spamandham

Taken in isolation, maybe. But when combined with everything else Paul tells us about his vision to the third heaven and his discussion about secrets in the scriptures that he was specially chosen to reveal, I don't think that's the best understanding. He doesn't tell us things happened in fulfillment of scripture. If these particular things are not the former secrets he refers to elsewhere, then what is?


Now 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, but 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— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

This is saying the exact same thing as 1 Cor. 15 - the gospel was derived from scripture via revelation. Paul tells us this more than once.

If he said it just once, well, maybe you could hand wave it away, but he says it explicitly twice and alludes to it elsewhere. It requires substantial mental gymnastics to reject the straightforward reading and try to fit a gospel Jesus into a Paul hole.

spamandham

The complicating factors are:

1. Almost all scholars agree the Pauline corpus has had multiple authors. So which author wrote that?

2. The text doesn't say Jesus was born of woman, it says God's Son was born of a woman, born under the law. The connection from Son to Jesus is via assumption.

At best, this is weak evidence that Paul thought Jesus had been human.

Chili

Good point but better yet is that Christ was born and they called him Jesus. The question now is: who is 'him' and why Jesus and not Christ until Jesus died.

EarlDoherty

One of the reasons I don't accept 1 Cor. 15:4-7 as a later interpolation is that if such an insertion was made in the 2nd century, after the Gospels were known, that list of 'appearances' would more closely reflect the Gospel accounts. It would include the women, and would not likely include the 500 brothers. Where would the latter have come from if it surfaces nowhere in the 2nd century traditions?

I have many times pointed out that Romans 1:2 specifies that God's gospel of the Son is found in scripture, with the clear implication that scripture is the source of the details of that gospel, including the kata sarka and kata pneuma elements of verses 3 and 4. Also, if you read the passage carefully, you will see that this gospel in the prophets is a 'fore-announcing' of the Gospel preached by Paul, not of Jesus himself and his life.

As for "born of woman" indicating a human birth, consider Revelation 12, which tells of the birth of the Messiah to a woman in the heavens, pursued by a dragon which seeks to devour the child. The child is snatched up to God's heaven, while the angels make war on the dragon. This is hardly an earthly scene, and indicates that Christian writers were capable of envisioning a birth to a woman in a mythical setting. And there isn't the slightest hint in the mind of Revelation's writer that this child Messiah had any life on earth. He simply waits in heaven until the End-time.

However, I think there is a good case to be made that the "born of woman, born under the Law" is an interpolation. (I devote an entire chapter in my "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" to this Galatians passage, examining both possibilities of authenticity and interpolation.) Ehrman has pointed out that there is extant evidence of those phrases being doctored later to make them more efficient at countering docetism, increasing the likelihood that they began as interpolations in those same interests.

Earl Doherty

Russellonius

In Galatians 1 Paul clearly states he did not receive his gospel from man, nor was he taught it, but that it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ and he “did not confer with flesh and blood” in learning of it.

After spreading his supernaturally revealed gospel for three years he claims he met for a couple of weeks with Peter and had no social contact with any other member of the group associated with Jesus except James.

Then, the narrative continues, after 14 more years Paul returned to Jerusalem so they could check on his work. They said, ‘That thing with the blood. Don’t teach that,’ the Jerusalem Decree, Acts 15 & 21

Does anybody else see a disconnect here?

Between the group with drinking of blood as a central concept and the group that prohibited drinking of blood? It was two different groups.

There were two groups both claiming the same messiah. One group’s messiah – the ones who did not know Paul’s face, but for two, allegedly - was plausibly historical. The other mythical one was created by people who had minimal social contact with the one who may have been historical. Or at least their social interactions were not pleasant. With the violence and everything.

Herodian-connected Paul opposed the group associated with Jesus. First with violence, then with rhetoric. Paul’s Christ was cosmic (except for a few biographical details). We cannot rule out the possibility that Paul’s group, in opposing the traditionalist covenant renewal groups, modeled their cosmic Christ on an insurrectionist group's resurrection claims made about a historical Jesus whom they had killed.

aa5874

Only people who think 1 Cor. 15.3-8 are the only passages where the Pauline writers mentioned that Jesus was raised from the dead and was the son of God have problems.

There are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and the mere fact that the Pauline writers mentioned the name Jesus clearly indicate that they are talking about an earthly figure or one who they believe or wanted people to believe was on earth.

The NT Jesus was a God/man. The NT Jesus, again notice Jesus and not just Christ, was said to have either been a God before he came man or was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

A Pauline writer chose gJohn's version of the God/man or some similar version.

Philippians 2.5- 8 And throughout the Epistles the Pauline writers refer to JESUS as the Son of God.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man which is consistent with the teachings and Creeds of the Roman Church.

dog-on

:Cheeky:

So you are saying that there is more evidence for the historical Osiris than there is for the historical Jesus? Cool.... :notworthy:

Doug Shaver

I don't think anybody is arguing that it cannot be so explained. What ahistoricists argue is that, contrary to the prevailing assumptions, there is at least one other plausible explanation and, for various reasons, we consider that alternative to be a better explanation.

Doug Shaver

Suppose it is. Is there some reason we should we regard everything else Paul wrote as irrelevant to the issue? According to which historiographical theory must we decide that every other datum pertinent to an assessment of Jesus' historicity must be interpreted so as to fit this one particular statement?

Juststeve

Doug:

No, everything else is not irrelevant. In 1 Corinthians 23-26 Paul narrates an event from the historical Jesus' life:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Is this not evidence that Paul believed that the last supper, later recorded in the Gospel’s actually occurred?

Steve