ApostateAbe

Doherty claims that there are over 200 times in the writing of Paul when Paul should have mentioned a human physical Jesus but didn't. Fortunately for me, Doherty condensed it down to a "Top 20." For now, I’ll just focus on the first two.

First of all, I will emphasize that my own explanation serves to partly explain all 20 of those "silences"--Paul focused on the spiritual aspect of Jesus because that is where he saw his greatest opportunity for apostolic authority. He didn't want to remain lesser in authority to those who can give firsthand accounts of what the human Jesus actually said, because Paul never met Jesus and his rivals did. But, that single unified explanation may not be enough to explain with sufficient probability all of the instances that Doherty describes, so I will address them each. I have indented text from Doherty, copied from his website.

 1. -Romans 1:19-20

¹⁹For all that may be known of God by men lies plain before their eyes; indeed God himself has disclosed it to them. ²⁰His invisible attributes . . . have been made visible . . . in the things he has made. [NEB]

My first choice is a somewhat innocuous-seeming passage, and yet one which reveals a telling void in the mind of an early Christian writer like Paul. Unlike later commentators from the 2nd century on, Paul here shows no conception that Jesus on earth had been a reflection of God himself, the Son demonstrating the Father’s invisible attributes in his own incarnated person. Even more important, how could Paul fail to conceive and express the idea that Jesus himself was the primary revealer of "all that may be known of God"? It is difficult to explain how any Christian writer, cognizant of a recent life and ministry of Jesus, could show such a void on any role played by Jesus on earth, and yet we meet that silence at every turn, as we shall see.

For some reason, Doherty replaces key text in the passage with ellipses. With the key text, it seems more apparent why Paul left out Jesus on earth as evidence. Here is the full passage, and I will place in bold the relevant omission:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. ¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;

Yes, Jesus may have served as evidence of God in Paul's mind, but there is no "void," because Paul did mention evidence--the "creation of the world" and "what has been made." Doherty should have explained why he would strongly expect that the human Jesus should have been Paul's main evidence, not the creation of the world, but he didn't. And, I can give a perfectly good reason why Paul chose the creation of the world as evidence instead of the human Jesus--only a few people actually saw the human Jesus. If Jesus was the evidence, then it may follow that every man who has not seen Jesus really would have an excuse, would they not? Not even Paul saw Jesus. On the other hand, everybody has seen the world and what has been made. It is the advantage of the old familiar "intelligent design" argument, for skeptics who don't accept the historical Christian dogmas. The historical Christian dogmas about Jesus are not convincing evidence for God, but the butterflies and the rainbows are.

On to Doherty's second "silence."

2. - Romans 16:25-27

This is one of several passages throughout the epistles which give us a clear picture of the nature of the early Christian movement. It tells us the source of Paul’s knowledge about the Christ, and how the movement started. At the same time, it leaves no room in the picture for an historical Jesus.

²⁵Glory be to God who has strengthened you, through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through his [God’s] revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, ²⁶now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God that all nations might obey through faith—²⁷to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. Amen. [Various, ED]

The concept of a divine "mystery," a secret kept by God for long ages, recurs several times in the Pauline corpus (cf. Col. 1:26 and 2:2, Eph. 3:5, Titus 1:3, etc.). The plain meaning of the above words would seem to define the mystery as Christ himself, now revealed through Paul’s gospel (and that of others) after being hidden for long ages. There is no occasion for understanding any incarnation in these words, and we have the added element that what is known and proclaimed to the world comes through the scriptures.

The passage is also full of "revelation" words: apocalypsis, the verbs phaneroo and gnoridzo. Such words are used throughout the epistles to describe what has happened in the present period (cf. 1 Pet. 1:20, 2 Tim. 1:10, etc.). This language marks the 1st century as an age of revelation, when inspired knowledge came through a new reading of the sacred texts. It is scripture, and ultimately God, to which preachers like Paul regularly point as backing for their claims, not the remembered life and teachings of Jesus. The "mystery" has resided in the sacred writings, awaiting the inspirational key God has provided to unlock it.

[ Here is a good example of the opportunity to read Gospel preconceptions into a passage. Several translations use the phrase "through my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," with the possible implication that it is the preaching by Christ that is meant. The Greek is "to kerygma Iesou Christou" with "Jesus Christ" being a genitive which should be taken as objective, that is, Jesus Christ is the object of the preaching, not the one doing it. "Kerygma" in the epistles consistently refers to the preaching of apostles like Paul, with Jesus as the content of the message. Bauer’s Lexicon specifies this phrase as meaning "preaching about Jesus Christ." The NAB is surprising lucid in the meaning of the entire passage, with its: ". . . the gospel I proclaim when I preach Jesus Christ, the gospel which reveals the mystery hidden for many ages but now manifested through the writings of the prophets . . ." Between the long-hidden mystery and its decipherment from scripture by those like Paul, there is no room for an historical Jesus.

In passages like this we detect no sense that Jesus had recently been on earth, revealing himself through his own preaching. Scholars like to claim that the mystery now disclosed refers to God’s long-intended plan for salvation. But even were this the meaning, did Jesus himself not have a key role in disclosing that plan, in disclosing himself as its cornerstone? Yet Paul has left no room or role here for Jesus’ career; instead, he places the focus of revelation and the coming of salvation entirely upon apostles like himself. ]

After Doherty quotes the passage, he uses the citation, "Various, ED." What he really means is, "Mythicist Edition." There is not one other edition of the Bible that shares Doherty's translation--except the one he mentioned, Bauer's Lexicon. Bruno Bauer is a 19th century mythicist. Here is the NRSV translation of the same passage, the edition preferred by critical scholars:

²⁵Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages ²⁶but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— ²⁷to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen.

The relevant change that Doherty made was from "...proclamation of Jesus Christ..." to "...proclamation about Jesus Christ..." The original Greek is “το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου.” The new translation is relevant, because otherwise the passage seems to contradict Doherty’s interpretation that Paul’s passage omitted (and indeed leaves no room for) the earthly ministry of Jesus. If Doherty is reasonable in his translation, with evidence, then the all-new ad-hoc interpretation can be forgiven. But, his reasoning sucks.

Doherty claims that the name “Jesus Christ” is “a genitive which should be taken as objective, that is, Jesus Christ is the object of the preaching, not the one doing it.” However, it turns out that every other translation has it correct. Since “Jesus Christ” is genitive, it implies ownership of the preceding phrase. In other words, Jesus owns the proclamation. But, a good method of choosing the best translation is to find another passage that is similar. Such a passage is Matthew 12:41. Let’s compare.

Romans 16:25 - κηρύγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ - “proclamation of Jesus Christ”
Matthew 12:41 - κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ - “preaching of Jonah”

The two passages each use the same word for “proclamation” - κήρυγμα, and they each follow the word with a name that is genitive.

• Everyone else’s translation of Romans 16:25 - Jesus Christ owns the proclamation.
• Doherty’s translation of Romans 16:25 - the proclamation is about Jesus.

• Everyone else’s translation of Matthew 12:41 - Jonah owned the preaching. “The men of Nin'eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”
• Doherty’s translation of Matthew 12:41 - The proclamation is about Jonah??? No, or else the passage would make no sense at all: “The men of Nin'eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching about Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”

Unless Doherty would use that interpretation for Matthew 12:41, he should not use such an interpretation for Romans 16:25. This error seems very grievous, because he is not a credentialed authority of the New Testament, but he is a credentialed authority of the ancient Greek language, and the ancient Greek language is where he messed up.

I will stop here for now, and I may cover the other 18 "silences" later. Is there anyone who would like to defend Doherty’s reasoning?

GakuseiDon

TedM covered the first 20 silences on his website, and finds many of the same issues as you list above:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrika/dohertystop20/

GakuseiDon

On the "proclamation of Jesus Christ" issue: Doherty's poor translation effort aside, couldn't a spiritual being make a proclamation? ** So even assuming that this is a proclamation by Jesus Christ that is being referred to, does this need to have any impact on the question of historicity?

(** Since apparently spiritual beings were able to come down and father children from the daughters of men, I don't think there is much that a spiritual being couldn't do.)

ApostateAbe

Thanks, GakuseiDon.

As a postscript, I seem to have messed up when I assumed that "Bauer's Lexicon" refers to Bruno Bauer. It actually seems to refer to a different Bauer, Walter Bauer of the Bauer-Danker Lexicon.

ApostateAbe

That's a good point. I think maybe Doherty held that strange interpretation merely to leave no possible room for the "proclamation of Jesus Christ" being interpreted as Jesus' physical human preaching. If such an interpretation can be allowed as possible, then Doherty's point is not falsified, but it does lose its power.

Steven Carr

ABE
And, I can give a perfectly good reason why Paul chose the creation of the world as evidence instead of the human Jesus--only a few people actually saw the human Jesus.

CARR
I wondered why the Romans crucified him as a would be Messianic leader. Only a few people had seen him.

Best to kill populist leaders before more than a few people see them.

It would be interesting to se Doherty respond to the point about Romans 16

ApostateAbe

"I wondered why the Romans crucified him as a would be Messianic leader. Only a few people had seen him."

This would a question where it would not be appropriate to look to the gospels to find the answer. The gospels portray Pontius Pilate as a just and somewhat merciful ruler who killed Jesus reluctantly, accounts that reflect a seething anti-Judaic prejudice. However, Josephus and Philo of Alexandria portray Pontius Pilate to be a violent brutish tyrant who would likely kill potential threats to Rome at the drop of a hat, merciful only when killing posed a greater risk.

"On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, put their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews thereupon flung themselves on the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to slay so many, yielded the point and removed the ensigns."

(The Standards- Josephus, War 2.169-174, Antiq 18.55-59)

"At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled."

(The Aqueduct- Josephus, War 2.175-177, Antiq 18.60-62))

Philo, likewise, calls Pilate, "...(for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate)..."

"It would be interesting to see Doherty respond to the point about Romans 16"

Sounds good to me. He is a regular member of this forum, so you can private message him.

Steven Carr

DOHERTY
The NAB is surprising lucid in the meaning of the entire passage, with its: ". . . the gospel I proclaim when I preach Jesus Christ, the gospel which reveals the mystery hidden for many ages but now manifested through the writings of the prophets . . ."


Not one other? But Doherty pointed out the NAB.

DOHERTY


The Greek is "to kerygma Iesou Christou" with "Jesus Christ" being a genitive which should be taken as objective, that is, Jesus Christ is the object of the preaching, not the one doing it. "Kerygma" in the epistles consistently refers to the preaching of apostles like Paul, with Jesus as the content of the message.

Doherty has already answered your point.

Doug Shaver

And I have responded to Ted on my website: http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor...ponseTedM.html.

Steven Carr

So Jesus was killed as a potential threat when, I quote , only a few people had seen him.

But the disciples were left alone.

Paul hardly backs up your claim that Pilate was a violent brutish tyrant who killed people like Jesus at the drop of a hat.

'Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.'

Nope.

Jesus was not killed by a vicious brutal tyrant who killed people at the drop of a hat.

Or else Paul would have expressed his opinion about the killer of Jesus in a different manner.