kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Argument from Silence

I am often frustrated by arguments from silence. The following quote is an example of what is, to me, bewildering logic. The topic is the dating of James and the author would like to argue for an early dating by James the Just himself:

James’s lack of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, though an argument from silence, does seem to support an early date. The destruction of Jerusalem was a highly significant event for the Jews. James, a Jewish author, writing to a Jewish audience, the twelve tribes who were dispersed (James 1:1), and writing a letter with Jewish concepts, would likely mention the destruction of Jerusalem, especially if he was writing after the city was destroyed. If James wrote after A.D. 70, some of his readers could have been present at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The letter of James also does not mention the life, death (possible and debatable exception is 5:11), or resurrection of Jesus. Presumably the author is writing after these events, which would have been important for the author’s audience. It seems to me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are quite a bit more relevant and more likely to be mentioned by the author than the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. By the way, Jerusalem itself was not destroyed in 70 CE, but the Temple was.

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

4 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  April 24, 2009  /  Posted in: authorship, dating, James, methodology
« Previous post
Next post »
  • http://www.echoofeden.com slaveofone

    Here’s my latest beef:

    “The major problem facing this interpretation [that Ezekiel authored his own inaugural vision shortly if not immediately after the event] is the lack of information concerning the circumstances of the transcription of Ezekiel’s experience. There is no compelling reason for doubting the account as genuinely auto-biographical.”

    Therefore, we can assume it IS genuinely auto-biographical–which is what the article proceeds to do.

    Apparently, lack of information is a one way street. I don’t know about you, but I call that spitting in the wind.

  • http://www.billheroman.com Bill

    On what basis do you presume James’ listeners cared so much about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection?

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks for the question, Bill. Thank you for applying my own logic to my own point. I presume that followers of the Jesus movement would care about the person their movement is founded upon. Jesus (“the Lord”) obviously plays an important role in the letter. I figured since the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (or at least one out of the three) play important roles in nearly every other New Testament document, they would probably be more important to the author and readers/listeners of James than the destruction of the Temple and fall of the Temple in the Jewish Revolt.

    In any case, based on his writing, this author seems to have begun with the assumption that James was the author and is looking for arguments to support his position. Personally, I’m not heavily invested in the authorship of James and can handle a later date without feeling theologically conflicted about it.

  • http://www.billheroman.com Bill

    Thanks for the response, Pat. That was aptly put. First, let me say I agree with your logic on the argument from silence. Of course, since James died in 62 AD, the date merely depends on authorship. If we assume authentic authorship, the 70 argument is moot, and I’m more comfortable with that assumption than any other. :)

    My sticking point, however, is audience. It’s a bit off topic, so I’ll post on my own blog. Hope to see you there, and thanks for the conversation so far…