fit Isaiah 53. In the gospel of Luke, it is found in Luke 23:9, where the silence is before Herod, not Pilate.

He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer.

Elena · 12-17-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

... ignoring the fact that Paul wrote before the Gospels.

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Where is the evidence outside the bible that Paul even existed?

If the account of Acts is "true" about Paul's conversion and cecity, why doesn't any letter say anything about it?

Elena · 12-17-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The crucifixion of Jesus appears to be an invented plot of the writer to blame the Jews for the destruction of the Jewish Temple, that is, the Jews caused the Son of God to be crucified even though innocent so God allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple.

Which writer is blaming the Jews?

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

... ignoring the fact that Paul wrote before the Gospels.

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Where is the evidence outside the bible that Paul even existed?

If the account of Acts is "true" about Paul's conversion and cecity, why doesn't any letter say anything about it?

The letters of Paul are enough evidence that he existed. If they were incorporated into the Bible, that does not significantly reduce their legitimacy as evidence. We know that half the letters of Paul in the New Testament are not actually written by Paul because of patterns that indicate inauthenticity. But half of the letters (including Galatians and Romans) do match the patterns of authenticity. For example, the authentic letters of Paul accept most directly the imminent apocalypticism of Jesus, unlike the inauthentic letters of Paul, and often the authentic Paul gives perspectives that conflict with other New Testament passages. Paul is simply the most likely author. There is a small possibility that all of Paul's letters are inauthentic, but I think the greatest probability should be what matters here. The account about Paul's conversion is unlikely to be true, though it may have been original to Paul himself, so I agree with you there.

spamandham · 12-17-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But half of the letters (including Galatians and Romans) do match the patterns of authenticity.

...

There is a small possibility that all of Paul's letters are inauthentic, but I think the greatest probability should be what matters here.

The demonstrable inauthenticity of half of the letters attributed to Paul, weighs heavily on my judgment as to the authenticity of the other half. I don't understand the reasoning that goes into assigning a small probability to the inauthenticity of the entire collection.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-16-2009, 08:43 PM	#33
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	The beheading of John the baptist was the efficient cause of Jesus' silence so in the end he may re-appear as the man who was reborn of old = the flesh of David made manifest through Jesus-the-Word who came after becasue he was before John.

12-17-2009, 12:18 AM	#35
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	What silence of Jesus before Pilate? Luke 23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man." How can this be historical, and used by Ehrman, an allegedly serious historian, as a source about what happened?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.