spin

If this last is related to Gal 2, you don't learn anything about their beliefs, just that Paul didn't find them acceptible. I therefore don't think we can go before Paul as you did here.


spin

Amaleq13

I wrote:
Jesus as the source [for parousia expectancy] only goes back to Mark. Prior to that we have Paul as the source. Prior to that, according to Paul, we have Cephas, James, John, etc. as the source.

Actually, I had 1Cor 15 in mind. I connect the parousia expectancy to the resurrection experiences. Gal 2 has more to do with Paul's disagreement with Peter's inconsistent behavior regarding whether Jewish Law had to be kept. If Cephas can be understood as the first to have had one, it seems reasonable to assume that he (and anyone else who considered him credible) would consider the appearance of the Risen Christ as a sign the End was near. Paul's depiction seems to me rather like the spread of phenomena like social fads, mass hysteria, and religious visions. They all start with one individual or small group of individuals whose influence/credibility is sufficient to trigger similar experiences in others.

mike_decock

I still haven't been convinced that the crucified/resurrected Christ Paul speaks of doesn't refer to the living Jesus.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

Obviously, he had to "live" in some sense in order to die. Doherty suggests this "life" was no more real than the "life" of Dionysus. My point was that Paul's gospel, according to Paul's own descriptions, really had nothing to do with the "life" of Jesus. It was focused exclusively on the death and resurrection. As with the Jesus in Hebrews, he appears to live only to be executed.

The problem with "Paul's silence" is the apparent absence of any credible explanation for this total focus if we assume Jesus had only died recently. As Doherty points out, this kind of early, extreme veneration can only be the result of the impact the man made during his life. However, Paul describes the crucified Jesus as having essentially devoided himself of his previous spiritual power and made himself "of no reputation".

Why would Paul attribute so much spiritual significance to a man he believes nobody knew or considered important? That answer can only be that Paul didn't think it mattered what, if anything, the living Jesus did or said. All that mattered was that he had been executed by individuals who did not realize he was the Messiah and that God considered that death as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of those who believed. The evidence for this, again according to Paul, is found in Scripture and in the claims that the Risen Christ had appeared to many people.

Compare this consideration of the living Jesus to the treatment found later in the Gospels and the problem should be apparent. If Jesus was who the Gospels say he was, we would not expect Paul to describe him as having entirely shed his spiritual power and obtaining no reputation.

mike_decock

Paul had nothing to do with the "life" of Jesus. He's obsessed with the crucified/resurrected Jesus he experienced. His resurrection experience is his claim to authority and it's all that matters to him. Why should he give descriptions of something he didn't witness to an audience already familiar with the gospel?

-Mike...

Amaleq13

That assumes what we are trying to determine (i.e. that Paul knew of an historical Jesus). Why should we assume that his audiences were familiar with the Gospel story? In fact, if they were familiar with the Gospel story, Paul's characterization of Jesus as devoid of power and without reputation would have seemed like direct contradictions.

How could Paul know of the Gospel Jesus and refer to him as devoid of power and without reputation prior to his crucifixion?

mike_decock

Would you mind pointing me to the verses you are referring to?

Thanks,

-Mike...

Amaleq13

No problem. I'll not only point, I'll cut and paste them from two translations :

The concept of Jesus devoiding himself of his heavenly power is found at 2 Corinthians 13:4.

“For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.” (KJV)

“for even if he was crucified from infirmity, yet he doth live from the power of God; for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him from the power of God toward you.” (YLT)

The concept of the pre-crucifixion Jesus having no reputation is found at Phil 2:7-8.

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (KJV)

“but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,”(YLT)

According to Paul, when the pre-existent Christ took on the "form of flesh", that involved emptying himself of power. This would explain why he never mentions Jesus performing miracles, even when describing the miracles the apostles performed, but does not suggest that he had in mind the Jesus of the Gospels.

mike_decock

Thank you, kind sir .

To me it looks like he is simply making a contrast between the infirmity of being human and the power of being resurrected as a source of hope to his audience.

Again, I see him creating a contrast between human and being resurrected. Jesus was the firstfruit of this transformation and his audience was expecting to be transformed in a similar way.

I see and I agree. Paul is either completely oblivious of the teaching, miracle-working Jesus or he simply doesn't care because he considers the human Jesus to be so inferior to the resurrected Jesus. He's an apostle of the resurrected Jesus, not a disciple of the living one.

I still don't see Paul's silence as being conclusive, but it does speak loudly.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

De nada. At the very least, participating in these forums has forced me to impose some organization on my notes.

Paul apparently wasn't the only one. As Doherty notes, everyone writing before, and even some writing after, the appearance of the first Gospel continue to be silent about the life of Jesus. When I look at all the evidence as a whole, it is hard to get past the apparent indication that nobody knew anything about the living Jesus until after this story appeared. If we assume the Pillars were originally Disciples of the living Jesus, that only makes it more perplexing that none of this information surfaces until later.

IMHO, the best argument explaining Paul's silence within the context of an historical Jesus is that he was intent on not granting any greater authority to the Pillars in Jerusalem.

The problem I see with that argument is that I'm not sure why Paul would mention them at all if that was the case. If he waited three years before bothering to check his gospel against theirs, why bother mentioning them at all if he was concerned about granting them authority?