spin

Well, it is for xians. Josephus tells us basically when John the B. died, AJ 18 ch 5, provides us with the background data for John dying towards the end of the 30s, while all conventional wisdom has Jesus dead at the beginning.

Paul never saw what you're talking about. At best he heard hearsay.


spin

Vorkosigan

It seemed to be absent from what you were doing. Stratification is certainly nice, but solves problems of the "how did early Christianity proceed?" variety. It doesn't help determine what Jesus did or who he was.

Amaleq13

Given that Paul never directly describes his revelatory experience, we can't even say that it happened all at the same time or place. It could very well have taken place gradually as Paul considered Scripture in light of the claims being made by "Christians".

If Paul explicitly described his revelatory experience, I agree that we would expect him to place it in an historical context.

For whatever reason, Paul never does this and chooses to focus exclusively on the content of the revelation rather than the experience, itself.

I don't see how this is a problem for the mythical position.

GakuseiDon

It's a problem when a mythicist insists that Paul would date and place significant historical events. There are significant historical events for the MJers as well, like the appearances and revelations of the risen Christ. That's what I'm trying to get rlogan to understand.

"For whatever reason, Paul never does this and chooses to focus exclusively on the content of the revelation rather than the experience, itself." Yes, I agree. But why would he downplay his mystical experiences? Something else that Doherty doesn't address.

Amaleq13

The crucifixion of Jesus and Paul's divine revelation are not "historical events" in the same sense. The former is claimed to be an objectively real event while the latter is a subjectively real event. Only the former is concretely grounded in a specific time or place.

Personally, I think it is particularly strange (regardless of whether we assume an HJ or not) that no Christian author ever attempted to describe the conversion or resurrection experience of Jesus' alleged brother, James.

Perhaps because, like me, he doesn't find this to be true of Paul? In fact, I find Paul emphasizing that his gospel was obtained directly from the Risen Christ. I don't think we can reach any reliable conclusions merely on the fact that he never explicitly describes the experience(s) nor places them in an historical context. For all we know, they happened while he was in the bathroom!

GakuseiDon

I honestly don't understand how a vision can't be tied to a specific time or place. True, the contents can't - but the actual visions themselves can be, e.g. Fatima and Lourdes.

In the Apographa there is a bit about him. One of them has Joseph as a middle-aged man when he marries Mary, with James (and others?) becoming Jesus's step-brother.

Another type of "embarrassment scenario" indeed!

Layman

Exactly. Somewhere, sometime, Paul and the others--per Doherty--had these "visionary revelations." And 1 Cor. 15 makes clear that these were discrete appearances to a select few at select times. Why Paul never mentions his in detail is a problem for JMers who whine about the lack of detail re: Jesus's life or a lack of veneration.

Amaleq13

Clearly, visions can be tied to specific times or places. The examples you mention are specifically site-centered visions which seem significantly different from the personal visions/revelation Paul describes. Where the former take place in the same place to multiple people, the latter is specific to an individual apparently without regard to where they were at the time. For example, if the resurrection experiences of Cephas, James, the twelve, etc. took place in the same place, I would expect that place to be mentioned.

Mentioning the specific location or time of an historical event (i.e. the crucifixion) provides an historical context that lends credibility to the claim. The same cannot be said, however, for a personal vision. Whether Paul claimed to have been on the road to Damascus or in the bathroom or studying in his den, it wouldn't lend his claim of a personal revelation any more credibility because it is ultimately a claim about a subjective experience. The only exceptions (i.e. your examples above) would be visions that are explicitly connected to geographic locations. In that context, it wouldn't matter "who" had the visions as much as "where". In the context of visions like Paul's, it is the "who" that matters while the "where" is ultimately irrelevant.

Paul provides the only "historical context" necessary for his visions: they took place after he had been persecuting believers in Jesus Christ and after several others had similar experiences.

Regarding the absence of any depiction of James' conversion/resurrection experience:
Is his conversion/resurrection experience described?