This is something I posted yesterday on the Internet Infidels discussion board:
Several months ago, I wrote a rather long post on Debunking Christianity which defended the idea that Paul never clearly speaks of Jesus as a man on earth. I just had a look at chapter 6 of JP Holding's book "Shattering the Christ Myth" which you can view here.
Holding says that the silence in Paul isn't all that surprising, given the fact that Paul lived in a "high context" society (one which assumed lots of insider knowledge in communication) while we live in a "low context" society (which is the opposite of the former).
So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?
10 comments:
I'm no expert on whether the society then had more inherent cultural context, but regardless, absent evidence of widespread cultural knowledge of that specific piece of information, we can't assume it.
We therefore seem to have two possible conclusions: either Paul did not make such claims on the personhood of Christ, or that Paul did not consider it important if he did believe it true.
[from Stone; not Liz, my better -- and calmer -- half]
I too often see the careless statement made that Paul never refers to Jesus as a human being. This is just an urban myth, and I'm rather surprised to see so many people fall for this one. As one who much admired the blog post here entitled "Idiot America", I'm rather surprised to see this urban myth -- or Internet myth, now -- trotted out so carelessly here.
Not only does Paul refer to Jesus as a human being with a human history, he even quotes from Jesus. It's simply untrue that Paul never refers to anything human that Jesus ever did -- and some mythers even trump that by either implying or stating directly(!) that Paul never quotes from Jesus either! In fact, Paul _does_ quote Jesus directly -- in quotes -- cited -- referenced -- in at least one of his letters -- _1_ _CORINTHIANS_ -- and this letter is even one of those unusual half dozen or so for which Pauline authorship is generally accepted to this day.
Look, nothing in NT scholarship is certain, but _probabilities_ are definitely what _is_ entailed in the most rigorous research that's out there -- _as_ _it_ _is_ _also_ _most_ _emphatically_ _front_ _and_ _center_ _in_ _all_ _historical_ _research_ _in_ _the_ _ancient_ _world_, _period_, _both_ _outside_ _of_ _Biblical_ _research_ _and_ _within_ _it_! This is _not_ a research model specifically "dispensed" for NT research only!
I'm saying that in order to forestall the inevitable -- and typically dishonest -- moving of the goal posts that I _know_ can come up once the unusual textual consensus surrounding 1 Corinthians comes up.
We already have a goal post set up here: essentially, the statement that Paul never refers to Jesus as doing anything human. That alone is simply plain _wrong_ on the face of it. No fancy analysis is needed to address this. It is a fact: Paul talks of Jesus doing human things -- including quoting from him.
Now, I reference the current scholarly consensus on 1 Corinthians _only_ to underscore the sheer ludicrousness of such an urban myth -- particularly ludicrous when one considers just how little suspicion has ever been voiced concerning this particular letter where Jesus is quoted.
Look, probably no one here is setting out to voice a direct lie, but are there some people out there who have just been brainwashed? Too many posters thoughtlessly adopt a blatant urban myth here without checking the facts.
Sure, one can generate all the suspicions one wants about 1 Corinthians. One can even come up with fancy suppositions on what specifically Jesus is quoted in that letter as saying and why. Fine. But the bald statement here that Paul never speaks of Jesus in human terms is exactly that: a bald simple statement with no hedging, and therefore plainly wrong. It's too late now: since this statement shows no hedging, it has therefore not taken account of any possible lurking suspicions on the inner details of such human references in Paul. That "get-out" is no longer possible here. The statement is bald. So is the error, since the statement does not take account of any contextual suspicions for this or that passage or letter. That's it. No changing the goal posts now.
Bottom line: Do we have a letter where Paul speaks of Jesus as a human with a human biography? Yes -- and Paul even quotes him directly in one of his better authenticated letters! Are the dozens of other posters on the Web right, when they say repeatedly that Paul never has anything to say about Jesus's life as a human being? No, they're always wrong, and letters like 1 Corinthians aren't going to oblige by doing a disappearing act any time soon!
Sincerely,
Stone
Liz, you need to read the post that I linked to, which obviously have not (Don't bother telling me you have, as that'll only undermine your honesty).
As for the quotes from Jesus, those could easily have come from visions or dreams of Jesus as an angelic figure. After all, the Old Testament gives many quotations from Jehovah himself, but that doesn't mean Jehovah was real.
[from Stone; not Liz, my better half -- and my more sensible half who probably would have more sense than to pursue this]
Frankly, your choosing to construe much in the Pauline record as poor historicist evidence (in the post you link to, and as opposed to more credible moments like Jesus's Aramaic cry of pain in Mark, etc.) is not the same as your lofty reference in this post here to "Paul's silence" as if that's suddenly a fact that's been proved. Inadequate or ambiguous Pauline references to Jesus such as you derive in your linked post do not translate to an absolute blanket silence. They are rather your suppositions -- thoughtfully arrived at maybe, but your suppositions all the same. Yet you go ahead and overstate here what is initially a supposition on your part by suddenly turning it into an implied fact in this newer post on this page!
In fact, Paul is not silent on Jesus's humanity at all. He merely does not give you the kind of textual material you personally require to be convinced. So terming that "Paul's silence" now as if it's suddenly a fact is just as high-handed as some historicist's terming the Paul letters decisive proof that everything ever said of Jesus is automatically proved historical. Ultimately, all that ancient historical research can deal with are likelihoods and probabilities -- at the very best -- never proof. When you loftily refer to "Paul's silence" in the face of passages like the Jesus quotes in 1 Corinthians, whether those passages be ambiguous or not, you are at best profoundly misleading. You have unfairly implied possible dishonesty on my part. I'd like to know how we should view misleading impressions such as those you give in this post.
Sincerely,
Stone
Hi Stupidass, uh, I mean stone.
When I referred to Paul's silence, I was speaking generally. Paul generally says very little about Jesus. Why is that? That was the question that was being asked. I didn't give an answer to it. Nor did you, I might add. I did defend the idea that few references were made to Jesus as an historical figure, and that those references were open to interpretation and didn't prove much. But I didn't put my foot down and say Jesus was a myth.
"In fact, Paul is not silent on Jesus's humanity at all. He merely does not give you the kind of textual material you personally require to be convinced."
In fact, Paul is not vocal about Jesus' humanity at all. He merely says things that you credulously interpret as references to a historical figure.
Do you see how full of shit the statement you made was? It isn't about whether Paul says things that meet my lofty "personal standards". It's about whether Paul says things--and says them often enough--that could objectively show that, more likely than not, Jesus was thought of as a historical figure. So why don't you tell me what your objective criteria are, and then show me how you meet them. After all, I wasn't the one making any claims about the situation, I was asking a question: What explains the fact that we have few Pauline references to an historical figure? And why are these few passages so open to interpretation? Why aren't there numerous, unambiguous references to Jesus? Can you tell me why? Can show why the passages are clear?
[from Stone; not Liz, my better -- and less stubborn -- half]
Plenty of what Paul says about Jesus can be construed pretty nebulously, partly because he's a self-absorbed megalomaniac and partly because he's profoundly uninterested in any of the ethical aspects of Jesus' sayings. Rather, it's the accumulation of various mingy references as a whole that add up to a probability -- not a certainty -- that Paul is referencing a historical mortal human being. There is not any one reference that is a clincher.
In Galatians 1:19, there is mention of a brother James whom Paul has met; in Galatians 4:4, Jesus is said to be born of a human woman and a Jew; in Romans 1:3, Jesus has a "human nature" and is a human descendant of David; in 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus is executed by earthly rulers; in 1 Corinthians 7:10, Jesus' sayings on divorce are referenced; in 1 Corinthians 9:14, it's J's sayings on preachers; in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, there is reference to J. having died and being buried; and in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, we have J's sayings on the coming apocalypse.
Look, I know full well that fancy tap-dancing has "gone down" putting each one of these references in question on a case-by-case basis. I also know full well that you yourself are obviously not some diehard myther. But I still have to wonder at all those netters who just ignore the cumulative force of these various references as a group. How likely is it that we're simply dealing with a series of coincidences here?
Truly,
Stone
Hi Stone,
I apologize if I lost my temper earlier.
To be clear, here is what my position is currently: I am agnostic on the historical jesus but certainly lean towards believing that there was one. There probably was a real Jesus, but I am not very certain of it.
Now, on the references Paul makes: Some of them are convincing, some of them just plain aren't.
The ones that just plain aren't: 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14 all of these simply say something like "the Lord said such and such." That does nothing to support a historical Jesus. In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul tells us that he did not get his gospel from any man, but from a PERSONAL REVELATION from Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul got this from Jesus speaking to his heart, or from a vision, or something like that. This did not come from an oral tradition going back to the historical Jesus.
"1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus is executed by earthly rulers"
The term used is NOT "earthly rulers". It is "rulers of this age" which comes from the greek word ARCHONS, which could easily mean demonic powers, as Earl Doherty has demonstrated.
The references to Jesus' brother and burial are interesting, and do support historicism to some degree. Nevertheless, they can be explained with a lot less "tap-dancing than you think." Just read "Jesus: A Very Jewish Myth" by RG Price. Also, even the fact that these support historicism doesn't settle the issue. One would still need to look at ALL the evidence as a whole and determine which explanation seems more likely.
I could go on to your other references, but I've already spent a lot of time on this, so let me ask you point blank: Did you read the blog post that I linked to?
If so, why didn't you offer some arguments against what I was saying? If not, what gave you the right to just assume I had nothing valid to say on the issue?
In Galatians 1:19, there is mention of a brother James whom Paul has met; in Galatians 4:4, Jesus is said to be born of a human woman and a Jew; in Romans 1:3, Jesus has a "human nature" and is a human descendant of David; in 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus is executed by earthly rulers; in 1 Corinthians 7:10, Jesus' sayings on divorce are referenced; in 1 Corinthians 9:14, it's J's sayings on preachers; in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, there is reference to J. having died and being buried; and in
Hi Stone,
I apologize if I lost my temper earlier.
To be clear, here is what my position is currently: I am agnostic on the historical jesus but certainly lean towards believing that there was one. There probably was a real Jesus, but I am not very certain of it.
Now, on the references Paul makes: Some of them are convincing, some of them just plain aren't.
The ones that just plain aren't: 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14 all of these simply say something like "the Lord said such and such." That does nothing to support a historical Jesus. In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul tells us that he did not get his gospel from any man, but from a PERSONAL REVELATION from Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul got this from Jesus speaking to his heart, or from a vision, or something like that. This did not come from an oral tradition going back to the historical Jesus.
"1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus is executed by earthly rulers"
The term used is NOT "earthly rulers". It is "rulers of this age" which comes from the greek word ARCHONS, which could easily mean demonic powers, as Earl Doherty has demonstrated.
The references to Jesus' brother and burial are interesting, and do support historicism to some degree. Nevertheless, they can be explained with a lot less "tap-dancing than you think." Just read "Jesus: A Very Jewish Myth" by RG Price. Also, even the fact that these support historicism doesn't settle the issue. One would still need to look at ALL the evidence as a whole and determine which explanation seems more likely.
I could go on to your other references, but I've already spent a lot of time on this, so let me ask you point blank: Did you read the blog post that I linked to?
If so, why didn't you offer some arguments against what I was saying? If not, what gave you the right to just assume I had nothing valid to say on the issue?
[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
1. Jesus descended from Abraham (Gal. 3:16) --
Your take on this makes some sense.
2. [Jesus] was the son of David (Romans 1:3) --
Possibly the same here -- but am split on this one.
3. [Jesus] had a brother named James (Gal. 1:19) and other brothers (I Cor. 9:5) --
Am puzzled by your (apparent) take on this in the linked post. I'm puzzled by it because in your post on Idiot America, you seem to view this as a pretty clear description of a sibling.
Personally, I happen to feel that it goes against the parsimonious principle of Occam's Razor to view the Gal. James reference as referencing a creedal brotherhood, while all other James references of whatever stripe uniformly suggest a sibling relationship. This is to pile too many suppositions on top of each other. Taking the Gal. reference as pointing to a sibling is more straightforward and more probable.
So I disagree with the take in the linked post (which may no longer be your current take anyway?)
4. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-25); was betrayed (I Cor. 11;23) --
Again, your reading goes against Occam's Razor. Nowhere, either within the tradition or outside it, is Jesus ever depicted doing anything at all in any Epicurean-type realm above the Earth. It is more straightforward and probable that what is on the face of it an invitation to a human ceremony in a human setting remains that and was so intended.
So I disagree here.
5. [He] was killed by the Jews of Judea (I Thess. 2:14-15) --
Right now, I'm split on this. There is obviously a lot of hideous misuse of Scripture, with the anti-Jewish pogroms of 2,000 years of history as the elephant in the living room, which could arguably constitute personal baggage for some scholars that has (partly unconsciously) motivated them to view this as an interpolation. But the "flow" arguments, and the extent to which this appears to have no direct parallel elsewhere in Paul, are both pertinent considerations.
I'm reserving any final judgement. You could be right; you could be wrong. Ultimately, what is pulling me back from total acceptance of the interpolation theory is the unanimous textual witness for this passage. Otherwise, I might be more amenable.
6. [H]e was buried and seen as resurrecting (I Cor. 15:4-8) --
Any considerations bound up with a New Jerusalem, or an Epicurean-type "middle" realm, etc., notwithstanding, there is still nothing inside or outside the tradition that directly provides a "picture" of Jesus existing in any way in such a realm. It remains pure supposition, in my view, going (once again) against the grain of the parsimonious Occam's Razor principle. Too many layers, in and out of the tradition, uniformly and directly show things happening to Jesus in the day-to-day dimension, while none show anything unfolding in a "middle" dimension, without some pretty knotted readings placing it there. The day-to-day dimension is more straightforward and probable here, in my view.
Look, what I'm giving you here throughout is a mere snapshot of my views at present. Who can say -- none of us can -- where we'll be later in life? I can only say that I don't see any likelihood of my changing my perspective on these issues any time soon. You'll just be beating your head against a wall if you try to beat me over the head with those arguments that I indicate here I remain unconvinced by.
Can't we just agree to disagree?
Sincerely,
Stone
Hi Stone,
Yes, I am aware that what I said on the Idiot America post contradicts what I said in "Paul's Silence". It's because my views have changed over time. The views I held several months ago are not the views I hold now. Right now, I'm about 70% sure that a historical Jesus existed.
Basically, I'm in agreement with what you wrote: The texts you listed under the numbers 3,4, and 6 are naturally interpreted as referring to a historical man. Therefore, they constitute very good evidence for an historical Jesus.
Still, those passages could be interpreted another way, and so they're not absolutely fatal to the Jesus myth theory. So what one needs to do is ask: What is the best overall explanation of all of the data we have? Jesus Mythicists have put forward some arguments to try and show that there are some bits of historical information that are just as big of a problem for the historical Jesus theory as the passages we talked about are problems for the mythicist theory.
Are the mythicist arguments successful? I don't know, but I have little confidence in them because they have not been accepted by the scholarly community, at least not yet. And so that is why I currently lean toward the hypothesis that Jesus was an historical figure.
Anyway, if you read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty he gives some arguments like this, and he also provides arguments to show that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus existed in an "Epicurean type realm".
There's also some arguments discussed in a radio show which you can download here:
http://media.libsyn.com/ media/infidelguy/01_31_2007
_Carrier-Jesus_Myth.mp3
If for some reason the link messes up, Just google "How Not to Argue the Mythicist Position" and look for a link to odeo.com, where they have it for you to listen to.
Anyway, I think the most reasonable position (for now) is that Jesus probably existed, and for some of the reasons that are found in Paul's letters. If the Jesus Mythicists want their position to become widely held, then they need to not only show that their explanation is the overall superior one, but they also need to go to the scholarly community and submit their articles for peer-review. They need to become respected academically before I can side with them. And the reason I hold that standard is because I am not a historian, and so their arguments might be completely bogus, and I might not know it because I lack the skills and knowledge in historical studies to be able to point that out. Which is why it needs to be submitted to the experts, through peer-reviewed journals and academic books, so that they can assess it and tell us what, if anything is wrong with the mythicist arguments.
Post a Comment