TedM

Earl Doherty, at www.jesuspuzzle.org, identifies 12 important pieces to the puzzle, which he believes are best explained by a Jesus who never actually existed. Herein is a response to the first piece of the puzzle, a 'conspiracy' of silence. I'm no scholar or historian, nor do I know Greek. I'm just an amateur seeking a proper perspective on Mr. Doherty's innovative theories.


DOHERTY: The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.
[See "Part One" of the Main Articles]


OBJECTIONS


1. While pre-Markan writings are silent with regard to many aspects of the Gospel Jesus, the determination of how 'pervasive' silences are depends on how one interprets a large number of passages which can be interpreted as corroberating a man who lived and died on earth and in some instances resembles Jesus of the Gospels, and the issues Doherty mentions above. IOW the picture of the pre-Markan Jesus is highly variable depending on how the following passages are treated. Doherty interprets all within the framework of a non-existent human Jesus. As such he interprets contrary-sounding passages metaphorically instead of literally, as post-gospel interpolations or originals, as products of creation through scriptural or visionary revelation, or as describing events believed to have occurred in another sphere which is a more perfect version of earth. Only such a wide selection of alternatives makes his new paradigm possible. The purpose of this objection is not to review the merit of Mr. Doherty's explanations for each of these items which potentially go against his paradigm, but to illustrate just how many of them there are. It should be obvious from looking at them that there is a lot that needs to be given a plausible non-orthodox interpretation in order to fit the paradigm.

In addition to Paul's writings, passages are included from 1 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews, and the Didache which may all be partially or wholly pre-Markan or unaware of Mark according to Doherty. These are all writings that Mr. Doherty appeals to to illustrate the silences of the early Christian record. 1 Clement is also included because Doherty includes this this as an example of an early writing unfamiliar with certain gospel traditions:



ORIGINS

He came into the world (earth) (implied in Hebrews & 1 John, explicit in 1 Clement) (Hebrews 9:28, 1 Clement 16:8, 1 John 3:1)

He was born of a woman (not a human woman?) (Gal 4:4)

He lived in a body of flesh and blood, or the sphere of the flesh. (Rom 1:3,3:25, 5:9, 7:4 8:3, 9:4-5a, 1 Cor 11:24,27, Phil 2:7,8, Col 1:20,22, 1 Peter 3:18, 4:1, 1 John 4:2, 5:1, Hebrews 2:14, 5:7, 10:20, 1 Clement 49:6 ) *(Note that Paul uses the same term 'kata sarka' for humans which he uses for Jesus in Rom 4:1,8:13,1 Cor 1:26, and 1 Cor 10:18.) Some interesting discussions about the meaning and alleged uniqueness of the phrases 'kata sarka' and 'ensarka'can be found at here , here, and here.

He partook of the same nature as man (Hebrews 2:14,17)

He was vulnerable like humans in every respect (Hebrews 2:17, 4:15)

He was Jewish (meant allegorically?) (Rom 9:5, Gal 4:4)

He was descended from King David. (Rom 1:3,15:12, Didache 10:4 'Son of David'), in the line of Judah (Hebrews 7:14)

He was a man (human or only 'heavenly'?) (Rom 5:15-19, 1 Cor 15:20-21, 15:45, 47,47,49 )

He had brothers, and one was named James. (if 'Lord' applies) (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19) Note: Peter and John weren't mentioned in the same contexts as a 'brother'

He was poor. (materially or metaphorically?--context implies materially) (2 Cor 8:9)



CHARACTER

He was meek and gentle. (2 Cor 10:1)

He was sinless (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, Hebrews 4:15)

He was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)

God dwelt in him (Col 2:9)

He referred to God as his Father, using the term "Abba". (Gal 4:6)

He did not live to please himself, but only God. (Rom 15:3)

He came to be a servant to the Jews. (Rom 15:8)

He was "the Righteous" (1 John 2:1)

He walked (lived) as an example (1 John 2:6)

He reflected God's very nature (Hebrews 1:3)

He declared God's salvation (if 'Lord' applies) (Hebrews 2:3)

He was made perfect through his obedient suffering (Hebrews 5:9)



FOLLOWERS

He had apostles (maybe 12?) Title for the Didache

He was seen, heard and touched by the author of 1 John and others (if 'Word' is referring to Jesus) (1 John 1:1)

His sufferings were witnessed by Peter (if authentic) (1 Peter 1:1, 5:1)

He was heard by others (if 'Lord' applies) (Hebrews 2:3)

He had apostles whom he charged to spread his message (1 Clement 42:3)

A group called "the twelve" testified to his having appeared them after death. (1 Cor 15:5)


TEACHINGS

He taught sound principles of godly doctrine (If 1 Timothy is authentic) (1 Tim 6:3)

He somehow persuaded Paul that things are not sinful or unclean but that it is man's thoughts that makes them so. (Rom 14:4, teaching or revelation?)

He taught that divorce is forbidden (if 'Lord' applies) (1 Cor 5:7)

He taught that preachers of the gospel should be paid (if 'Lord' applies)(1 Cor 9:14)

He taught that upon his coming the dead shall precede the living to gather with him in the air. (if 'Lord' applies) (1 Thess 4:15)

He initiated a ritual, teaching a way to be remembered after he was crucified, until the future kingdom. (agrees with gospels, but missing references to disciples) (Paul refers to this as info indirectly given to him from the 'Lord', which is not inconsistent with receipt of second-hand information) (1 Cor 11:23)

It is implied that he ate and drank. (1 Cor 11:23)

He taught about God's purity and walking in the light (1 John 1:5)

He promised eternal life (1 John 2:25)

His was a message of brotherly love (1 John 3:1, 3:23)

He was a teacher (Didache 4:1)

He had a gospel (Didache 8:2 11:3 15:3,4)

His gospel included the Lord's prayer in full (Didache 8:2)

He said the following concerning the Eucharist: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs" (saying is used in gospels also, though different context) (Didache 9:5)

He is associated with the Eucharist as the source of everlasting life (1 Cor 11:23-25 Didache 10:3)

His gospel included instructions regarding the treatment of apostles and prophets (Didache 11:3)

His gospel included instructions to rebuke one another not in wrath, but peaceably (Didache 15:3)

A number of sayings in the Didache, which elsewhere attributes a gospel to Jesus (see directly above) match the gospels, but without attribution to Jesus, such as:
Love God, your neighbor, the golden rule
Pray for your enemies, turn the cheek 1:3,4
The meek shall inherit the earth 3:7
No one knows the hour of his return 16:1

He was a holy teacher, giving commandments (1 Clement 13:3, 49:1)

He taught others forbearance and long-suffering (1 Clement 13:1)

He taught "Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy...." (1 Clement 13:2)

He taught about those that cause others to lose faith "Woe unto that man..." (1 Clement 46:8)



MIRACLES

His message was proved by signs, wonders, and miracles (if 'Lord' applies) (Hebrews 2:4)


DEATH

As death approached he prayed with loud cries and tears (Hebrews 5:7)

The world didn't know who he really was (1 John 3:1)

He was delivered up to be crucified (arrested?, betrayed?) at nighttime. (1 Cor 11:23, Gal 2:20, 3:1)

He willingly humbled himself as a sacrifice. (Rom 5:18, Phil 2:8, Hebrews 7:27, 9:26)

He testified before Pilate (is 1 Tim authentic?) (1 Tim 6:13)

His sufferings were witnessed by Peter (if authentic and pre-Markan) (1 Peter 1:1, 5:1)

He didn't lie, threaten or fight back, but trusted God (at trial?) (1 Peter) 2:22-23

He was rejected as an outcast of the people, mocked (1 Clement 16:3,15,16)

He suffered, shedding his blood to death through the hanging on a cross--sometimes also called a tree (Rom 6:6 8:17, 1 Cor 1:13,17,18,23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 1:5, 13:4, Gal 2:20, 3:1, 3:13, 5:11, 6:12,14, Phil 2:8, 3:10, Col 1:22 1 Peter 2:24 (1 John 1:7, 2:2, 3:16, 4:10-doesn't mention cross though, Hebrews 12:2, 1 Clement 16:4, 49:6)

He had nails driven into him. (Col 2:14)

He was put to death by others (people or demons?) Rom 4:25

Sinners were hostile toward him (who and where were these sinners?) (Hebrews 12:3)

Rulers crucified him, unaware of who he really was (people or demons?-context is about human wisdom vs God's wisdom found in people) (1 Cor 2:8)

The Jews were responsible for his death. (if not interpolated) (1 Thess 2:15)

He was crucified in Jerusalem. (Rom 9:33, 11:26, see Gal 5:11)

He shed his blood outside the city gate (Jerusalem implied) (Hebrews 13:12)

He was crucified during the Passover event. (if 'paschal lamb' is taken literally) (1 Cor 5:7)

His death occurred on earth (1 Clement 16:8)

He was made perfect through his obedient suffering (Hebrews 5:9)

He was buried. (Rom 6:4, 1 Cor 15:4)



Note that every single item above that relates to the person of Jesus is either similar to or exactly the same as what is found in the gospels! Also note that with few exceptions these sources don't refer to Jesus in ways that are inconsistent with the gospels.

Is it really accurate to say "The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels"? Is it reasonable to conclude that all of these are to be explained away so that they too become silences and are inapplicable to a historical person?



2. The strength of an argument from silence is dependant upon how strong a case can be made that one should not expect silence. These authors weren't writing in order to explain to people who Jesus was. They were writing to address specific concerns of communities. As such, it is not always reasonable to expect to see certain confirmations of the gospel stories. Such expectations may not fit the contexts. My site here discusses this issue as it pertains to the Doherty's list of Top 20 Silences in the early record.

Another factor to consider is the personality of the author. Paul may have been personally less interested in Jesus' sayings and doings during a short ministry than the actual meaning of his death and resurrection. He seems to imply such a philosophy in 1 Cor 2:2 "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified". Paul may also have been motivated to downplay events of Jesus' life because he was opposed by some who had known Jesus (possibly even those closest to Jesus) whereas Paul likely never met Jesus. IOW Paul's focus on the resurrection fit in better with his message of salvation to the Gentiles than would a focus on the person of Jesus if Jesus' Jewishness were being stressed by the early followers in Jerusalem.

In addition, the length of works is a factor. Paul's 'genuine' writings only cover about 70 pages, and while he writes about issues that don't require much mention of Jesus' earthly life, he still manages to refer to Jesus as if he was a human over 90 times, without ever saying otherwise!

ted

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted,

I assume you searched very hard for this stuff. There is not a single discussion of any action of Jesus from the gospels in any of this. For example, we should expect to hear someone discussing if John or Mark was right about if he died the day before Passover or on Passover. That and a thousand other contradictorary and strange passages and points should have been refered to and explained or debated in any early literature.

Since we know that Jews were talking about many messianic figures (both real and imaginary) in the first century, statements like the ones you present (He was Jewish, He was born of a woman...etc.) are exactly what one should find if the Jesus story was unknown in the First century, just a bunch of disconnected, singular references to attributes of a possible past and future messiah, untied to any discussion of any particular text or author. I think you have showed the strength of Doherty's case here.

One can find references in Nietzsche and pre-1938 Nazi literature to "the Superman," One could pick out a whole list of them that would seem to match the comic-book character "Superman". Rather than demonstrate that they knew the narrative, this would only demonstrate that the narrative was possibly influenced by their writings.

For example, take this quote from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra:"

The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

We know that Superman/Clark Kent did not fly, but hopped (at least in the early issues of the comic-book). We know that Superman/Clark Kent was the last man of his race and thus his race was ineradicable. This does not demonstrate in the least that Nietzsche who died in 1900 had any acquaintance with the comic-book character who first appeared in 1938.

In the same way the list of coincidental descriptives that may be applied to the gospel messianic character/s do not demonstrate any real knowledge of him/them.


Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

NatSciNarg

Who wrote Hebrews? As I understand things, Paul is not considered the author of Hebrews, so why should we think that the author of Hebrews was talking about the same person/entity as the author of Corinthians/Romans/Galatians? Perhaps the author of Hebrews had a radically different idea of his saviour to Paul. Perhaps they were talking about different people/entities.

Matthew

TedM

Hi Jay. It took some time a few years ago, but this time around all I had to do was rearrange it.

If you are referring to an expectation of a discussion of unusual or debatable issues about Jesus' life one thing to consider is that the gospels made such discussions more likely because they could be compared and were likely written in different communities. Prior to the time in which they were widely distributed the number of such issues might have been be much smaller. Another thing to consider is the possibility that some such issues were discussed, but that the purpose of the the early writings that have remained was to address some of the hundreds of other issues unrelated to such disputes. If Paul believed and taught that Jesus was a paschal lamb sacrifice, for example, why should he be expected to discuss whether Jesus was crucified the night before or the day of--especially if we don't know that Paul had even heard about such a dispute prior to John's writing?

We can find reasonable OT support for some of the general statements that might apply to a particular kind of Messiah. If ALL of these statements fit into that category, I'd agree with you readily. However, many don't. There is no OT support for many of the other statements, some of which are more detailed (he lived in poverty, details regarding his Last Supper account, James the Lord's brother, he prayed with loud cries and tears, testified before Pilate), and others which are explicit (all but Peter refer to him as having been a teacher, and Clement and the Didache include actual quotes attibuted to Jesus, some of Paul's references match the gospels and not the OT).

Many seem bizarre if applied to Doherty's contention that the location for the original Jesus was not intended to have been on earth: 1 John and Hebrews seem to imply earth, and 1 Clement actually says it, and if the sacrifice of Hebrews was in heaven, where were the sinners that were hostile to him?. Lastly, 2 of the authors might be saying they actually knew Jesus, and the author of Hebrews might be saying that he knew others who knew Jesus, as Paul too might be implying when he says he met James.

So, I don't think it is accurate to say that ALL of these statements "are exactly what one should find if the Jesus story was unknown in the First century". As I said in the OP, Doherty has to rely on a number of alternatives in order to make all of these kinds of statements fit his paradigm. It is much simpler to conclude that most of them originated from the same basic fact--Jesus existed and was known to have done certain things, some of which these authors mention or allude to even though their writings are for entirely different purposes.



What you have just done is validate the first objection, which basically says that there are a number of things which could be considered to NOT be silences about the gospel Jesus. You are saying they likely all came together to influence the gospels, which means that they do corroberate alleged history as described in the gospels, whether that was their intention or not. Doherty is saying there is a conspiracy of silence. Obviously there are many items that corroberate the gospel Jesus--at least the belief that Jesus had been on earth.

So, where is the conspiracy of silence? I think you would answer that the level of expected detail is missing. I would agree that it would have been very helpful if one of them said something like "when Jesus was teaching in Galilee" or "when Jesus and his disciples entered into Jerusalem". The absence of such is helpful to Doherty's case. However, it still remains that the many items that are dismissed by Doherty as not really corroberating the gospels for one reason or another certainly can be seen as corroberating the gospels according to other reasonable interpretations. As such, the silence is not necessarily as great as Doherty would have us believe.

Thanks for your thoughts,

ted

TedM

Hi Matthew. That's a good point. I think he is talking about the same savior, as the name of him and description of him is pretty close--crucified for sins in Jerusalem, resurrected and expected to come again. It is certainly possible that they had some different ideas about him though. However, the ideas corroberate the gospels, which is my objection to the supposed silence of the early Christian record which Doherty says includes both Hebrews and Paul's works. p.s. No one knows who wrote Hebrews, but I think Bartholemew has been suggested due to his strong Jewish orientation.

RUmike

What makes you think that any one early community would necessarily have more than gospel on hand?

TedM

This was a mistake. To my knowledge only 1 Cor 11:23 says the crucifixion was at night.

Steven Carr

Here is Galatians 4:6 and it is obvious that only a twisted mind can see a reference to a physical Jesus on earth in the past, rather than a reference to a spirit in the present :-
6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

Presumably the contested idea of a general resurrection of believers, denied by churches in Thessalonica and Corinth, was an issue that didn't require Paul to say that Jesus had proved the resurrection in Matthew 22 and had promised eternal life in John.

Romans 15:8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written...

When did Christ become a servant of the Jews? There is nothing in Romans 15 about a Christ on earth.
Here is Colossians 2:14

He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

What was nailed to the cross? Ted can take a passage which says 'nailed it to the cross' and tell us that the passage says Jesus was nailed to a cross.

2 Peter 3 pretty much sums up Ted's post :-
'His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.'

This forum is meant for serious discussion. I don't want to read huge posts full of twisted references to Biblical passages, where people are expected to go through each one, and correct the mis-interpretations.

It just makes the forum a waste of time, if people can't read before posting.

TedM

Thanks for the 'twisted mind reference'. Nice. Anyway, I agree that this isn't obvious, but what you are not giving any attention to here is the use of an Aramaic term(which Jesus would have spoken), as Paul and the Didach also do when they say "Maranatha"! (our Lord come). Since Jesus is specifically said in the gospels to have referred to God as "Abba", this is a potential reference. The tense isn't clearly only limited to the present, since Paul believed that the Spirit was also in 'his Son' and since Paul most likely believed that the Son had lived on earth (not some other realm) at least sometime in the past.

You are correct in (sarcastically) saying that Paul wasn't 'required' to say those things. If you require Paul to have said certain things in order to conclude that Jesus really had been a historical person then it really doesn't matter what ELSE Paul and others said Jesus did and said--even if all of them appear to have placed him on earth, does it?


Why does Paul have to explicity state that Christ was on earth when he makes a statement about Christ? What a strange requirement. The RSV says "became", which makes the most sense because Christ pre-existed Paul.

Obviously, Christ was nailed to the cross if he was crucified and Paul is saying that the written code was metaphorically nailed to it with him. I'll agree though that Paul doesn't directly say that Christ was nailed to the cross. It certainly is implied though.

You are entitled to your opinion. I noticed you ignored the more obvious references which more clearly put him on earth in favor of these less clear references which are more legitimately subject to alternative interpretations. If you are going to pick out some and criticize me why don't you pick out a range of them which include both the very questionable and the ones that clearly refer to a gospel Jesus in order to present a balanced arguement against the validity of my post?

My post was not meant as a challenge for you to find which ones are less likely to apply to a gospel or historical Jesus, but rather to list all of the ones for which such an interpretation is possible. Doherty verly likely is correct with regard to a number of his interpretations. However, he would have to be correct with regard to all of them--which IMO is unlikely--in order to make his paradigm accurate. That is my point.

ted

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rumike,

Even in any single gospel there are immediate bizarre happenings and contradictions that would have needed explication. For example, take the first 13 lines of the Gospel of Mark:


1.1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 1.2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; 1.3the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight--" 1.4John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 1.5And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 1.6Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.
§ John Preaches a Messiah
1.7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 1.8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
§ The Baptism of Jesus
1.9In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 1.10And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 1.11and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
§ The Temptation
1.12The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 1.13And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

Line 4.1 says John was in the wilderness baptizing and line 1.9 has Jesus presumably going into the wilderness to be baptized by him. But line 1.12 says the spirit immediately drove him "out into the wilderness" If you're in the wilderness" already, how can you be "driven out into the wilderness?"

Why did God have John preach a baptism of water and wait until later to preach a baptism of Holy Spirit? Why not have John preach a baptism of Holy Spirit. Why the two stage baptism?

In line 1.5, it says that all of the people of Judea went out to John to be baptized. In line 1.9, it says that Jesus came from Nazareth. Does this mean he was originally from Nazareth and was staying in Judea when he went to be baptized? Did he just follow the crowd? Or did he come directly from Nazareth and make the trip by himself? In which case, why didn't Mark say that people from Judea and people, or at least one person from Nazareth, made the trip.

Was the voice from heaven directed at the dove or the man. If he was well pleased with him, why did he send a dove down to drive him into the wilderness instead of simply asking him to go. Why wasn't God "well pleased" with John. It was John who was doing God's work, what did Jesus do? Did just Jesus see the dove or did everybody who was there see it?

Did the spirit look like a dove and land on his shoulder or was it actually a dove? Did it peck at him to drive him into the wilderness? Why didn't the other people being baptized help him and drive the dove off? What was John's reaction to this. Did John know that this was the person who was to baptize with fire before he baptized him?

If God sent the spirit of Satan to tempt Jesus, why did he also send wild beasts and angels to minister to him? How did Satan tempt Jesus in the wilderness? How did the wild beasts and angels minister to him? Was this a story that Jesus told the author or was the author actually there?

There are several hundred other important questions in chapter 1 of Mark that would have needed to be explained, unraveled and clarified by the early readers of the text; at least if the text was received as a history. On the other hand, if the story was accepted as a fairy-tale/fable or good yawn, not worth the time to discuss or argue over, then we would expect no commentary until the Third century when people forgot it was only a fiction.
This is the case generally with mythology where people first are so under its spell that they simply transmit it and only later start questioning the meaning.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay
author of "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities" (Evocc.com)