Doug Shaver

Do you always assume your conclusions this way when you question witnesses in court?

It probably would be, if we could disregard everything else Paul ever wrote about Jesus.

Doug Shaver

Something else.

gurugeorge

No it isn't, because elsewhere we read that Paul got his gospel from the horses mouth. So what this is more likely evidence of is one of the things that his visionary Jesus told him.

Otherwise, we must suppose that contrary to other evidence in the Epistles, he was actually contemporary with (what we as historical investigators must suppose to have been a human) Jesus and was witness to the events.

(Note: of course even if he got this bit of info from his visionary Jesus, that doesn't rule out that there was a historical Jesus, it just means that this little nugget isn't strong evidence for a historical Jesus.)

gurugeorge

Other sources that are later.

They likely did. Why likely? Because Paul, in and of himself, is notoriously silent on a human Jesus who might have had siblings who survived to Paul's time.

Now of course, on an HJ hypothesis, there are all sorts of reasons why he might be silent - but what reason do we have to support an HJ hypothesis at this point?

Suppose there was a historical mention in other (non-Christian) sources of a preacher of the relevant name with some echoes of the gospel biography. Then, yes, of course, then it would be quite a viable move to introduce the gospels as roughly contemporary sources. There would be enough similarities in the stories to make it very plausible to triangulate at that point.

But we don't have anything from that time that would suggest that: not only that, but part of what has to be explained is the "silence" in Paul!

Better to just take Paul as he comes, and then take the gospels as they come, to see what shakes out.

And in Paul, as he comes, because there's no other mention of a human Jesus, why should we suddenly interpret roughly-contemporaneous-human-siblinghood in this passage, when elsewhere, in Paul as he comes, there's no reason to suppose he's talking about an ordinary human being at all, and he uses the term in question to refer to some class in a taxonomy of believers?

EarlDoherty

One doesn't need to go elsewhere. We have a direct statement from Paul right in that passage, which is introduced by: "For I received from the Lord..." Sounds like revelation to me.

We also have very good evidence that any tradition of the Last Supper as an historical event was unknown in any other community outside Paul's own mind. It is notably missing in Hebrews 7:1-3 and 9:19-20, Didache 10 and 1 Clement 41, in all of which passages we would have every right to expect that the writer would not have passed up referring to Jesus' establishment of the eucharist. All other documents before the Gospels came along are also silent on any mention of an historical Last Supper.

The cult of Mithras had a myth of a sacred meal which was attended solely by mythical characters such as Mithras and Helios, with no earthly figures in attendance. And what do we find in Paul's "Lord's Supper" scene? No mention, unlike the Gospels, of "disciples" in attendance whom the Lord is addressing.

Would you like to actually comment on these observations, Steve, perhaps even counter them in some substantive and insightful way? Or do you just ignore anything that doesn't agree with your a priori preconceptions?

Earl Doherty

spin

In discussing the common interpretation of "James the brother of the lord" (Gal 1:19), which says that because the gospels mention that Jesus has a brother called James, James the brother of the lord is obviously the brother of Jesus, I wrote the following, which doesn't actually parse my reading, as though something went wrong in the editing process. I'll try to correct it here.

(I hope that makes sense now.)

Retrojecting later ideas into an earlier text doesn't tell you about the earlier text, just about how later people thought about it.


spin

spamandham

Yes.

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Paul explicitly tells us that there are those who are considered brothers of the Son because they are conformed to his likeness. We can either presume that Paul is referring to blood relationships in exactly 2 cases and not in hundreds of other cases, or we can conclude that even in these two cases, he is *not* usign brother literally, but is instead referring to people who satisfy the criterion of Romans 8:29.

Is there anything in 1 Cor. 9 that might suggest this? It turns out there is. Here is the context of 1 Cor 9:5.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

What on earth is Paul talkign about when he asks "am I not free"? In Paul's theology, he is free because he is the spiritual son of the free woman.

Gal 4:21-31
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.