EarlDoherty

Surely not yet another blanket dismissal of the argument from silence, without giving it a moment’s thought?! The question is, Ben, how strong or compelling is this particular argument from silence? The deafening silence that Jehanne notes is indeed a gun going off in our faces. It is so unlikely, and makes so little sense, that ignoring or denying it speaks volumes.

This is not an invitation to once more debate the merits of that argument (and I will go on presently to address the subject of this thread, the Philippians hymn), but if there is one thing I regularly feel needs highlighting, it is the utter invalidity of this kind of blithe dismissal of the void on the HJ in the epistles (not just Paul). I am presently doing a bit of revision for my agent of my Jesus Puzzle novel (now newly titled/subtitled “The Final Gospel: A Modern Investigative Novel on the Lost Origins of Christianity”) and have just been reminded of a short passage in it which I hope will bring my contention home. (This novel, by the way, is still readable in its entirety on my website; it has been translated and published in three foreign markets, Korea, Spain and shortly Portugal):

And I’ll add one other passage in a similar vein [by the way, how the heck do you get a paragraph to indent the first line??):

(Incidentally, the novel isn’t all “talk”. There’s quite an intriguing background plot beyond the Jesus stuff, suspense, and even romantic interests among a wide range of characters.)

Anyway, the above quotes are a good intro to the questions surrounding this thread. Why, indeed, does the Philippians hymn give us no details about Jesus’ career on earth? In fact, I have often pointed out—with no response from anyone—that the first-half verses of the hymn repeat three times the idea of his ‘descent’ to lower regions—without, by the way, saying directly that he was incarnated to earth, that he “became” a man; they say only “being found in fashion as a man, “becoming in the likeness of a man” (why such consistently ambiguous language?). This repetition, I maintain, is because the hymnist needed to fill in three lines of a chiastic structure. If so, why not take the opportunity here to mention some of those earthly details? Taken together with Couchoud’s observation which Ben is now laying before us (and which both Bob Price and I have also noted), we definitely do have a smoking gun, though I would place it beside others like Hebrews 8:4, Hebrews 10:37, and of course Don’s favorite: Minucius Felix.

As for the antecedent to the opening “Who” of the hymn, I suggest that because of the hymnic structure and meter, this opening verse could not have been expanded with a multi-syllabic identified antecedent, certainly not “Jesus Christ”. That would have destroyed the meter. (Which is why scholars suggest that Paul himself added the phrase in verse 8: “even death on a cross”, since it extends the metrical limit.) Ben maintains that the hymn couldn’t have opened with “Who”, but I wonder. Whatever the understood antecedent (the Son, the ‘Christ’, whatever the earliest Christ-believers called him), I think a hymn could very well have begun this way. An indicator of such? Ben needs to bring in other similar hymns, such as 1 Timothy 3:16:

Another hymn beginning with “who” but which has no supplied antecedent by the writer in the preceding verse: “Beyond all question, great is the mystery of our piety (faith, religion).” Moreover, we once again have a hymn which offers no detail about a career on earth, and even a few contradictory declarations to such an idea: he was seen by angels (not by humans?), he was proclaimed (did he not proclaim himself and his teachings?). He is “justified” (through resurrection in glory) only “in spirit” (no rising in flesh, the same dichotomy as in 1 Peter 3:18). The “manifested in flesh” and “taken up in glory” fits very well with the mythicist theory as I’ve presented it, and is very much like the picture presented in the Philippians hymn.

Ephesians 3-10 has also been identified by some scholars as a pre-Pauline Christological hymn. It, too, has not the slightest reference to an earthly event, but only the Pauline style mystical language of “through Christ” and being “in Christ”. Knowledge of Christ comes through God, not through any ministry of Jesus himself.

And let’s not overlook the grandest hymn of all, Colossians 1:15-20. This is also introduced by “who”. Here “the Son” (the supplied antecedent) is presented in the most elevated terms, in thoroughly Platonic fashion as the image of God, agent of creation, sustaining power of the universe, pre-existent, reconciling a divided universe through his blood on the cross (mythical events). But not a word about an actual incarnation to earth, let alone any details of a ministry. Apparently, at the very beginning of the Christian movement, even earlier than Paul’s missionary work, those first believers (when Jesus was scarcely cold in his grave) created a whole slew of liturgical pieces to honor the man they responded to in such lofty fashion without once incorporating anything about his human identity and his activities on earth??? I don’t think so.

As for the Philippians verses which Ben has called attention to, scholars have tried to justify reading “Lord” as the bestowed name, but the passage doesn’t read that way. Verse 10 says bluntly, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…” Anyway, as Price notes, “Lord” is a title, not a name.

So many of those smoking guns have gone off in our faces that we are plastered in (what do the CSI-ers call it?) gunshot residue. The trouble is, too many people still refuse to look in the mirror.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

If God is considered to be a myth, then all actions or events surrounding God will be mythical.
Now, in the passage of Philippians 2:9-11, this mythical God made certain statements, and I am yet to ascertain whether these statements was made in the 1st century or in any century at all. Just by using the word 'God' in the passage, there is a chronological breakdown.

All I gather from the verses is that an unknown author made statements about a myth with respect to his mythical son. And when and how this myth managed to deliver this message to the unknown writer is another question.

Rick Sumner

I would very much like to know how, exactly, one works out the probability of such a silence (even presuming it is actual). Is there a scale you put together?

I only ask because I hear so much about how "unlikely" it is. Surely there's a quantifiable way to measure likelihood other than "I think Paul would have said it." Otherwise, the appeal to probability is just rhetoric, and I'd hate to think that's all it's based on.

I'm not asking if you could assemble a scale, btw. Doing so now would just be ad hoc. I'm asking if you have one already. Because if not, probability isn't much use here.

The question is, of course, rhetoric in itself, because you and I both know that you have no such scale. You say "I think it's unlikely." I say "I don't." Stalemate.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

I can't find a referenced Bible right now but are not all the sentiments in that hymn trackable to the Hebrew Bible, and does not Ellegard make some fascinating points about these hymns - that they might have existed before Jesus is alleged to have lived?

Does not everyone have access to Bibles where these hymns are laid out separately?

wordy

Is this kind of similar to the claim that his name should be Emmanuel which means ... but later they named him Jesus and nobody caresW about text.

What was that all about then? If they was told that his name should be Emmanuel but don't care at all and chose a totally other name. Does that show how whimsy they wrote the text. Or was it a splinter group trying to launch another guy? Not sure maybe spelled Immanuel.

Clivedurdle

At the name of Jesus has been the foundation of too many sermons I have heard!

An example

http://www.teachingpages.co.uk/study...p?class14part0

Interestingly, preachers about the name of Jesus do not talk much about an earthly one, but continuously refer to these hymns which are engraved on my experience as a Christian.

Mythicism is woven into what the preachers preach!

Jehanne

Given Paul's glaring silence, can one say with 100% confidence that Jesus existed? If not, can one say with 100% confidence that he was "divine"? I do not believe that any mythicist, Earl included, is making the claim that there is a 100% probability that Jesus did not exist.

Rick Sumner

I haven't suggested that anyone did, and nothing in my post implied anything of the sort. Perhaps you would benefit from reading it again, since you've clearly missed the point I was arguing for.

It's not a question of whether anyone has "100 % certainty" of anything. It's a question of whether or not Earl can back up the oft mentioned "unlikely-ness" of his argument from silence. Whether or not he actually knows if its unlikely or not, or just thinks as much. This is important. If it's the former, I'd like something tangible in its defense. If it's the latter, then he's guilty of judging with the same preconceptions he criticizes others of possessing.

Without tangible measures, "likelihood" ultimately comes down to "touch blue, make it true."

As to the question of whether Jesus was divine, I can only inquire as to what relevance you think that has to anything posted in this thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Jehanne

Well, consider my first post in this thread, and ask yourself the following question: "What is the probability that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her boyfriend?" The following lines of evidence were offered in his criminal case:

1) No witnesses whatsoever to the crime.

2) A ton of forensic evidence that OJ "did it."

3) Strong circumstantial evidence (including, a "motive") that OJ "did it."

With Jesus of Nazareth, we have no contemporary, historical witnesses and no archaeological or documentary evidence of any kind. And, the earliest witness that we do have has little, if anything, to say about a "historical Jesus."

GakuseiDon

Actually, I would say that the start is Phil 2:3, where the author starts talking about humbleness:

Phl 2:3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Phl 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

If God gave Jesus the name "Jesus" because he humbled himself by taking the lowly nature of a servant even though he was equal to God (thus the name was bestowed at birth rather than the crucifixion), then there is compatibility of sorts with the Gospels, where the angel gives Jesus his name (though it is "Immanuel" ) as he is about to be born. Jesus came as a servant because he "looked not on his own things, but the things of others" (as per Phil 2:4). The "obedience to death" merely highlights the nature of Jesus's humility which was already expressed by coming in the form of a servant. Whether I'm right or not I honestly don't know, but I float it as a possibility.