Ben C Smith

I can add you to the con side of the list, it seems.

They are also genre silences. I think that needs to be better addressed.

It seems remarkable to me that (A) all Christian groups for most of century I should have absolutely no conception of an historical Jesus, (B) the heresiologists collected every heresy known to them, even some that modern scholars think were virtually original to the first Christian movement(s), such as adoptionism, and (C) no heresiologist collected anything about what all Christians universally held from the start, namely that there was no historical Jesus.

Not necessarily impossible. Just very remarkable.

Also, I did mention the logos Christians (such as Theophilus, late century II). Why did the heresiologists not attack them? Or did they, and I have just not noticed?

Not the logos followers, according to Doherty.

BTW, how do you feel the argument from epistolary silence strikes at Jesus minimalism of the kind held by Diogenes?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Valid, yes, but not alone.

The example used the argument from silence exactly as I myself prefer to use it, to wit, as support for another, stronger argument (in this case, the self-testimony of the dying man). Surely I am allowed to ask what corresponds to this other, stronger argument in the matter of the epistolary silence(s). There may be an easy answer; if so, it ought to be easy to supply, right? (It may even be arguments such as the very one I brought up on this thread.)

Ben.

spamandham

I suppose that depends on who wrote what when. Are there historicists contemporary to Paul? If not, then mythcism withstands this test.

Toto

I don't know where you studied economics, but this doesn't make any sense, and does not support your point. Economics is not a study in aesthetics or whimsy. While there are subjective elements in any evaluation, there are hard numbers - output, prices, other statistical indicators of supposed happiness or productivity. Perhaps this is why there are few socialists left among economists.

Loomis

Why wouldn’t they just call him “Yahweh” if that’s who they thought he was?

The only folks who needed to be familiar with the name “Yahweh” are the ones who coined the term “Yahweh Saves.” Everyone else could just be repeating stuff their grandparents said.

Right?
Show us where he uses it interchangeably with Yahweh.

Here’s an example where he doesn’t:
Why would Jesus have to die and then return to life to be Yahweh if he already was Yahweh?

Aparently the Greek word kurieusé is a verb.
Of course. And what is more vague? What is more appealing to someone who wants to do that?

1. Yahweh is a powerful deliverer.
   
   
2. The LORD is a powerful deliverer.

Show us where he downplayed it.

Show us where the name “Yahweh” is in the NT.

Show us where anyone used it.

Loomis

God raised Yahweh from the dead.

Zeichman

Agreed. One finds the name "Jesus" in documents lacking a clearly soteriological role for Jesus' person: Q, Thomas, Didache, the Gospel of Luke, etc. Given that Q certainly and Thomas and the Didache may predate canonical traditions, this seems to be problematic for an etiological reason for Jesus' name.

gurugeorge

/start economics digression

Indeed, one of the main selling points of socialism in the early days was that once all that social labour was freed up socialism would be more productive, more efficient, than capitalism. Lenin's NEP put paid to that theory, as has every attempt to implement genuine socialism since. There can be no doubt whatsoever about which of the two systems is more productive of goods and services that people show an expressed preference for, and more congenial to the mass of people of mixed intelligence, morality and ability.

So of course the only avenue left is to say "oh well we shouldn't want so many goods anyways, nasty bad consumerism, yadda yadda destroying duh planet yadda yadda".

Ya gotta laugh.

Of course socialism does have virtues, and is perfectly workable on a small scale, when voluntary - it's just unsuitable as the basic, umbrella economic system for a vast system of interacting strangers and groups taking advantage of division of labour and distributed knowledge of particular circumstances.

And in the future other ways of doing what capitalism does may well be found, and Marx's prophecies may well come true in the end, in a vague sort of way. Perhaps he was just a bit previous. (I rather like Iain Banks' socialist s-f novels, but the fact that he has to provide a literal deus ex machina to make his socialist utopia workable and attractive, is telling.)

/end of economics digression

EarlDoherty

Bingo. This, right here, is the point. The only thing that matters is which system works better, socialism or capitalism. By the way, “socialism” is a bit woolly. Even pure communism has been called “socialism”. So let me make the analogy clearer by using “communism”. Communism didn’t work, and it collapsed. Communism had vastly greater ill-effects on human rights, democracy, and the human spirit of its citizens. It led to greater inequalities within society. I’m a pragmatist. Disagreeing, even passionately, on the theories of communism and capitalism is beside the point. The “objective facts” reside in how they work. (If they’re applied only to the “theory”, they’re not objective in any practical or instructional way.) You couldn’t be more wrong about judgment between them ultimately coming down to the whim of the economist. If the economy has collapsed under one system and flourished under another, there’s no “whim” involved.

This is why you’ll never convince me that my 200 silences have no force, and that it’s all up to the “whim” of whoever reads them and tries to make sense of them. And it is why this vast silence on an HJ throughout a multiple record which is the only witness within the first several decades (at least) of the Christian writings, alongside a multitude of indicators that Paul is making no room for and even excluding such a figure, becomes an “objective” observation that can’t be dismissed by saying “it’s your whim that you come to the conclusion you have, and it’s my whim that I haven’t.”

As for Romans 16:25 and 2 Peter, ah yes, it’s starting to come back to me now. You’ll have to forgive me for not recalling them at the time. And you’ll forgive me if I say that I don’t regard you as having emerged ‘victorious’ from either of those discussions. You say you don’t expect (or want) a response here, but I’m going to give you one, since it relates to the principles of judgment and objectivity we have been discussing.

First, you misrepresent what I said in that Top 20 #2 Silence. I quoted Romans 16:25-27. Then I said:

All those passages in brackets do indeed speak of “the concept of a divine mystery, a secret kept by God for long ages.” I did not say that this “secret” was exactly the same in all cases. I do indeed know that Eph. 3:6 focuses on how such a mystery relates to the gentiles. The same is true of Col. 1:26, which has its own specific focus. So my statement was entirely accurate. Then when I went on to say the “plain meaning of the above words”, this referred to my quote given from Romans. It would hardly mean that I was referring to unquoted words in one, or all, of the examples of a “divine mystery” in the brackets.

So, is the plain meaning in that ending to Romans that the “divine mystery” is Christ himself, “revealed through the prophetic writings at the command of God”? I would certainly say so, if you don’t try to read something else into it which is not there, and which is what you have tried to do. The Romans passage and all the others represent various elements of the total “long-hidden divine mystery now revealed” package, all fitting together quite logically. Christ himself is revealed; this Christ is within you; the “you” includes the gentiles, since Christ has erased the dividing line between Jews and gentiles (and of course Paul, preaching to gentiles, wants to include them in Christ’s salvation and Abraham’s promise, otherwise he wouldn’t have a job). These three elements are constantly discussed by Paul throughout his letters; they not only complement one another, they are all of a piece. In Paul’s situation, not one of them could be dispensed with, otherwise he’d have to go back to tentmaking.

But you want to define the mystery which Paul is talking about as something which can get around that “plain meaning”, to come up with something which could conceivably have been derived by Paul “from scripture,” conceivably “concealed by God for long ages and now revealed to Paul” yet not have this apply to Christ himself, nor seem incongruous in the context of a recent historical Jesus. But that enterprise founders on a few, shall we say, “common sense” considerations. (Please indulge my “whim”.)

You are postulating a scenario where Paul not only ignores the figure of an HJ throughout his letters (and apparently in his preaching) he has seized on some angle which he can plug while totally ignoring and dismissing any role for Jesus in it. You put it this way:

First of all, I’m not saying that Paul didn’t preach “salvation”. Of course he did. But this is not the “plain meaning” of those particular references. In those passages he is talking about the elements of knowledge and interpretation which form the basis of and the justification for Paul’s gospel, a gospel which makes possible a resulting salvation. It is those you are ignoring and trying to bypass. Paul is saying: “I want you to believe in Christ, who was a figure hidden for long ages and now revealed at the command of God through scripture (Rom. 16:25-27 and Col. 2:2). I want you to believe that this Christ now resides in you, something that was hidden for long ages and only now revealed to the saints (Col. 1:26). I want you (his gentile audience) to believe that you are included in the promise to Abraham, something hidden for long ages and now revealed through my gospel (Eph. 3:5-6), and here are my arguments for that inclusion (Gal. 3). That is Paul’s 3-sided message of the “divine mystery” which he lays out. “Salvation” is the end result. It is not the direct content of the “mystery” as expressed in those passages.

Ephesians 3:6 isn’t the only place where these divine mysteries are declared to be revealed through the gospel preached by Paul. 2 Timothy 1:10 says that Christ has “destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” Not any gospel preached by Jesus, but the one preached by Paul (verse 11). Romans 1:2 says that what was preannounced in the prophets was the gospel that Paul preached, the gospel about the Son, not the life and activities of Jesus.

But isn’t there something missing in all this? You’d think Jesus never existed, wouldn’t you? That he never had a role in any of it. Paul doesn’t even glance his way, doesn’t make room for him. The “long ages” have come to an end in Paul. God’s promises are realized in Paul; in fact, “were first brought to light” with Paul (as in Titus 1:3). The glory of the old covenant reflected in the face of Moses has its counterpart in the new covenant preached by Paul! (2 Cor. 7-11). God has qualified Paul to dispense his new covenant. Paul appeals to God’s promise, declaring that the “hour of his favor” and the “day of deliverance” is now—in Paul’s time! As the fulfillment and guarantee of God’s promise of life eternal, he has sent the spirit to people like Paul (2 Cor. 5:5). The Jews are to be condemned for not responding to the message about Christ, a message stated only as one preached by apostles like Paul (Romans 10). This kind of language saturates the epistles.

What kind of perversity is this? There is not the slightest mention of Jesus in all this, or in your “message of salvation”. As I said in my book, there isn’t a crack in this façade where Jesus could gain a foothold. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is natural, that this is the proper way to assume Paul and everyone else went about their missionary work, placing the entire focus on themselves, never on Jesus, pointing to their own time and never to Jesus’ own time? That there would be no tendency (regardless of the supposed actuality of his preaching) to impute such messages to Jesus? What movement would perform such an incision? Do you think everyone would blithely accept this kind of “me-me-me” language from Paul, kicking Jesus behind him into the dust? Do you really think Paul would choose to pick some ‘angle’ that would allow him to dismiss Jesus entirely and claim that, Oh, I got this from scripture, from God. Jesus had nothing to do with it.

What other source was there for a message of salvation, you ask? It’s ridiculous that anyone would have to answer such a question. From Jesus himself, of course. Are you trying to say that Jesus did not preach, or could not be perceived as preaching, salvation? That “salvation”, the content of the mystery as you put it, was hidden for long ages and only revealed to and by Paul through scripture? Who would think that? Who would claim that? Is that the way it would be seen by early Christians? Is Paul coming along and saying to them, Oh, Jesus for some reason didn’t preach salvation. It was up to me, Paul, to discover that divine secret hidden for long ages in scripture, and get appointed by God to deliver that message, and to receive the splendor and authority to confer God’s new covenant. Does that make sense to you? Would that have made sense to Paul’s audiences? The rock that would have been thrown is the one (more like many of them) at him.

If this sort of reading of Paul’s epistles doesn’t strike you as bizarre, Rick, then you have whims I will never understand.

PS: I thank people like Vork for dealing with some of the issues raised against me (and for tackling all those theoretical technicalities which, quite frankly, are only a smoke-screen as far as I’m concerned). There is so much of it, I just don’t have either the time or energy to respond to it all. On this thread, Kevin has gotten into 2nd century apologists, and I am not going to respond to it. It’s too big an area and I’m only one person trying to live one life. Anyway, there isn’t a point he raises that I haven’t addressed on past occasions.

Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

Huh. So what's better Earl, Democratic Socialism, like Sweden? Or a more free market set-up, like the US? Maybe somewhere in between, not quite cradle to grave, but a far cry from laissez-faire, like Canada? Have an objective standard about which you prefer (not just which builds the strongest economy)? You can't ignore the human element, and restrict it simply to which makes the most money--if you do you're willfully ignoring the point of the analogy. One must include things like social programs. How do you feel about universal health care? Have an objective standard for that?

Didn't think so.

To give some anecdotal evidence of the subjectivity of the assessment, my wife and I had a daughter last year. Since then, my stance on social programs has softened.

You (and Toto, and gurugeorge) have confused "best" with "most economically beneficial," which isn't how I was using it.



Maybe a moderator can start a new thread with the below. . .

Let's rock.

There's a couple problems here. First of all, if you think the "mystery" is different in Eph.3 than it is in Romans (it's not, or at least isn't as fundamentally as you seem to imply--Paul says so in Rom.1.16, but that's neither here nor there), then why do you cite it as a defense of a passage in Romans you take differently? Throw all the apples and oranges in one bag, all you have is a lot of fruit.

Secondly, does Eph.3.6 say anything about a mystery "relating" to the Gentiles? Or is that your own qualifier? The mystery isn't how it "relates" to Gentiles, it is the Gentiles. That "relating" isn't something being done to the "Mystery," as you describe it here--it is the mystery. The added word "relates" changes the nature of the definition--it allows you to put your definition in, where otherwise there is no room for it.

Apparently not. Your definition requires the added word "relates" to be able to make sense of it. Mine doesn't.

This goes back to what I said above, why cite Eph.3.5 if you didn't think it supported you?

Really? Let's take a deeper look at what the "mystery" is in Romans. Romans really represents the culmination of Paul on this point--with Sanders, I am hard-pressed to believe that there is not a genuine change of heart underlying Paul's shift between here and Galatians. But even if you reject that, the point will still hold. If need be, we can extend this inquiry through the broader Pauline corpus once we're done here:

Paul begins with the "gospel" or "mystery" (as you note yourself, the two terms are interchangable) by noting that it is "promised" in Rom.1.3. But what is promised? What does Paul think has come to fruitiion? Is it his "information about the Christ?"

We'll come back to that by looking at specific passages in a moment. For now I'm going to do what I promised gurugeorge I would do, and steal wholesale his description of what a "gospel" was, before the four evangelists redefined the term for us. It was, as he describes it, a headline, not a storyline (which, as I noted there, is accurate, colorful, and an easily grasped distinction). Paul's headline in Romans--what was "promised"--might be described as "GENTILES SAVED: ALL ISRAEL TO FOLLOW SUIT"

Now I'm going to posit a hypothetical here, but I don't want you to be taken in tangentially by what is postulated. I'm not saying that there is or is not an historical Jesus here, I'm positing a hypothetical--a qualified "if there was," in order that we can assess whether or not Paul's "gospel" is inconsistent with the historicist approach. If it is, and if that's what the evidence demands, then you have indeed scored a point. But if it's not, then the argument is meaningless. We'll come back to such comparisons frequently, using them as a sort of touchstone, in our investigation.

So, if there was an historical Jesus, would the "revelation" of that headline be inconsistent with it? Should we expect him to have received that headline from another source?

I must confess I find your conviction that we should puzzling. I asked you what other source you might suggest he use, you suggested Jesus. So let's go back to our touchstone. If there was an historical Jesus, does the evidence indicate that he would be the source for the Pauline message of salvation? Of course it doesn't. If an historical Jesus existed, we should expect his followers to have a better idea what he preached than Paul did. They disagreed with Paul, ergo, Jesus didn't teach it. So is this inconsistent?

But, of course, what you are disputing is not simply where he should get it from, but what it is, so let's investigate that a littler further.

Paul wastes little time in telling us what his gospel is (Rom.1.16), "it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." This echoes what I said above--passages such as Eph.3.6 don't "relate" the mystery to the Gentiles, that very relation is the mystery. This is an important distinction, it's a question of whether there exists an simpler entity--Paul's "information about the Christ," to be related, when he describes his gospel.

It's passages such as this that leave me baffled as to how you can think the "plain reading" of the text supports you. Paul here (and in Eph.3.6), tells us without qualifier exactly what he thinks his "gospel" or "mystery" is. And what Paul says is not what you say. So how, exactly, is your take the "plain reading" of the text, when Paul quite explicitly says otherwise?

He goes on to expand on this in 1.17, in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, and revealed through faith, for faith. This compounds what you say below--the erasure of the dividing line between Greek and Jew. Is that Paul's "information about the Christ?" I suppose it could be considered as much, but not in the sense that you use the term on your website. Certainly the "mystery" being described here is not "information" in the sense of "biographical details."

So let's go back to that touchstone: What should Paul's source for this be? If there was an historical Jesus, is this inconsistent with it? The short answer is 'No'. The somewhat longer answer is that Paul clearly had many opponents on this point. Even if there was an historical Jesus, Paul nonetheless has claim to something unique--he is the "apostle to the uncircumcised." Where would he get that unique element? What source should be used, but isn't, such that it is inconsistent with an historical Jesus?

If you don't have an answer to that, that is the real crux of the matter. If Paul's gospel cannot be separated from that unique element, and that unique element could have no source other than God or scripture, then you have no grounds to expect Paul to say otherwise. So can Paul's "mystery" be separated from that element? I don't think so. But I think they can be still more deeply entwined. Let's keep digging.

This is going to bring us full circle, back to the "promise" you mention below, and I note above. What is the "promise," Paul has in mind? Since you note it's the "promise of Abraham" I don't think we need to dispute that point (though we might yet). What is the "promise to Abraham" Earl?

The particular promise Paul has in mind isn't suddenly being given to "include" Gentiles, it always was for Gentiles. To find it, we need to turn all the way back to Gen.12.3 (at least in the mind of Paul)--the nations shall be blessed through you. I'm hopeful that we'll have little to dispute on this point. How that blessing will come to pass (through faith) is one of the central points of the Paulines. "The nations" doesn't mean "exclusively to the Jews until I include them," it wasn't a promise that included anyone yet, it was a promise yet to be fulfilled (again, at least according to Paul's "tortured exegesis").

This brings us back to our touchstone. Given that nobody seems to have agreed with Paul, what should his source for the fulfillment of this promise have been? If there was an historical Jesus, would it be inconsistent for Paul to have claimed to have received this knowledge from God or from scripture? Is there another source we should expect?

The particular formulation I usually use for Paul's "gospel" is founded in Romans. Copping it wholesale from NT Wright, I usually refer to it as "God's eschatological plan to ultimately save ethnic Israel." The primary reason for this is, of course, Rom.9-11. This brings us into substantially shakier ground--how sincere is Paul's conviction there? How much is shaped by a change in audience?--but it still leaves us on solid ground when we're dealing with the nature of Paul's gospel. The devil of the details can wait, the broader definition remains the same.

Much of Romans, but Rom.9-11 in particular, is devoted to redefining Paul's gospel such that Israel is saved alongside Gentiles--that was God's plan all along. But how much sense does that make if we define Paul's "gospel" in your terms? If we define it as something other than Paul's "message of salvation" rather than his "information about the Christ?"

Rom 10.12-16 brings about an interesting point. In v.15, Paul refers to "glad tidings" (while the same word, I hope we can agree that here he doesn't mean "gospel" in the sense we're discussing--he's citing Is.52. Should you disagree, the point becomes stronger against you, so I'm good either way). What are the "glad tidings" Paul is bringing? Even here, when not referring specifically to "the gospel" in his usual sense, the glad tidings are the same, v.13 "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Even ancient authors, who were closer to the source, disagree with your interpretation. Most explicitly, Origen commenting on Rom.1.16, finds the "plain reading" to be much "plainer" than you do:

'"Therefore, defining what the gospel is, he proclaims: “It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”' (Origen, Commentary on Romans 1:131, emphasis of course added)

And implicitly Ambrosiaster:

It [the "power" Paul describes as his gospel] is the power of God which calls persons to faith and which gives salvation to all who believe(Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul's Epistles)

Now let's round out by a look at the specific passage in question, 16:25. Remembering everything we just covered about Paul's mystery. Does it say what you suggested it did, Earl? Is it inconsistent? I don't think so at all.

I realize that you frequently take positions contrary to (or held by a minority of) commentators in general, which is why I've refrained from such citations in this post, preferring instead to deal with the texts themselves. One thing bears noting, however, which is that the weight of commentators is not on your side. While some (eg Wright) see a double meaning to Paul's "gospel" (with your reading being an undertext), they do so based in no small part on 1Cor.15.

This is important to point out because of how often you emphasize that it is the "plain reading." If it's really so plain, you'd expect to find little disagreement with you. And yet.


[snip]

What I want to do is let Paul define what Paul is talking about. Which works out nicely, because that's what he does. You'd have us ignore that, in favor of a "plain reading," that isn't how Paul defines his terms. Curious that you know better than he what he meant.

You keep emphasizing it as the "plain reading," Earl, but provide no passages that read so plainly. The passages that lay out Paul's "gospel" in clear terms all disagree with you. So what makes it the "plain reading" other than your say-so?

Ah, ah ah. We're not discussing all of the "silences," we're not even discussing whether Paul "ignores the figure of an HJ throughout his letters. . ." I noted from the outset that this was a specific response, to a specific aspect of the AFS. Let's stick to that subject--the nature of Paul's gospel and how it effects expectations--and leave the rest alone for now.

There you go again with the "plain reading." But, again, no passage plainly reads what you say it does. I've snipped the below because it simply expands on what you say above. But if the cornerstone is flawed, the expansion is null.

Paul quite clearly states that his gospel is not that "which makes possible. . .salvation. It is salvation. You state that "“Salvation” is the end result. It is not the direct content of the “mystery” as expressed in those passages," but you do so in the face of the plain reading you are espousing. Paul couldn't be more explicit on this point. Nowhere, when he lays his "gospel" out in clear terms, does he leave room for your reading. So you force it in, adding words like "relating to. . ." or "end result."

If it is the "plain reading" that Paul's gospel is his "information of the Christ," why does he never plainly say so? And if the "plain reading" isn't that Paul's gospel is his message of salvation, why does he plainly say so?

Your only shot on this one is 1Cor.15, a passage so fundamentally different in its use of "gospel," that I'm severely tempted to consider it interpolated (every now and then I even agree with Price, albeit for different reasons). Instead, I suggest we put it aside for now, and use our understanding of "gospel" from everywhere else to define how we view 1Cor.15.

You're getting ahead of yourself again. We're dealing with a specific issue, at present, the nature of Paul's gospel, and what we should expect his source for this to be. Let's deal with that first.

Not at all. I dealt with this above, but will reiterate it here: If there was an historical Jesus we should expect, by virtue of what we know from Paul's opponents, that his message, particularly as pertained to the Gentiles, was not in accord with Paul's. So he can't be the source. Further, Paul's particular "mystery" in Romans is an expanded (and ammended) form of what he preached earlier, a toning down, of sorts, to include the Jews (a rather ironic twist!). Why would anyone have been a source for such a message before Paul excluded the Jews?

Ridiculous to have to answer? I suppose that might be true. But you gave the most easily rebutted response, so I'll take the ridiculous burden of answering for you: There is no source other than God we should expect.

This brings us back nicely to how our biases affect our reading: You clearly didn't see why it shouldn't be Jesus, because you don't assess the texts in that mindset, with that possibility in mind. I (with most commentators) immediately knew why such a response would falter. It was so painfully obvious to me that I scarcely bothered to head it off.

Isn't this exactly what you suggest Paul did? That he based his entire message of salvation on revelatory experiences? Now that you mention it, it does seem sort of silly. . .

:notworthy:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Regards,
Rick Sumner