Gamera

First the fact that Paul claims a divine source for his knowledge of the gospel doesn't mean it was a different gospel. He's merely arguing the special nature of his calling. The other apostles got the gospel as witnesses to Jesus's life. He was not such a witness. So he claims that he got it from Jesus after the resurrection.

Second, it's clear from Galatians that Paul in fact was not preaching a gospel that was in any way substantially different from the gospel kerygma of the Jerusalem church. When he tells James, Peter and John his gospel, they find it totally acceptable, according to Paul

Gal. 2:
6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[b] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

If Paul had some unusal non-biographical gospel, presumably the Jerusalem leaders, who knew Jesus, would have looked askance at it and registered some disagreement. And presumably Paul would have indicated such. Instead, he tells us that they declared that God was at work in his ministry.

I conclude from this and other references to Paul's gospel, that Paul knew the basic Jesus biography we have in the synoptics (indeed I suspect Paul's preaching informed the synoptic narrative), and that's what he preached, and that was his gospel. He just didn't need to repeat it in his epistles, which weren't gospels at all, but discussion of the meaning of Christian praxis in light of the gospel, which he or others had already preached to the audiences in question.

TedM

His calling was to preach to the Gentiles. It is not clear to me whether in the early days anyone else did this. "Go to all nations" may well have been interpreted as "go to the Jews in all nations". The issue of Gentile inclusion in God's plan of salvation raised a lot of questions about how the Gentiles were to behave--were they subject to the same rules as Jews regarding foods to eat or avoid eating, mixing with Jews, circumcision, and going to and worshipping in the temple? Were they to inherit the same privileges in the after-life, how does following strict Jewish religious law relate to salvation, etc?

It is my impression that Paul's message was very much pushing the envelope for many Jewish Christians, and over the line for others. And, that his gospel WAS more evolved theologically because it wasn't limited to Jews who were still very devout, and didn't require the same kinds of things Jewish Christianity possibly did: Remember that James was considered to have been a strict Nazarite, which I think meant strict adherance to Jewish law.

So, for those early Jewish Christians whose lives were permeated by this new religion, Paul's gospel surely must have seemed "different", and profoundly so.

ted

Gamera

I think there is a difference between a gospel which is proclaimed (kerygma) and constitutes a narrative, and arguments about its meaning.

I don't think there is any evidence that Paul's gospel differed in any way from that of the Jerusalem Church. And Galatians supports that, if you beleive Paul. Now, Paul's epistles and his assertions as to the meaning of the gospel were obviously controversial. Paul tells us so. Indeed, he tells us James sent emissaries to convince Peter not to get too chummy with the gentiles the way Paul had (Gal. 2:12) (though it's hard to tell if this is before or after Paul's visit to the Jerusalem church).

But he does inform us in Galatians that the leaders of the Jerusalem Church approved of the gospel he was proclaiming. So there doesn't seem to have a controversy about that.

gdeering

This begs a question, perhaps none of the assembled had any knowledge of the stories that would later became the gospels.

I mean, it seems unlikely that Paul would tell those he preached to far and wide "Yeah, two weeks with Cephas, you know what that's like..." As humans we tend to be curious, and also look to authority. So given the two instincts it seems only natural that Paul would have picked up something?

I also wonder about his general inquisitiveness in Jerusalem. No only did Jesus supposedly die there, but he later rose, so some of those details must have interested Paul if they were available.


Gregg

TedM

I've gone back and forth on that. I suspect that the basic message of salvation through the resurrection of Jesus was common between Paul and the Jerusalem Church. It just doesn't seem possible that Paul would be silent about any significant difference such as that in all of his letters.

Paul's letters are filled with explanations as to why Gentiles are included and what the implications of that are for them. This is his emphasis. The life and times of Jesus were not. I agree that he likely did know a fair amount about Jesus' ministry. This does not imply that letters addressing Gentile salvation should talk about Jesus' teachings or miracles. Those that find significance in such a claimed silence bear the burden of explaining where and why they would expect Paul to have given details.

I might point out that we don't know Paul's parents name, nor his birthplace, nor much at all about his pre-Christian life. Nor does Paul talk much about political figures or popular other religious sects/ movements of his day. Should we expect him to have done that? Did they not exist since he didn't mention them? No. It all comes down to the purpose of Paul's writings. Clearly it wasn't to give a biography of Jesus. Nor was it to give even his own version of a biography of a mythical Jesus who did all these things in the sky or 100 years prior. None of that is spelled out. Why? Because he was writing for other purposes.

Doherty did the right thing when he came up with his Top 20 silences in Paul. That's what those who argue about Paul's silences need to do. By examining them one by one a person get a sense of just how strong a case there is overall.

ted

aa5874

I think you have found another smoking gun for the MJ's case.

So, it is clearly seen, according to the Epistles, that Paul actually got nothing from anyone, except himself. Paul virtually admitted that he made up everything about this Jesus under the guise of 'revelations'.

But, it seems to me that the so-called Paul must have gotten his information from some man-made source, it just could not have been from any revelations.

Why did the author of the Epistle put this erroneous and misleading information in Galations?

If Paul knew nothing of the historical Jesus and for sure knew nothing at all of the mythical Jesus, then Paul knew nothing whatsoever, the Epistles that bear his name are a farce.

TedM

No. I think Paul is talking about the message of Gentile salvation through faith. That's what he considers 'his' gospel, and that is what he did not get from men but by revelation.

ted

aa5874

Paul could not have gotten any knowledge of Jesus from 'faith'. Revelations through faith is now known as speculation or personal fabrication.

It appears that the term, 'by the revelation of Jesus Christ', was accepted as a plausible means to gain knowledge, at the time of the writing of the Epistles, however today we know that it is extremely unlikey that Paul, or indeed any person, can gain knowledge of Jesus through this means.

It is more likely that Paul or whoever wrote the Epistles, had some prior information about Jesus, from some man-made source and then falsely claim to have received this information by 'revelation of Jesus Christ.'

Galations 1:15-16, 'But when it pleased God, who seperated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his gace,
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul's conversion was not through a 'flesh and blood' Jesus but through a Jesus who was sitting on the right hand of God, see Acts 9, and his 'gospel' was also revealed through those very Gods in heaven, now I find this method of conversion and acquiring knowledge of Jesus highly incredible and devorced of substance.

DramaQ

Where, from Paul, do you get the idea that "the other apostles got the gospel as a witness to Jesus' life"?

Aren't you back-reading later gospel information into it?

And, since they WERE in essential agreement and without back-reading later gospel ideas of the apostles into it, a simpler conclusion is that the other apostles (like Paul) were actually preaching a similar "revealed" divine being.

DQ

gstafleu

Plus, the question is: how strong is your argument regarding Paul. For example, going by the material you quoted, the first time Paul went to Jerusalem he spent 15 days with Cephas and talked with James. If there was such an important figure as a historical founder for the movement, what are the chances neither of those two would have mentioned any details? Possible, but it doesn't ring with conviction, does it? Then 14 years later he goes again to Jerusalem and talks with people there. Again nobody mentions the details that are later seen as of paramount importance?

BTW, as for "And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ," I just read that as saying these churches hadn't heard of him, not that, once he communicated with them, the communication from the side of the churches necessarily left out any and all historical detail.

May I suggest the following. If we just look at the early literature and the evidence discovered about it so far, then we (a) don't need an HJ, and (b) have evidence that the J people envisioned was in fact M (Doherty's "positive silences.") Scientific methodology would then force us to say that, given the evidence so far, MJ is the most likely hypothesis. Of course we can keep HJ open, but with a note attached: not to be considered seriously until more evidence is available. Does adding the gospels to the evidence change this? According to Price: no.

Gerard Stafleu