Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2011, 03:25 PM

This is a followup to an earlier thread, The early Christian "silence" of the life of Jesus (Doug Shaver's "difficulty" #1), where I begin to analyze and criticize the "probabilistic difficulties" proposed by Doug Shaver (and Earl Doherty), in his web page, "What's wrong with the picture?" of the website, "Was there a real Jesus?". I have moved on to the second item in the list.

Probabilistic Difficulty #2:

In noncanonical Christian writings, there are no unambiguous biographical references to Jesus earlier than Ignatius' in the early second century, and his remarks are little more than a bare assertion that Jesus did have an earthly existence. Before Ignatius, with a possible minimal exception in Clement, there are no references to Jesus' ministry, his teachings, his miracles, or anything else he might have said or done prior to his death. There is no reference to his trial by the Romans or to the role of Jewish authorities in instigating it. No teaching is attributed to him. No document for which there is incontestable evidence of first-century Christian provenance says anything more about Jesus than what is found in Paul's writings. Even into the second century, nothing more substantial than Ignatius' comments appears until after the existence of the gospels is clearly attested.

Unambiguous

First of all, the use of the word, "unambiguous," in the claim concerning "...unambiguous biographical references to Jesus..." is key, since we most certainly have such biographical references to Jesus, but the evidence is ambiguous. Almost all religious text of any sort in ancient history is ambiguous--that is a very persistent theme, given the subjective and mystery-filled nature of the evidence. But, if Doug Shaver claims silence and then claims it is a problem, then maybe the problem of silence can be much more easily solved by interpreting the ambiguous biographical references to Jesus in favor of actual biographical references to Jesus. A much bigger problem of silence could be claimed only if there are no biographical references to Jesus of any ambiguous quality. For such reasons, a new and bizarre theory most often bears the punishment of ambiguity in the evidence, receiving no proper benefit of being able to interpret the ambiguous evidence in favor of the new and bizarre theory. With that in mind...

Possible minimal exceptions

I think the biggest fallacy here, as covered in my criticism of Probabilistic difficulty #1, is the underestimation of the value of scant evidence. Per the homepage of EarlyChristianWritings.com, the following list contains all of the extant noncanonical Christian writings uncontestedly written before Ignatius (105-115 CE):

Ø

It is an empty list. However, there are a handful of writings that can be reasonably argued to be dated before Ignatius:

Didache (50-120 CE)
Gospel of Thomas (50-140 CE)
The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel (50-140 CE)
The Apocalypse of John (90-95 CE)
1 Clement (80-140 CE)

Out of these five probably-pre-Ignatius noncanonical Christian writings, none of them are seemingly silent about the life of Jesus (even if such evidence could be seen as "ambiguous").

Didache: "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation. Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever." See also Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4.
The whole Gospel of Thomas is a narrative of the life of Jesus.
The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel: "When the scribes and Pharisees and priests saw him, they were angry that he was reclining in the midst of sinners. But when Jesus heard, he said, 'Those who are healthy have no need of a physician ... and pray for your enemies. For the one who is not against you is for you. The one who is far away today, tomorrow will be near you and in...'"
The Apocalypse of John: "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen."

Clement

Clement of Rome (not Clement of Alexandria) wrote in Chapter 13 of The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, translated by Charles H. Hoole, 1885:

13:1 Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:
13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you.

This quotation of Jesus is also found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, sourced from the gospel of Q. According to the gospel of Luke:

6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven;
6:38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

This evidence is more than enough to establish that Clement was well aware and accepting of the Christian myths of the human earthly teachings of Jesus. This is strong evidence, and it is neither merely "possible" nor "minimal." In the study of ancient history, "possible minimal" evidence is evidence that we no longer have.

Shaver's and Doherty's solution: spiritual realm

So what is really the problem? Whatever the problem is, Doug Shaver's solution is that "The savior in whom the first known Christians had their faith was not a man who had lived in Galilee or anywhere else in this world. He was a mythical figure inhabiting a spiritual realm thought to be in many ways parallel to the one we recognize with our senses."

But, evidence needs to be taken seriously, even if you don't like it, not pushed to the side and ignored for the sake of a theory that forcibly explains only a fraction of the evidence.

Exploring the epistle of 1 Clement further, we find more evidence about the myth of the earthly existence of Jesus apparently accepted by Clement (emphasis added):

16:1 For Christ belongeth unto them that are humble, not unto them that exalt themselves over his flock.
16:2 Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the sceptre of the majesty of God, came not in the arrogance of boasting and pride, though he was able to do so; but in humility, even as the Holy Spirit spake concerning him.
16:3 For he saith, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Like a child have we delivered our message before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land. There is no form nor glory in him, and we beheld him, and he had neither form nor comeliness, but his form was despised, lacking comeliness, beyond the form of the sons of men. He was a man stricken and in toil, knowing how to bear infirmity, for his face was turned away; it was dishonoured and held in no reputation.
16:4 He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted.
16:5 He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed.
16:6 All we, like sheep, have gone astray, every one hath erred in his own way,
16:7 and the Lord hath given him up for our sins; and he, through affliction, openeth not his mouth. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so openeth he not his mouth.
16:8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away, and who shall declare his generation, for his life is taken from the earth;
16:9 for the iniquity of my people he hath come unto death.
16:10 And I will give the wicked in requital for his burial, and the rich for his death: for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: and the Lord willeth to purify him from stripes.
16:11 If ye make an offering for sin your soul shall prolong its days.
16:12 And the Lord willeth to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light and to form him by knowledge, to justify the righteous man who serveth many well; and their sins he shall bear himself.
16:13 Wherefore he shall receive the inheritance of many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because his soul was delivered up unto death, and he was numbered among the transgressors,
16:14 and he bore the sins of many, and was given up for their sins.
16:15 And again he saith, I am a worm and no man -- a reproach of men and despised of the people;
16:16 all they who saw me mocked me, they spake with their lips, they shook the head; he hoped in God, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he desireth him.
16:17 See, beloved, what is the example that hath been given unto us; for if the Lord so humbled himself, what shall we do who have through his mercy come under the yoke of his grace?

The word, "earth," in verse 16:8, "...for his life is taken from the earth," is the universally-accepted translation. This is evidence damningly against the solution proposed by Doug Shaver, because it is difficult to imagine how Clememt could have written any more clearly on the issue of whether Jesus died on earth or in "a spiritual realm." It is surprising, then, that Earl Doherty himself glazes over this evidence in his Jesus Puzzle website, as he, like Doug Shaver, claims that Clement believed in a merely-spiritual Jesus (Supplementary Article No. 12, Part One: 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas).

Conclusion

The "silence" about the life of Jesus contained in the early noncanonical Christian writings seems to be little more than a modern creation resting on loose interpretations of the evidence.

Perhaps, in his latest book, Earl Doherty has done very well to mend these holes in his solution. If so, I would be happy to hear about it. I am likewise happy to hear about other perceived problems in my analysis.

Vorkosigan · 05-30-2011, 04:30 PM

Right, because when we describe people who lived on earth, we often say "there was no form in him."

"for his like is taken away from the earth" appears to say that we on earth no longer have access to him.

The writer then breaks into a rap with many earthly details about people who lived on earth, in the OT. None of those details are found in his description of Jesus. The conclusion is obvious.

There is nothing in 1 Clem inconsistent with Doherty's thesis.

Toto · 05-30-2011, 04:47 PM

Doherty on Clement from your link

Quote:

But there is a void even more dramatic in Clement’s apparent knowledge of Jesus’ life. Even without a written Gospel, his community should have possessed traditions about the historical event of the crucifixion, about Jesus’ trial and sufferings. In chapter 16 he presents Christ as a pattern for humility: “The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ…was in no pomp of pride or haughtiness…but in self-abasement.” Does he go on to provide his readers with an account of Jesus’ silence and humility during his trial and crucifixion? This is the context he wants to present (to judge by the content of the material he does offer), but he seems to have no details about the historical event itself, for he simply quotes the entire Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 53 from start to finish, with its references to the servant “who carries the burden of our sins and suffers pain on our behalf,” who “through all his ill-treatment…never opened his mouth,” who “was led away like a sheep to be slaughtered.”

This ‘song’ contains much that relates to suffering and perhaps even death, and it was the source (in other circles) of many of the details of the passion story, but it hardly makes a good substitute for the real thing. Clearly, this was the only type of repository available to Clement for information about Christ’s crucifixion. Jesus’ blood sacrifice was known only through scripture. For how could a Christian center of the stature of Rome, even if it had no written Gospel, not possess some traditions, some details about the historical crucifixion, accurate or not. How could Clement not have wanted to make use of such details, if only as a supplement to the passage in Isaiah, which would then have served as a prophecy of the event? Indeed, we would expect him to call attention to this fact—as the evangelists and many later Christian writers were to do—that the events had fulfilled the prophecies, the passages in the sacred writings. No such idea is even hinted at.

Clement supplements Isaiah 53 with verses from Psalm 22 (7-9), another source for the Gospel scene on Calvary. Once again he introduces them as Christ himself speaking through scripture:

“And elsewhere, he himself says: ‘I am…an object of contempt to the people. All who saw me derided me, they spoke with their lips, nodding their heads and saying, He set his hopes on the Lord; let him deliver him…’ ”

These words from the Psalm are presented as Christ telling of his experiences through scripture. But again, where is the comparison with history? Did the fixation on comparing the “historical record” found in tradition and the Gospels with the “prophecies” in the Old Testament begin only after Clement? (It will be found in a very primitive form in the epistle of Barnabas.) Would one of the heads of the church at Rome, by the end of the first century, not have been aware of any tradition, such as in Matthew 27:39-43, that people witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion had, in fulfillment of prophecy, acted and spoken exactly like the words of the Psalm?

The long passage from Isaiah 53 is introduced with these words: “…as the Holy Spirit spoke (elalêsen) concerning him, saying…” As in Hebrews, the significance of this is evident. Clement knows Jesus was humble because the Holy Spirit, in scripture, tells him so. (Barnabas, we shall see, still shares this attitude.) The sacred writings are not the prophecy of an historical Christ’s life; history does not fulfill scripture. The quotations Clement offers are not used as “proof-texts,” confirming or illuminating historical events. History is never interpreted in the light of the scriptures, a practice later commentators such as Justin were to revel in. Rather, for Clement, scripture is itself the embodiment of the Christ event. Christ inhabits the higher spiritual world and scripture provides a window onto it. When Clement sums up in chapter 16 by saying, “See what an example we have been given” (of the Lord’s humility), he is pointing squarely to Christ’s activities in this spiritual realm as seen through the sacred writings, not to any events in Palestine some three-quarters of a century earlier, events to which he never casts a glance. The example is in scripture itself, and this Suffering Servant is equated with Christ, not a prophecy of him.

His life was taken away from the earth appears to be derived directly from Isaiah 53:8

Quote:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Right, because when we describe people who lived on earth, we often say "there was no form in him."

That isn't actually the quote. The phrase is:

"There is no form nor glory in him..."

The fuller passage is:

"There is no form nor glory in him, and we beheld him, and he had neither form nor comeliness, but his form was despised, lacking comeliness, beyond the form of the sons of men."

It is a 19th century English translation. A modern translation has it:

"There was no beauty or majesty that would attact us to him. Rather, his appearance was plain, compared to the appearance of other men. He was a man of sorrow and suffering, and familiar with grief: a person who people didn't want to look at."

So, the 19th-century "form" is "appearance." This is the meaning that makes consistent sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

"for his like is taken away from the earth" appears to say that we on earth no longer have access to him.

Yes, that's right, but you mean, "...for his life is taken from the earth," and it basically means that he died and his soul went somewhere else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The writer then breaks into a rap with many earthly details about people who lived on earth, in the OT. None of those details are found in his description of Jesus. The conclusion is obvious.

There is nothing in 1 Clem inconsistent with Doherty's thesis.

What hypothetical and plausible evidence would you take to be inconsistent with Doherty's thesis? I think the matter has to do with which thesis fits the evidence better.

Toto · 05-30-2011, 07:11 PM

Doherty lists the language that would be expected if Clement knew anything about a historical Jesus. All Clement seems to know is the language of the Hebrew Scriptures.

GakuseiDon · 05-30-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty lists the language that would be expected if Clement knew anything about a historical Jesus.

Expected by whom? You mean, what **we** would expect?

As some on this board may know, I agree with Doherty that the silence is all-pervasive throughout the writings of first two centuries. Either Doherty is correct, and the commonality of the silence can be best explained by ahistoricity; or something else is going on. (Personally I think Doherty's belief that Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" is an example of ahistoricity are laughably ridiculous, and points to something else going on.)

Anyway, I did a bit of research on Clement for my review of Doherty's books. I collected a lot of notes, most of which I didn't use. But I still have some on Clement, so I will organize them and post it in this thread shortly. The notes aren't contra Doherty, but just snippets from Clement that may be relevant.

aa5874 · 05-30-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....Anyway, I did a bit of research on Clement for my review of Doherty's books. I collected a lot of notes, most of which I didn't use. But I still have some on Clement, so I will organize them and post it in this thread shortly. The notes aren't contra Doherty, but just snippets from Clement that may be relevant.

Please don't waste your time. Clement of Rome was NOT listed as an Heretic nor was the Epistle of Clement of Rome regarded as Heresy.

The HJ argument is based on the Premise that Jesus was an ORDINARY man with a human father who was NOT Christ and was NOT even born in Bethlehem.

The HJ argument is in effect Heretical.

You are wasting you time trying to make the NT Canon and Church writings appear to be HERETICAL.

What Christians we have here???

Kapyong · 05-30-2011, 08:38 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Didache: "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation. Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever." See also Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4.

A teaching of the Lord from the Gospel?
One of many variations in the Lord's Prayer?
Nothing about a life of Jesus there at all.

If Jesus HAD taught the Lord's Prayer, we would know it word-for-word perfectly. Instead we have many different versions - even the Gospel versions are different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The whole Gospel of Thomas is a narrative of the life of Jesus.

No it isn't.
It's a collection of logia with no narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel: "When the scribes and Pharisees and priests saw him, they were angry that he was reclining in the midst of sinners. But when Jesus heard, he said, 'Those who are healthy have no need of a physician ... and pray for your enemies. For the one who is not against you is for you. The one who is far away today, tomorrow will be near you and in...'"

A story about Jesus.
Nothing historical there.
There are stories about Moses and Osiris too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Apocalypse of John: "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen."

"he cometh with the clouds" ?
Preaching about a supernatural being.
No historical life of Jesus there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Clement of Rome

13:1 Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:
13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you.

This quotation of Jesus is also found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, sourced from the gospel of Q. According to the gospel of Luke:

6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven;
6:38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

A "quotation" also found in the Gospel ?
How can you call it a quotation when they are DIFFERENT from each other?
At least one is FALSE.

Anyway - it's a SAYING from Jesus - so what?
That's not historical evidence for a life of Jesus.
Sherlock Holmes has sayings too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

This evidence is more than enough to establish that Clement was well aware and accepting of the Christian myths of the human earthly teachings of Jesus. This is strong evidence, and it is neither merely "possible" nor "minimal." In the study of ancient history, "possible minimal" evidence is evidence that we no longer have.

So Clement knew variant sayings which were attributed to Jesus?
So what?
Nothing to do with a historical life of Jesus.

K.

Gday Vork :-)
Great to see you here again.
(Iasion here)

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2011, 11:20 PM

I really do think it is essential and obvious that 1 Clement 16 is built on Isaiah 53, with a little Psalm 22 thrown in. Clement wrote as he did in order to match Jesus to those Hebrew scriptures. He was apparently looking at the Hebrew scriptures at the time he wrote it, so it should be no surprise that he uses that language.

The two sets of passages are so similar that we can do redactional criticism--comparing the two passages and analyzing the similarities and differences. Through this, we can make very good estimates about what was going through the mind of Clement, by seeing what he added, omitted and edited. It is a way to analyze not just Clement but the mythical development of the Christian religion, because Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 had a fundamental impact.

For Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, I will use the Septuagint translated to English by Brenton 1851. For 1 Clement 16, I will use the Hoole 1885 translation. I wish I had more modern authoritative translations, but for now I'll go with what I have. Please let me know if you have better sources.

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Isaiah 53+Psalm 22
|
{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}1 Clement 16
||
O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
|
For he saith, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
||
We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land:
|
Like a child have we delivered our message before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land.
||
he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
|
There is no form nor glory in him, and we beheld him, and he had neither form nor comeliness,
||
But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men;
|
but his form was despised, lacking comeliness, beyond the form of the sons of men.
||
he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.
|
He was a man stricken and in toil, knowing how to bear infirmity, for his face was turned away; it was dishonoured and held in no reputation.
||
He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
|
He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted.
||
But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities:
|
He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity;
||
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.
|
the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed.
||
All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.
|
All we, like sheep, have gone astray, every one hath erred in his own way, and the Lord hath given him up for our sins;
||
And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth:
|
and he, through affliction, openeth not his mouth.
||
he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
|
He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so openeth he not his mouth.
||
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation?
|
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away, and who shall declare his generation,
||
for his life is taken away from the earth:
|
for his life is taken from the earth;
||
because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.
|
for the iniquity of my people he hath come unto death.
||
And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death;
|
And I will give the wicked in requital for his burial, and the rich for his death:
||
for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.
|
for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth
||
The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke.
|
and the Lord willeth to purify him from stripes.
||
If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
|
If ye make an offering for sin your soul shall prolong its days.
||
the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding;
|
And the Lord willeth to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light and to form him by knowledge,
||
to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.
|
to justify the righteous man who serveth many well; and their sins he shall bear himself.
||
Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty;
|
Wherefore he shall receive the inheritance of many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong,
||
because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors;
|
because his soul was delivered up unto death, and he was numbered among the transgressors,
||
and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.
|
and he bore the sins of many, and was given up for their sins.
||
But I am a worm, and not a man; a reproach of men, and scorn of the people.
|
And again he saith, I am a worm and no man -- a reproach of men and despised of the people;
||
All that saw me mocked me: they spoke with their lips, they shook the head, saying,
|
all they who saw me mocked me, they spake with their lips, they shook the head;
||
He hoped in the Lord: let him deliver him, let him save him, because he takes pleasure in him.
|
he hoped in God, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he desireth him.
[/T2]

I have highlighted in red some of the relevant seeming redactions. My analysis is contained in the list below.

his face is turned from us vs. his face was turned away -- For Clement to say that Jesus's face was turned from us would imply that Jesus was did not want to make a eye contact with Christians. Clement changed it to the more neutral turned away.
bruised -- Clement many times changes bruises to stripes or other inflictions. There are no bruises in the gospel passion narratives.
he was led vs. he hath come -- Clement believes it is more theologically acceptable for the death of Jesus to be a natural consequence of sin than God's will.
your soul shall see a long-lived seed vs. your soul shall prolong its days vs. -- Isaiah 53 was intended as encouragement for the nation of Israel getting out of enslavement by the Babylonians. One of the encouraging points was the assurance that their descendants would live long and prosper. Clement spins it another way: your soul, not the seed of your soul, will live long.
form him with understanding vs. form him by knowledge -- There is a difference in pronouns: with and by. According to Isaiah 53, the suffering servant would be formed with understanding after the punishment. But, Jesus according to the thinking of Clement had understanding before and after the punishment. So, Jesus is instead formed by knowledge, not with knowledge.
was delivered vs. was given up -- According to Clement, God didn't deliver Jesus to death. God gave up Jesus to death because of the natural consequences of sin.
because he takes pleasure in him vs. because he desireth him -- The point of the Christian faith is adherence to the will of God, not necessarily pleasure in God. Jesus and Christians were persecuted for their desire to follow only God, not for their pleasure in God, so Clement made the adjustment.

So, it seems clear that, when Clement finds something in Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 that he finds inconsistent with his ideas of Jesus, then he makes no bones about changing it to make the perceived prophecies consistent with his ideas of Jesus.

And, apparently (this is the important point), Clement did NOT change the part about, "...for his life is taken away from the earth..." He maintained the near-exact wording and exactly the same meaning. Clement believed that Jesus existed on earth. Otherwise, it would have been just as easy for Clement to change that bit as any other.

For Kapyong, Steven Carr, et al: this has nothing to do with an argument for the existence of a historical Jesus. Instead, this is about the critical review of an a claim that the evidence suits Earl Doherty's theory that early Christians including Clement believed in a merely-spiritual Jesus Christ.

aa5874 · 05-30-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....And, apparently (this is the important point), Clement did NOT change the part about, "...for his life is taken away from the earth..." He maintained the near-exact wording and exactly the same meaning. Clement believed that Jesus existed on earth. Otherwise, it would have been just as easy for Clement to change that bit as any other....

Again, it is a COMPLETE waste of time when you ATTEMPT to use Clement of Rome to SUPPORT the HERESY that Jesus was just a man.

Jesus BELIEVERS of Antiquity OBVIOUSLY BELIEVED their Jesus EXISTED as GOD INCARNATE or the Child of a Holy Ghost without a human father and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Clement of Rome was SIMPLY Not listed as a Heretic or preached the Heresy that Jesus was just an ordinary man with a human father.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....For Kapyong, Steven Carr, et al: this has nothing to do with an argument for the existence of a historical Jesus. Instead, this is about the critical review of an a claim that the evidence suits Earl Doherty's theory that early Christians including Clement believed in a merely-spiritual Jesus Christ.

You seem to have ZERO understanding of the HJ argument. The claims by Doherty do NOT at all affect the MYTH Jesus argument or the HJ argument because HJers have NO evidence for HJ who was just a man.

Whether Doherty is right or wrong, HJers have ZERO evidence from antiquity for what they say about HJ.

HJ cannot EXIST as human by DEFAULT when Jesus was ACTUALLY described as a Ghost by MULTIPLE authors.

It is the actual written EVIDENCE from antiquity that REMAINS by DEFAULT.

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost by DEFAULT.

If there is NO CREDIBLE evidence from antiquity to contradict Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.49. Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1 then Jesus can be REASONABLY consider a MYTH.

I don't want to hear about some EXPERT OPINION because EXPERTS can use the very same DATA to make OPPOSING opinions.

I just want to see the ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity and I have seen enough. Jesus was a GHOST story like Marcion's PHANTOM myth fable.

05-30-2011, 11:20 PM	#9
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I really do think it is essential and obvious that 1 Clement 16 is built on Isaiah 53, with a little Psalm 22 thrown in. Clement wrote as he did in order to match Jesus to those Hebrew scriptures. He was apparently looking at the Hebrew scriptures at the time he wrote it, so it should be no surprise that he uses that language. The two sets of passages are so similar that we can do redactional criticism--comparing the two passages and analyzing the similarities and differences. Through this, we can make very good estimates about what was going through the mind of Clement, by seeing what he added, omitted and edited. It is a way to analyze not just Clement but the mythical development of the Christian religion, because Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 had a fundamental impact. For Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, I will use the Septuagint translated to English by Brenton 1851. For 1 Clement 16, I will use the Hoole 1885 translation. I wish I had more modern authoritative translations, but for now I'll go with what I have. Please let me know if you have better sources. [T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Isaiah 53+Psalm 22 \| {c:bg=slategray;ah=center}1 Clement 16 \|\| O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? \| For he saith, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? \|\| We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: \| Like a child have we delivered our message before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land. \|\| he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. \| There is no form nor glory in him, and we beheld him, and he had neither form nor comeliness, \|\| But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; \| but his form was despised, lacking comeliness, beyond the form of the sons of men. \|\| he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed. \| He was a man stricken and in toil, knowing how to bear infirmity, for his face was turned away; it was dishonoured and held in no reputation. \|\| He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. \| He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted. \|\| But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: \| He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity; \|\| the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed. \| the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed. \|\| All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins. \| All we, like sheep, have gone astray, every one hath erred in his own way, and the Lord hath given him up for our sins; \|\| And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: \| and he, through affliction, openeth not his mouth. \|\| he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. \| He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so openeth he not his mouth. \|\| In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? \| In his humiliation his judgment was taken away, and who shall declare his generation, \|\| for his life is taken away from the earth: \| for his life is taken from the earth; \|\| because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death. \| for the iniquity of my people he hath come unto death. \|\| And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; \| And I will give the wicked in requital for his burial, and the rich for his death: \|\| for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth. \| for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth \|\| The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. \| and the Lord willeth to purify him from stripes. \|\| If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: \| If ye make an offering for sin your soul shall prolong its days. \|\| the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; \| And the Lord willeth to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light and to form him by knowledge, \|\| to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. \| to justify the righteous man who serveth many well; and their sins he shall bear himself. \|\| Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; \| Wherefore he shall receive the inheritance of many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong, \|\| because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; \| because his soul was delivered up unto death, and he was numbered among the transgressors, \|\| and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities. \| and he bore the sins of many, and was given up for their sins. \|\| But I am a worm, and not a man; a reproach of men, and scorn of the people. \| And again he saith, I am a worm and no man -- a reproach of men and despised of the people; \|\| All that saw me mocked me: they spoke with their lips, they shook the head, saying, \| all they who saw me mocked me, they spake with their lips, they shook the head; \|\| He hoped in the Lord: let him deliver him, let him save him, because he takes pleasure in him. \| he hoped in God, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he desireth him. [/T2] I have highlighted in red some of the relevant seeming redactions. My analysis is contained in the list below. his face is turned from us vs. his face was turned away -- For Clement to say that Jesus's face was turned from us would imply that Jesus was did not want to make a eye contact with Christians. Clement changed it to the more neutral turned away. bruised -- Clement many times changes bruises to stripes or other inflictions. There are no bruises in the gospel passion narratives. he was led vs. he hath come -- Clement believes it is more theologically acceptable for the death of Jesus to be a natural consequence of sin than God's will. your soul shall see a long-lived seed vs. your soul shall prolong its days vs. -- Isaiah 53 was intended as encouragement for the nation of Israel getting out of enslavement by the Babylonians. One of the encouraging points was the assurance that their descendants would live long and prosper. Clement spins it another way: your soul, not the seed of your soul, will live long. form him with understanding vs. form him by knowledge -- There is a difference in pronouns: with and by. According to Isaiah 53, the suffering servant would be formed with understanding after the punishment. But, Jesus according to the thinking of Clement had understanding before and after the punishment. So, Jesus is instead formed by knowledge, not with knowledge. was delivered vs. was given up -- According to Clement, God didn't deliver Jesus to death. God gave up Jesus to death because of the natural consequences of sin. because he takes pleasure in him vs. because he desireth him -- The point of the Christian faith is adherence to the will of God, not necessarily pleasure in God. Jesus and Christians were persecuted for their desire to follow only God, not for their pleasure in God, so Clement made the adjustment. So, it seems clear that, when Clement finds something in Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 that he finds inconsistent with his ideas of Jesus, then he makes no bones about changing it to make the perceived prophecies consistent with his ideas of Jesus. And, apparently (this is the important point), Clement did NOT change the part about, "...for his life is taken away from the earth..." He maintained the near-exact wording and exactly the same meaning. Clement believed that Jesus existed on earth. Otherwise, it would have been just as easy for Clement to change that bit as any other. For Kapyong, Steven Carr, et al: this has nothing to do with an argument for the existence of a historical Jesus. Instead, this is about the critical review of an a claim that the evidence suits Earl Doherty's theory that early Christians including Clement believed in a merely-spiritual Jesus Christ.

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

05-30-2011, 03:25 PM	#1
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	"Silence" of the early non-canon and Clement, (Doug Shaver's "difficulty" #2) This is a followup to an earlier thread, The early Christian "silence" of the life of Jesus (Doug Shaver's "difficulty" #1), where I begin to analyze and criticize the "probabilistic difficulties" proposed by Doug Shaver (and Earl Doherty), in his web page, "What's wrong with the picture?" of the website, "Was there a real Jesus?". I have moved on to the second item in the list. Probabilistic Difficulty #2: In noncanonical Christian writings, there are no unambiguous biographical references to Jesus earlier than Ignatius' in the early second century, and his remarks are little more than a bare assertion that Jesus did have an earthly existence. Before Ignatius, with a possible minimal exception in Clement, there are no references to Jesus' ministry, his teachings, his miracles, or anything else he might have said or done prior to his death. There is no reference to his trial by the Romans or to the role of Jewish authorities in instigating it. No teaching is attributed to him. No document for which there is incontestable evidence of first-century Christian provenance says anything more about Jesus than what is found in Paul's writings. Even into the second century, nothing more substantial than Ignatius' comments appears until after the existence of the gospels is clearly attested. Unambiguous First of all, the use of the word, "unambiguous," in the claim concerning "...unambiguous biographical references to Jesus..." is key, since we most certainly have such biographical references to Jesus, but the evidence is ambiguous. Almost all religious text of any sort in ancient history is ambiguous--that is a very persistent theme, given the subjective and mystery-filled nature of the evidence. But, if Doug Shaver claims silence and then claims it is a problem, then maybe the problem of silence can be much more easily solved by interpreting the ambiguous biographical references to Jesus in favor of actual biographical references to Jesus. A much bigger problem of silence could be claimed only if there are no biographical references to Jesus of any ambiguous quality. For such reasons, a new and bizarre theory most often bears the punishment of ambiguity in the evidence, receiving no proper benefit of being able to interpret the ambiguous evidence in favor of the new and bizarre theory. With that in mind... Possible minimal exceptions I think the biggest fallacy here, as covered in my criticism of Probabilistic difficulty #1, is the underestimation of the value of scant evidence. Per the homepage of EarlyChristianWritings.com, the following list contains all of the extant noncanonical Christian writings uncontestedly written before Ignatius (105-115 CE): Ø It is an empty list. However, there are a handful of writings that can be reasonably argued to be dated before Ignatius: Didache (50-120 CE) Gospel of Thomas (50-140 CE) The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel (50-140 CE) The Apocalypse of John (90-95 CE) 1 Clement (80-140 CE) Out of these five probably-pre-Ignatius noncanonical Christian writings, none of them are seemingly silent about the life of Jesus (even if such evidence could be seen as "ambiguous"). Didache: "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation. Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever." See also Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. The whole Gospel of Thomas is a narrative of the life of Jesus. The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel: "When the scribes and Pharisees and priests saw him, they were angry that he was reclining in the midst of sinners. But when Jesus heard, he said, 'Those who are healthy have no need of a physician ... and pray for your enemies. For the one who is not against you is for you. The one who is far away today, tomorrow will be near you and in...'" The Apocalypse of John: "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen." Clement Clement of Rome (not Clement of Alexandria) wrote in Chapter 13 of The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, translated by Charles H. Hoole, 1885: 13:1 Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus: 13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you. This quotation of Jesus is also found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, sourced from the gospel of Q. According to the gospel of Luke: 6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 6:38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back." This evidence is more than enough to establish that Clement was well aware and accepting of the Christian myths of the human earthly teachings of Jesus. This is strong evidence, and it is neither merely "possible" nor "minimal." In the study of ancient history, "possible minimal" evidence is evidence that we no longer have. Shaver's and Doherty's solution: spiritual realm So what is really the problem? Whatever the problem is, Doug Shaver's solution is that "The savior in whom the first known Christians had their faith was not a man who had lived in Galilee or anywhere else in this world. He was a mythical figure inhabiting a spiritual realm thought to be in many ways parallel to the one we recognize with our senses." But, evidence needs to be taken seriously, even if you don't like it, not pushed to the side and ignored for the sake of a theory that forcibly explains only a fraction of the evidence. Exploring the epistle of 1 Clement further, we find more evidence about the myth of the earthly existence of Jesus apparently accepted by Clement (emphasis added): 16:1 For Christ belongeth unto them that are humble, not unto them that exalt themselves over his flock. 16:2 Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the sceptre of the majesty of God, came not in the arrogance of boasting and pride, though he was able to do so; but in humility, even as the Holy Spirit spake concerning him. 16:3 For he saith, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Like a child have we delivered our message before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land. There is no form nor glory in him, and we beheld him, and he had neither form nor comeliness, but his form was despised, lacking comeliness, beyond the form of the sons of men. He was a man stricken and in toil, knowing how to bear infirmity, for his face was turned away; it was dishonoured and held in no reputation. 16:4 He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted. 16:5 He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed. 16:6 All we, like sheep, have gone astray, every one hath erred in his own way, 16:7 and the Lord hath given him up for our sins; and he, through affliction, openeth not his mouth. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so openeth he not his mouth. 16:8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away, and who shall declare his generation, for his life is taken from the earth; 16:9 for the iniquity of my people he hath come unto death. 16:10 And I will give the wicked in requital for his burial, and the rich for his death: for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: and the Lord willeth to purify him from stripes. 16:11 If ye make an offering for sin your soul shall prolong its days. 16:12 And the Lord willeth to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light and to form him by knowledge, to justify the righteous man who serveth many well; and their sins he shall bear himself. 16:13 Wherefore he shall receive the inheritance of many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because his soul was delivered up unto death, and he was numbered among the transgressors, 16:14 and he bore the sins of many, and was given up for their sins. 16:15 And again he saith, I am a worm and no man -- a reproach of men and despised of the people; 16:16 all they who saw me mocked me, they spake with their lips, they shook the head; he hoped in God, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he desireth him. 16:17 See, beloved, what is the example that hath been given unto us; for if the Lord so humbled himself, what shall we do who have through his mercy come under the yoke of his grace? The word, "earth," in verse 16:8, "...for his life is taken from the earth," is the universally-accepted translation. This is evidence damningly against the solution proposed by Doug Shaver, because it is difficult to imagine how Clememt could have written any more clearly on the issue of whether Jesus died on earth or in "a spiritual realm." It is surprising, then, that Earl Doherty himself glazes over this evidence in his Jesus Puzzle website, as he, like Doug Shaver, claims that Clement believed in a merely-spiritual Jesus (Supplementary Article No. 12, Part One: 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas). Conclusion The "silence" about the life of Jesus contained in the early noncanonical Christian writings seems to be little more than a modern creation resting on loose interpretations of the evidence. Perhaps, in his latest book, Earl Doherty has done very well to mend these holes in his solution. If so, I would be happy to hear about it. I am likewise happy to hear about other perceived problems in my analysis.

05-30-2011, 04:30 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Right, because when we describe people who lived on earth, we often say "there was no form in him." "for his like is taken away from the earth" appears to say that we on earth no longer have access to him. The writer then breaks into a rap with many earthly details about people who lived on earth, in the OT. None of those details are found in his description of Jesus. The conclusion is obvious. There is nothing in 1 Clem inconsistent with Doherty's thesis.

05-30-2011, 07:11 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Doherty lists the language that would be expected if Clement knew anything about a historical Jesus. All Clement seems to know is the language of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.