Artemus

The "Earl Doherty" thread has developed a long discussion on whether or not Paul believed in a historical Jesus (as most threads on Doherty that I've lurked in here seem to do). But what difference does that really make? He gives no dates, no details, in fact nothing at all about an earthly life (other than the Last Supper reference, which for the sake of discussion I will treat as both authentic and earthly). He could have believed it all took place 200 years before, for all I can tell. So why would Paul believing in a HJ be more convincing than the gospel writers several decades later believing?

The Evil One

It's not so much that, as the fact that, if Paul didn't believe in an HJ, then the belief in an HJ is first seen as an artefact of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, and can be thus seen to have no connection to an actual historical figure.

Artemus

Okay, I can see that. But if often seems that the HJ proponents argue that if they prove Paul believed in a HJ then the HJ has been proven. I don't see that. Maybe I have just misunderstood the arguments.

Sensei Meela

Forgive my ignorance; Paul wrote before the Gospels? My impression was that the earliest Gospel (Mk) was written c.70 CE; I never knew Pauls accepted writings pre-date this. Or have I mis-read?

[As an aside, I would be greatly interested in a book or website that covers Biblical authorship -- all of it -- more thoroghly]

Asha'man

Peter Kirby's site

And yes, Paul's writing is generally considered to be first, around 50-60CE.

Vinnie

From my historical Jesus skepticism FAQ:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html


[9] Argument: Paul Did Not Believe Jesus Was A Recently Crucified Man.

Rebuttal: Against this we cite three problems. The problems become increasingly more difficult as we go:

1. The very urgent eschatology in Paul's earliest surviving letter. The Thessalonians (1 Thess 4) were shocked that some brothers had died before the Lord's return.

2. Paul himself thought he was marshaling in a new era in God's kingdom. Whatever "inaugurated" this kingdom must have been "relatively" recent.

3. Paul knows several people (pillars) who tie directly into a recently crucified man. Peter, James (Jesus' brother!), the Twelve, John, etc.

All those signs point to a very recently crucified man and point us towards a core level of contemporary-primary source data. Game over!

And yes Paul's seven authentic letters predate all the Gospels including Q and Thomas. Generally speaking they come from the 50s--give or take a few years.

Vinnie

The Evil One

These two are really the same point (IE Paul's sense of urgency/of a New Age must have come from a recent historical event), and the answer is that the recent event kicking off Paul's view of the age need not have been an HJ. What inaugurated the kingdom for Paul, in at least some mythicist theories, was the commencement of the apprehension of the spiritual Christ by people such as Paul himself.

IE the opening of Paul's eyes to the hidden messages in Scripture by a revelation from God may be what marshalled in the New Era for Paul.
The mythicists answer that the narrative tying these people into a recently crucified HJ is not found in the writings of Paul, but in the later Gospels. The thread on Earl Doherty has, I believe, gone over the notion that "James brother of the Lord" is necessarily a biological relationship to an HJ. As for the others, the terms in which Paul refers to them admits of the possibiltiy that they were, like him, dsiciples of a spiritual Christ rather than a recently crucified man.

For instance, Paul doesn't make any reference to the behaviour of Simon Peter denying Jesus to escape, or to the Disciples meeting Jesus while working as fishermen and seeing him walk on water, or to them fleeing the Garden of Gethsemane, or any of the rest of the events described in the Gospels which involved Jesus plus one or more of the Apostles that Paul supposedly met in Jerusalem.

Artemus

These two are interesting, and may suggest that he was speaking of recent events (on whichever plane he believed they occured). I'll read up more on them.

This is far more tenuous, as Paul never referred any of these people as having known an earthly Jesus but rather than those to whom Jesus had appeared in the same way that he had appeared to Paul himself. (James is of course refered to as "Brother of the Lord", which reads more as a title than as an acknowledgment of biological relationship.)

Speaking frankly, that the writings of a person who goes to great lengths to say that he had no Earthly sources is regarded as a primary contemporary source shows how weak the case for the HJ actually is.

Artemus

By the way, before this degrades into yet another general HJ/MJ debate, I am simply interested in reasons why whether or not Paul believed in an HJ would matter. Vinnie's first two points (or is it just one? ) address that issue.

Toto

If Paul did not believe that Jesus was a real human on this sphere of existence who was crucified, but instead based his religion on a spiritual Jesus or one who only existed in a higher Platonic place of existence, it would show that early Christianity was not based on an earthly rabbi. The Jesus character in the gospels would therefore be a founding figure who was invented after the religion had been around for a while.

Conversely, if Paul thought that Jesus was a human who was crucified and then "appeared" to his followers - however you want to add details - then it would be possible that early Christianity grew out of the teachings of a historical person, even if you don't accept the divinity of Jesus or any of the events in the gospels. The gospels would then be events and sayings that were ascribed to this historical person, and at least some of the sayings might go back to him.