Gamera

Since I cited the langauge used by Paul, which includes references to a narrative, how can it be question begging. Paul refers to his "gospel" in his epistles, numerous times. In some of those references, he indicates the elements of his gospel. They include biographical elements about one Jesus, which involve his unique life, his death, his burial, his resurrrection, and his appearance to Paul and others.

Sounds like a narrative to me. On what basis do you claim it's not?

TedM

Multiple attestation to having still living and well known (within the Christian community), biological (my opinion) brothers by Paul as early as 45AD combined with 3 other pieces:

1. Paul referred to Jesus as having been a human of flesh and blood several dozen times.

2. The gospels, Acts, and later writings by the historian Hegissupus corroberated the existence of parents, brothers, cousins, uncles, etc..

3. The lack of any real evidence that anyone in the first 200 years thought otherwise about Jesus having a family, despite thousands of pages of writings in which such a suggestion could have been alluded to or mentioned.

ted

Amaleq13

I agree that Paul's gospel tells a story about the significant death and resurrection of Jesus but where do you find him referring to elements "which involve his unique life"?

spamandham

Then we're quibbling over what qualifies as a narrative, it seems.

Amaleq13

narrative: a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.


Paul's 1 Cor 15 gospel: Christ died, was buried, rose after three days and was seen.


That does appear to be an account of events.

gurugeorge

As I understand it the ancient meaning of "evangelion" was good news related to a significant event (e.g. a herald telling of a victory in war or something like that), but you are sneaking in two assumptions :

1) that Paul's gospel was the narrative of Jesus' life as found in the gospels (i.e. that they're talking about the same thing, only Paul's just summarising the story in a few key events whereas the Gospel writers give the whole thing), rather than simply the victory of Jesus resurrection (which is the important bit - the life could easily be just a necessary corollary he had to mention, and not that important in relation to the victory itself); and

2) that Paul was talking about an actual historical event rather than a mythical "event".

And in view of Paul's saying he got it from Jesus himself, the mythical reading seems more likely (i.e. it was a visionary experience, possibly shared with the "Pillars", possibly not - they might have just been a cult heralding this entity based on their reading of Scripture, or proclaiming his "necessity" based on Scripture, and Paul's the one who says he has had actual contact with the cult entity).

Solitary Man

That's a huge assumption that you are no where near justified in making.

gurugeorge

Eh? It's not an assumption, it's what seems to me likely, given my understanding of how religions in general start (A claims to have had made contact with entity X, and entity X told him this and this, and told him to proclaim it), and given how Paul's view of Jesus is mostly visionary/mythical/mystical in this way, and only scantily historical (if you torture that minimum enough and strenuously deny interpolation), and given the rift between Paul and the other "apostles" (where his trump is "I have had direct contact with the cult entity"). Nowhere is there the distinction, so far as I can see, between "these guys knew him in person but I know him directly", the division is: "I know him directly, these guys only know him according to 'law' and scripture".

Chris Weimer

Riddled with assumptions. You assume Paul's view of Jesus is mostly "visionary/mythical/mystical" (without even bothering to explain your terms, which I don't recall you ever doing), nor have you mounted a case for interpolation - you cannot assume interpolation ever, nor can you hand-wave away the clearly historical references, nor have you have worked with Paul's audience, intent, etc... You just assume you're right, and that we're wrong unless we prove you otherwise. The sloppiest sort of scholarship I've ever seen.

There you go assuming that again. Paul said that he knows Jesus through vision, and saw him through scripture, opposed to receiving tradition from man. Who did he oppose? James and Cephas. Who received tradition from man? James and Cephas. That's how Paul sets it up. You've got the whole thing backwards.

post tenebras lux

But does Paul state that James and Cephas received it from Jesus? :huh:

Because, if not, I struggle to see how Paul claiming to get his knowledge from visions helps the HJers case.