Was Mark's Gospel a Work of Fiction?
As I've argued before, history is a slender reed to hang a religious faith on. The evidence for an event happening in the past is always going to be less than what we personally experience--always! We know all to well about forgeries, faked evidence, and fraudulent claims to take anything at face value, especially when it comes to the past, and exponentially when it comes to some miraculous story in the ancient superstitious world.
German critic Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) challenged us in this regard:
German critic Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) challenged us in this regard:
We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia....But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry. Link.So why is it not the case that Mark's Gospel, the first one, was written as a work of fiction in the hopes of starting a religious movement of believers, or in providing a fictional story for an existing group of believers? I cannot discount this possibility, just as Lessing could not discount the possibility that Alexander did not conquer almost all Asia.
36 comments:
I wouldn't discount that theory completely but, based on what I've read, Paul actually did write about Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being who had recently lived and died on Earth.
Frankly, those folks going around saying they can prove that Jesus never existed strike me as being less than, shall we say "balanced," in their treatment of any and all evidence to the contrary.
Also, all that stuff about Mithra and Horus was pretty much just made up.
The funny thing is that neither story, the Christians or the Christ-myth-er's, makes any sense at all when taken at face value. It's almost as if neither party really cares what actually happened.
The fact that "Paul actually did write about Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being" doesn't contribute anything for concluding that what he wrote was true, as opposed to being propaganda. People write fiction, and fact, and they write fiction that they think is fact, and maybe even fact that they think is fiction (huh?). So what?
@Paul I don't think anyone argues that Paul wrote the Gospel of Mark though. Also I think there is pretty good evidence for many of the letters attributed to Paul having been written 2 decades before the Gospel attributed to Mark.
I understand that Paul could have made the whole thing about the crucifixion up but it seems likely that the author of Mark at least believed he was writing about a person and not expanding upon summer-camp story he knew to be fictional.
The overriding message of Mark was that "only the Devil recognized who Jesus truly was" and that all of the supposed "righteous" people rejected him and those were, undoubtedly, interpolations contrived: "in the hopes of starting a religious movement of believers, or in providing a fictional story for an existing group of believers" as John so elegantly put it.
I can't go back in time and know what really happened but I can use Occam's Razor and see that a Mythical Christ requires a good deal more ad hoc rationalizations than does accepting the fact that these stories may have some slight relation to an existent human being.
On a personal level, frankly, the Christ myth folks are dead to me. They have just made too much stuff up. I trusted them and was embarrassed for it. And I will never believe another word that comes out of any of their mouths again so long as I live.
"So why is it not the case that Mark's Gospel, the first one, was written as a work of fiction in the hopes of starting a religious movement of believers, or in providing a fictional story for an existing group of believers?"
Because of all the raw tonage of early Christian writings and new testament Apocrypha.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/
one of my favorite resources.
Is this even an argument?
skeptic cat, what changed your mind?
A book I've been reading about people in the Bible points out (and it was written by biblical scholars, all teaching at the university level), and I found one of the things they said about Paul to add more doubt to the story.
What they said was that although Paul was a pharisee in Jerusalem during the alleged ministry of Jesus, that nowhere in his writings does he indicate that he had seen or heard of Jesus before he began to engage in debates with Jesus' followers.
John W. Loftus said: skeptic cat, what changed your mind?
Well, you did, actually. And some of Richard Carriers older posts over at Infidels.org. As well as Paul Tobin's posts at www.rejectionofpascalswager.net ... That and actually reading some of these books like Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle ... I know a bad argument when I see one.
I don't think Josephus actually wrote anything about Jesus and I really doubt that Pontius Pilate or any of the Herods had ever heard of the man but if, you have to misrepresent sources and come up with ad hoc rationalizations like Acharya S' "ancient global civilization" or Doherty's fantasy about the "firmament between the moon and the sky" to write this guy out of existence then, it's a pretty good bet that he existed in spite of the unreliability of the New Testament in recording his life.
I see.
So Skepticcat is adopting the Popeye or Sherlock Holmes defense.
If somebody lived, then nobody could write fiction about him.
Popeye was based on a real person.
Therefore, by Skeptic Cat logic, Popeye existed.
Anybody who denies the existence of Popeye is denying the existence of a real person and is , I quote 'less than balanced'.
Historians should not apply the Popeye test to Mark's Novel.
'Jesus existed' and 'Mark's Novel was fiction' are both logically compatible.
Just as 'Popeye was based on a real person', and 'Popeye did not exist' are both views that sane people can hold.
As for SkepticCat's other logic - it runs as follows.
SkepticCat can recognise a bad argument.
Doherty has a bad argument.
Therefore, all of Doherty's arguments are bad.
This is also bad logic.
The fact remains that Paul writes in Romans 10 that people had not heard of Jesus apart from Christians sent to preach about him.
And he writes in Romans 16 about how Jesus had been revealed in scripture.
Paul's Jesus is no more real than Melchizedek - another person written about as though he was a flesh and blood person, but who did not exist.
Steven Carr said: "'Jesus existed' and 'Mark's Novel was fiction' are both logically compatible."
Agreed. I think at best Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. What do you think?
I should say Jesus probably did not exist.
Nobody can say with more than 90% confidence either way.
The evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not statistically significant.
Which does not mean that he did not exist.
So here we have Paul, newly converted, undertaking the task of introducing Jesus-worship to the uninitiated.
Wouldn't you think he'd use every sales point, like the virgin birth, and the wise men, and the early miracles, and the parables, and the healing?
Not a mention. Why? Because they were a later invention by whoever wrote Mark.
In fact, Paul scoffs at the idea that Christianity was a religion that had had miracle stories associated with it.
1 Corinthians 1
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...
Why were Jews wrong to demand stories of miraculous signs, if stories of miraculous signs had been one of the strengths of Christianity?
Steven, we also find in I Corinthians 12 this:
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
Quit prooftexting to make a point. Perhaps you should try to figure out what a sign is. In the gospels Jesus does miracles and at the same time says he will not given the Jews a sign. Are these gospel authors stupid or something? Do they not know they just told a miracle story?
Jesus may or may not have been a real person but there is no real evidence that he was a god.
Popeye, by the way, was based on a real person - a sailor whom E. C. Segar knew.
As for DM - just when I don't have to put up with you at Pharyngula you show up here - its a sign!
I am not prooftexting. I never do.
1 Corinthians 12 proves my point just as well as 1 Corinthians 1 does.
1 Corinthians 1 proves it, as does 1 Corinthians 12, as Paul would have retorted to Jewish demands for miracles by pointing out that Jesus could do the miracles Paul claims even other Christians could do.
1 Corinthians 12 is talking about Christians doing miracles for each other.
They do that all the time for each other today.
That means nothing to outsiders as Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 knew.
1 Corinthians 1 is about miracles associated with Christianity for outsiders.
Paul knew there had been no miracles for outsiders, and declared that he was not even in the business of telling such stories.
Jesus is supposed to have done miracles for outsiders, and John's Gospel explicitly calls them 'signs'.
Mark's Gospel tries to have miracles and hide Jesus identity.
This is a proof that it is fiction as nobody seriously claims Jesus could raise the dead, and yet Paul would nevertheless scoff at Jewish demand that the identity of Jesus be proved by miraculous signs, if that sort of thing had happened.
If Jesus had raised the dead, then Paul would not scoff at Jews for demanding that the Messiah be somebody associated with miraculous signs.
This is so obvious that it can only be denied by accepting Mark's absurd claims that Jesus raised the dead, but refused to give signs.
Even the other Gospels could not buy that as even they realised that miracles meant signs.
There they have Jesus declaring that there will be a sign,and even in one Gospel that his miracles are signs.
To answer your question 'Are these gospel authors stupid or something? Do they not know they just told a miracle story?'
Yes the did.
John 2:11 'This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee.'
So why did John say 'In the gospels Jesus does miracles and at the same time says he will not given the Jews a sign.'?
Only one Gospel says that, and it is obvious fiction.
There had been no miracles associated with Christianity.
1 Corinthians 1 proves it, as does 1 Corinthians 12, as Paul would have retorted to Jewish demands for miracles by pointing out that Jesus could do the miracles Paul claims other Christians could do.
I am kinda with skeptic cat, I think there was a real Jesus, but the Gospels do not describe him at all.
I point to scripture also for my reasoning why. Why have Mary and Joseph move from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth? If you are making up the story from whole cloth it would be easier to just have them in Bethlehem from the start. To me this makes it seem like people knew Jesus was from the Nazareth area, but that did not coincide with the "prophecies" so they had to force his parents into Bethlehem for the birth.
Now what is written about Jesus in the Gospels is myth.
Mark 2 And when he returned to Caperna-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question thus in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
“Signs were vouchsafed in plenty, signs of God’s power and love, but these were not the signs which they sought. … They wanted signs of an outward Messianic Kingdom, of temporal triumph, of material greatness for the chosen people. … With such cravings the Gospel of a ‘crucified Messiah’ was to them a stumblingblock indeed” (Lightfoot).
Steven, I do not think for the moment Jesus did miracles but one of the most solid conclusions from scholars is that he was known to be a miracle worker, probably in the style of Benny Hinn, okay?
Obviously Jesus was not known as a miracle-worker, as Paul scoffs at Jewish demands for a Christianity that had miraculous signs.
Nor does the early tradition have any miracle stories about Jesus.
The miracle stories in the Gospels were lifted from the Old Testament not handed down by oral tradition.
'Signs were vouchsafed in plenty, signs of God’s power and love, but these were not the signs which they sought' Lightfoot.
Of course, this is just Lightfoot harmonising.
Paul scoffs at Jewish demands for miraculous signs. Christianity was not in the business of supplying miraculous signs, according to Paul.
If there had been stories of miracles, Paul would have attacked Jews for not believing the stories of miracles, or for demanding the 'wrong' sort of miracles.
Paul does nothing of the sort. He pours scorn on Jewish demands for miracle stories.
BeamStalk said...
I am kinda with skeptic cat, I think there was a real Jesus, but the Gospels do not describe him at all.
I point to scripture also for my reasoning why. Why have Mary and Joseph move from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth? If you are making up the story from whole cloth it would be easier to just have them in Bethlehem from the start. To me this makes it seem like people knew Jesus was from the Nazareth area, but that did not coincide with the "prophecies" so they had to force his parents into Bethlehem for the birth.
It seems as though Jesus was called a "Nazarene", but later gospel authors (like Matt, John, Luke, Philip, etc.) didn't know what it meant. Some thought it was a town, others thought it meant "truth".
At Matt 2:23, the author writes that Jesus would be called a Nazarene to fulfill the prophets, which he writes after the convoluted story you pointed out. However, the Greek word that Matt uses there is ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ (nazwraios) and has no precursor in any literature anywhere. Mark consistently refers to Jesus as a Nazarene ("ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ" and its grammatical derivatives) and never refers to Jesus' hometown as "Nazareth". Reading Mark, it seems as though his hometown is Capernaeum.
There's one instance when our currently received text of Greek Mark has "Nazareth" (as in, ΝΑΖΑΡΕΤ) at 1:19, but our earliest witness to this section -- Matt 3:13 -- doesn't have that word. Weak evidence, but it probably means that when Matt was copying that section of Mark, it didn't have "Nazareth" so Matt didn't include it in his version.
The closest word to Matt's ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ is at Judges 13:5 LXX; Samson the Nazirite is called ΝΑΖΙΡΑΙΟΣ, which is a Greek phoneticisation of the Hebrew "Nazir" - one who is consecrated or made holy for YHWH. Judges is a book of the prophets, so this is the most likely place where Matt got that word from.
It's also possible that Jesus wasn't a Nazarene, but a Nasarene, a sect of anti-Torah Jews/Samaritans from around the time of Jeremiah. Nasarene is the more consistent transliteration of the Hebrew nun-tsade-resh-yod-mem (NT[s]RYM - "Notsrim"), names like Isaac or Sadducee have a Tsade but it's written with a sigma in Greek. The zeta might have been inserted for the sigma after Matthew's pseudo-prooftext from Judges.
Tertullian in "Against Marcion" writes:
The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow"
Tertullian is quoting Lamentations 4:7, which in Greek has the plural of Nazirites: ΝΑΖΙΡΑΙΟΙ.
Chaps, this is all very interesting, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for the notion that the author of Mark was writing out-and-out fiction. However, there are a number of things that make me think that there was a Galilean, Jesus the Nazarene, and his failed coup attempt led to his crucifixion and subsequent increasingly barmy hagiographies.
If you read Mark, it does read like a hagiography, not like history. You could also say it reads like a novel. All that dilsying around the Lake of Galilee has a narrative structure and direction that you just would not expect from real history.
However, when you get to the Triumphal Entry, the Temple Tantrum and the Crucifixion - these start to have a germ of plausibility attached. The odd thing about Mark is that the miracles are actually very *few*, and they're pretty small beer placebo jobs (mostly). If he was writing fiction and wanting to start a religion, I would have expected something a bit more impressive and flowery.
But it's all controversial of course. We'll never know, and John's central point in this post is of course correct - any crazy option we can think of to explain these stories (and stories are *easy* to explain) is always going to be immeasurably more likely than saying that Jesus the Nazarene really was THE son of God, and rose from the dead etc etc, and that this was God's Big Plan for salvation, yet he couldn't even communicate it reliably to the *gospel* writers, never mind the generations of accretion-monkeys who came later.
But I'm still left with one little thing... does one have to believe the story to be a Christian, or can one not just like the story, like the music (some great hymns, you have to admit), like the poetry, enjoy ancient history and "the holy land", recognise the fact that there is no god, and Jesus (if he existed) was just a dude among dudes, and still be a Christian in general outlook?
As for the Impostle Saul Paulus, I don't have much time for him, apart from that one passage in 1 Corinthians...
Quinton, I am aware of the issues with the word Nazereth. It doesn't assuage my point that two of the gospels make up a ridiculous story just to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. It's as if the people knew he was from somewhere else and there was this "prophecy" of the messiah being born in Bethlehem.
Steven, I think you are mistaken and that you read everything from your perspective not allowing for a different reading at all. There is no "obviously" to this. I don't have the patience to go yet another round with you. Tell you what, if the Greeks sought wisdom then doesn't that show they had received signs? Signs are signs for what a particular group wanted signs for.
The original post of mine says it's a possibility Mark was fiction, and I still think that. But your attempt to straitjacket all early Christianities through a misinterpretation of Paul is simplistic to me.
However, when you get to the Triumphal Entry, the Temple Tantrum and the Crucifixion - these start to have a germ of plausibility attached. The odd thing about Mark is that the miracles are actually very *few*, and they're pretty small beer placebo jobs (mostly). If he was writing fiction and wanting to start a religion, I would have expected something a bit more impressive and flowery.
This section is probably my favorite in Mark, because the symbolism is lost on most people. It's also probably the most important part of Mark. First we have Mark telling us when he's writing and to whom he is writing to. In Mark 13 we get the prediction (or post-diction) of the temple's destruction and subsequent end-of-the-world scenario. Here Mark is talking through the mouth of Jesus, which is obvious enough when "Jesus" says "let the reader understand". Jesus isn't predicting that he'll come back while his disciples are still alive, it's Mark telling the readers that they'll be around when Jesus comes back.
Then there's the whole "Barabbas" scenario. If you read Mark wholistically instead of in "chapters" then you notice the Aramaisms, the last one being Jesus' prayer in chpt 14. When Jesus is praying in Gethsemane, he says "Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will". For one, if this is an authentic prayer, why would Jesus (supposedly speaking in Aramaic) say "father" twice? Two, who was around to hear this prayer? The entire point of this pericope is that the disciples are asleep and fail to keep watch.
Here, the author is telling the reader what the word "abba" means for when he introduces the character "BarAbba" a couple of paragraphs later. Markan Irony - contrast between Jesus Son of the Father who is the insurrectionist and rightly deserves execution, and Jesus [the real] Son of the Father who did nothing wrong but gets executed.
Entertaining stuff, but more than likely not historical.
Wouldn't you think he'd use every sales point, like the virgin birth?
Not a mention. Why? Because they were a later invention by whoever wrote Mark.
There's no virgin birth in Mark, Nick. (Mark begins with Jesus' baptism).
German critic Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781)
Romanian non-critic Craciun Lucian (1983-present) told you (repeatedly) not to trust pseudo-science: there's a *REASON* this 200-year-old idea isn't accepted by scientists (historians) TODAY...
I think the thing that isn't being addressed here is the relationship we have between the gospel texts and other works of the era, be they fiction or non-fiction. There's thousands of these scraps laying around hundreds of miles apart -- obviously it was more revered than any other text of the day.
That's what the facts say anyway. So fiction or not, one thing we can be sure of -- it was a damn good story.
It's interesting to use Paul's letters to Christians as grounds for rejecting the Gospels. Paul was not trying to give a history of Jesus life, but rather to inform the Christians in the churches that he had started. So we would not expect such a thing in his letters. Mark, on the other hand, whether historical, fictional, or a little of both, is written as an ancient biography, so we would expect such things.
Let's say that I wrote a personal email to my professor about further investigation into a topic that he had taught, though not repeating his lecture since we both were there. No one would interpret this as therefore denying or as evidence against the lecture taking place since I don't mention it. Paul is writing a personal letter to a church, and giving them advice on how to deal with the issues that they are having. He is not intending to give a detailed history of how they got to that point starting with Jesus birth, just like I did not mention history prior to my writing the email all the way back to the beginning of the semester.
This is not to say that Mark can't be fictional, but that such an argument is fallacious, so we need much better reasons to reject it.
Also, most historians agree that Josephus wrote something about Jesus that was later modified. So you are going against the consensus by denying that he ever mentioned him at all, especially given the sections that he is mentioned, since the mention fills in a gap in his writing that would otherwise be left wide open.
Why isn't John able to explain what 1 Corinthians 1 means when it says 'Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...'
JOHN
Tell you what, if the Greeks sought wisdom then doesn't that show they had received signs?
CARR
Apparently, John is reduced to saying that this means that Greeks were given miraculous signs and Jews were given wisdom.
This reading of the passage will reduce John's credibility among Christians.
Of course, John did not mean it as a serious reading, but the fact remains that I cannot discourse with somebody who will not attempt a serious reading of a Biblical passage.
Did somebody come up with the dumb 'Paul was not writing a history' defense?
As though Paul did not devote a whole chapter to the history of Abraham in detail totally missing when it comes to Jesus?
Paul wrote 16 chapters on theology about how Jesus had changed the relationship between God, Jew, Gentile, the Law and Salvation and does not quote one word of what Jesus said, give one saying of Jesus, or give one thing Jesus did on earth.
This is like finding a book on theology writtn by a Moonie which never mentions anything Moon said or did.
That would just be very strange.
In fact, Paul goes out of his way to write Jesus out of history as some nobody irrelevant to the spreading of the message.
Romans 3
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
According to John, Paul knew that Jesus had lived among Jews and had won a reputation as a miracle worker.
And yet Paul values the Book of Obadaih as more of an advantage to Jews than having the Son of God living among them, working miracles.
Romans 3
3What if some did not have faith?
'Some did not have faith', Paul has a 'so what' attitude to Jews allegedly rejecting Jesus and conspiring to have him killed.
So what if the Jews persecuted Jesus, and had him killed? This just means 'some did not have faith'
No Christian could have been so blase about people who had rejected and persecuted the Son of God.
Romans 3
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
The Law and the Prophets testify to this righteousness from God which has been made known.
What did Jesus say about this new righteousness?
Sorry kid, Paul has just written you out as not even worthy to testify.
Paul had the Law and the Prophets testifying, but not Jesus.
Romans 4
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
Paul devotes a whole chapter to the deeds of Abraham.
A WHOLE CHAPTER to Abraham!
Jesus does get a brief mention in the book, alhough obviously Paul does not devote as much space to the life of Jesus as he does to the life of Abraham.
Romans 16
25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him...
Yes, Jesus has now ben revealed through scripture.
Before Christians started reading scripture, Jesus was a mystery.
J. Quinton - some really fascinating stuff there - thanks! I admit to reading the gospels in the English translations, not in the Greek, but have long thought that the "Nazarene" business had at best a somewhat tentative connection with "NazarETH". I'd appreciate your thoughts - any possible etymological connection with "Genessaret" (modern Ginosar, a pleasant enough spot), which might actually be a more sensible place for Jesus to have come from, given his pals in Capernaum?
Also, someone might be able to help here - how much do we *really* know about the original disciples? They seem to largely fade into obscurity apart from Peter, and do we really know that any of the attributed letters were written by them, or that they suffered the fates alleged by the much later "early church fathers"? There is something of a Christian Dark Age until we hit at least the middle of the second century.
What original disciples?
Not one Christian in the first century named himself as ever even having heard of Judas or Thomas.
Carr,
Paul regarded Him as irrelevant? What about 1 Corinthians 15?
14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
It seems to me like Jesus is at the center of his ministry. This is a very, very strong message, and not only shows us that if what was being said about Jesus (which was mentioned at the very beginning of this same chapter, viz. that He died and rose again) was false, then they were to be pitied above all men, but also shows how confident Paul was in the truth of this message.
Again, my analogy of the email I sent to my professor is decent. Of course I would not detail the lecture itself, but rather what follows from the lecture. He knows what he taught, and so do I, so it need not be mentioned. When we look through Paul's letters, we see that he is giving practical advice to his churches. He probably told them about Jesus and His history in person when he started the church, and does not feel the need to repeat it. Just like my professor gave his lecture, and then the letter writing followed regarding its practical use.
He probably told them about Jesus and His history in person when he started the church
Except that not all of the epistles were written to groups that Paul had founded himself or even to persons that Paul had already met in person. So the silence is still striking even making the great leap of an assumption that you're making here, that Paul just must have communicated this information so prominently absent from his writings in some other fashion. It's begging the question as to whether that information existed at that time or was the invention of the later evangelists.
And your analogy regarding the lecture is misleading. It's not that the argument from silence is based on the expectation that the Pauline epistles should have included a narrative account like those found in the gospels, it is that, if such a narrative existed, either written or oral, Paul's writings should show some familiarity with it beyond the confessional formulas he passes on. An allusion to a parable or a miracle, some awareness of an earthly deed like the Temple incident, anything that might serve to connect Paul's cosmic savior with the Galilean preacher. Since there is no such thing in Paul, it remains a viable hypothesis that the Galilean preacher was the invention of later authors. Not proven by any means, granted, but viable.
Would not detail the lecture itself...
No you would spend a chapter giving details of another person's life. (Abraham's in the case of Paul)
And write a whole book giving not one word from this alleged lecturer.
How could Paul write Romans and think of NOTHING Jesus had done or said which could be quoted as relevant?
How could Paul look on the horror of the crucifixion of Jesus and write 'For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.'
Of course, the letter of James is even worse for writing Jesus out of history and promoting Job as the model for Christians to follow.
And the Epistle of Jude talks about the life of Enoch, Moses, Cain, Balaam, Adam - but breathes not one hint that anything in the life of Jesus was known to the people he was writing to.
@gnosiskaisophia
I too have pondered Paul's silence. In bringing it up I am often met with various forms of your argument and some others:
- silence does not mean complete ignorance about something
- he was not writing a history book
- he never even met Jesus, so why would he?
I see these all as failing. What do use to define Jesus? What he said and what he did. To write as many lengthy letters as he did and to never reference Jesus' words (except for a reference to the last supper) or actions is preposterous to me...
What we have is his heavy focus on the post-cross phenomenon (Jesus being at the right hand, the last-Adam, what heaven is like, what the second coming will look like) without any references to what people should actually do based on who Jesus was when he lived and what he taught.
I'll play along with your class analogy. Why don't you write a hypothetical email discussion in which you talk about the lecture at length without mentioning any of the content or even alluding to its content. I can't even imagine how to begin, but it would be entertaining to see you bring this analogy to fruition by discussing something in the same manner as Paul. Present only derived knowledge but don't reference any of the supposed facts backing up those derivations.
Post a Comment