Ben C Smith

I think this is pretty much spot-on.

This requires comment. The Hebrew term, so far as I can tell, is a proper name, period. It bears a meaning, of course, like so many other Hebrew names, but in and of itself it does not mean savior; rather, it is a compound one of whose elements means savior. But the term itself, Yeshua or Yehoshua, is simply a proper name.

This means that it is unlikely someone called this figure Yeshua and then the term was eventually understood as a name; if the meaning latent in the name has any relevance at all, it must be intentional; that is, someone intentionally named this figure Jesus because of the meaning behind it. Such a process is possible, but I think we have the right to demand evidence for it. The notion that it was just a proper name, on the other hand, requires no special argument; that is what the term is, a proper name.

Jesus as Joshua has a much better chance of pulling through than Jesus as savior does. In fact, if Jesus were a rare name, that connection would be my favorite. As things stand, however, there is nothing suspicious IMO about someone in Judea being named Jesus and later being called the messiah.

Ben.

gstafleu

Yes, I was thinking more or less intentional. IOW, if we have a process of mythical evolution here, I would think that a name with a connotation "savior" for a savior-like figure might be a natural. Or, given Hebrew history, "Joshua" might be a natural. I also agree that this is by no means a given, as the name itself was rather common. It does remain a rather conspicuous convenience, though.

Gerard

aa5874

Again, the passage in Galtions 1.22 does not even mention such a thing. It is erroneous to state as fact that the churches in Judaea told Paul that Jesus was the Messiah. This is just an unsubstantiated speculation.

And further Jesus the Christ was already revealed to Paul before long he arrived in Judaea. It took at least three years before he went to Jerusalem after being in Damascus and Arabia.

But, "Paul" stated clearly that God's Son was revealed to him in Galations 1.15-18. There is no support for your speculation at all, externally and internally.

gstafleu

We were looking for a connection between the Hebrew world, where the concept of a Messiah was current, and the Hellenistic world, where it was not and where it hence was not clear how the connection Christos=anointed=Messiah could be made. The Judean churches of Gal 1.22 provide such a connection. True, it is not stated that this is where Paul picked up the idea that Jesus was a/the Messiah, but we are no longer in a position where we have to say "We have no idea where that came from."

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Look also at Romans 16.7:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Consider the implications:

1. Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before Paul.
2. Andronicus and Junia were kinsmen of Paul, evidently meaning that they, like him, were Jews.

Another indication that the Jews had a Christ concept before Paul inherited it.

And 1 Thessalonians 2.14, disputed by some, gives much the same information as Galatians 1.22, that there were churches in Christ in Judea.

Ben.

aa5874

But you are using the words of the author called Paul and the author has already written that Jesus Christ was revealed to him by the very same Jesus Christ in the previous verses.

Look at the words of the author, Galations 1.11-12 The author has already given you information about how he picked the idea that Jesus was Christ and he was not taught it by men in Judaea.

gurugeorge

In the case of a vision or revelation, it's difficult to see how one person's having them could be verified by someone else

Well, Paul might be lying, but I'd say you'd have to prove he was lying, rather than prove that he seemed to himself to have had communication with a discarnate intelligence.

It's not as if having visionary experiences is odd or unusual amongst religious types - and not even just religious types, but anybody under the right conditions, even people who are normal and sane. (Go without sleep for a few days, do some breathing exercises, and you too could easily have a seeming experience of discourse with a discarnate intelligence.) Paul's saying he had a visionary experience isn't the sort of thing that requires proof - you can provisionally accept it as an honest report of his experience unless there's evidence to the contrary (e.g. that there was no Paul, or even "Paul", that he was lying, etc., etc.)

So, taking "Paul"'s report at face value, that's what it looks like: a small religious group in Jerusalem gets some mass hysteria going about an entity they think has revealed himself to them in scripture, an entity who reverses the traditional Messiah tropes and has already been and gone; some time later this "Paul" fellow has a visionary experience of what he conceives to be the same entity.

aa5874

That is why I cannot accept them.

No way. It is "Paul" who must satisfy me that he is truthful. His conversion story is fiction and his revelations about the last Supper appear to be implausible.

I do not know what is true in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles about "Paul".

The author called "Paul" claims Jesus is coming back for the dead in the Epistles. He appears delusional.


Well, what happens if I believe "Paul" was not lying but he was really not truthful, knowing that his conversion as reported in Acts is fiction?

And based on Church History and the deduction of biblical scholars, it would appear that the author called "Paul" was alive when he was supposed to be dead. Another resurrection?

You see why I have to reject "Paul"!

"Paul" at face value is not credible.

gurugeorge

Yeah I see what you're doing. My position isn't based on such outright skepticism abuot him - I think there's some invention in Acts, and some interpolation in the Epistles, but I would still say there was some guy who got the whole thing started, and that a fair chunk of the Epistles have a powerful "voice" and are genuinely the work of a great religious visionary (or "nutcase" depending on your preference ).

gstafleu

Yes, δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου (through revelation of Jesus Christ). That does not have to mean that Jesus did the revealing, it can also mean that Jesus was the object of the revelation (this is called an objective genitive, I think). Which still leaves open that the revelation was done, at least in part, by people from Judea. (Unless you want to make the point that it was Jesus himself who did the revealing--which I sort of doubt.)

Anyway, the question was: what cultural connections could establish the link Christos=Messiah. That would have had to be a Hebrew speaking culture, and Paul provides us a link to such a culture via the Judean churches.

Gerard Stafleu