Jayrok

1 Cor 2:6-8 -- We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Ephesians 3:10-11 -- 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Ephesians 6:10-12 -- 10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.


1. None of the rulers of this age understood God's secret wisdom, which has been hidden... If they understood they would not have crucified Jesus.

2. God's intent was to make his secret wisdom known to the "Rulers and authorities" in the heavenly realms... according to his purpose which he accomplished in Jesus Christ.

3. Put on the armor of God... the struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and authorities and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

The rulers that paul talks about are not flesh and blood... not on earth, but are rulers in the heavenly realm. Paul says the rulers, had they known God's intended secret wisdom would not have crucified Jesus.

If the rulers, who crucified Jesus because they didn't know God's wisdom, are rulers/authorities in the heavenly realm... why would they crucify him on earth? Wouldn't they crucify him in their heavenly realm?


Question: If Paul believed in spirit rulers and forces of evil in some heavenly realm above the earth, what was their purpose (in his eyes) if it is not them who crucified his Jesus? What role did they play to Paul?

Malachi151

Great post Jayrok, nicely laid out.

GakuseiDon

"Lacking in the authentic epistles". Let's think about this for a moment. Let's assume that the original Paul was a mythicist, and he was followed by scribes who were historicists. There are two scenarios:
The historicists interpolated Paul's letters.
The historicists didn't interpolate Paul's letters.

If it is the latter, then we can't talk about a "lack" from a perspective of the people at that time. Calling it a "lack" would just be a retrojection of modern ideas. Thus, Paul as he stands was a historicist, at least according to the following generation of historicists. And if those historicists didn't see a lack, why should we assume that Paul would have?

If it is the former, then those historicists simply didn't see the need to include those kinds of details into Paul that you are talking about. Again, they didn't see a "lack", and to talk of a lack is anachronistic. And again, if those historicists didn't see a lack, why should we assume that Paul would have?

Is my logic sound? I'd be interested in comments on this.

Jayrok

Thank you, but I'm new to the MJ/HJ stuff. I've read Doherty and your essay. The idea that Paul's Jesus might be different from the Gospel Jesus is fascinating and new to me.

I did notice in your article that you didn't site Ephesians 6, when talking about the Armor of God. It seems to clearly label the rulers and authorities as being in the heavenly realm and not flesh and blood. I wondered why you didn't include it in the section where you site Ephesians 2 and 3. If it can be shown that Paul's rulers of this age were definitely in the heavenly realm, that seems to be a striking point. I'm sure E. Doherty mentions it, though I don't remember.

Toto

I still think you are looking at early Christian history through modern eyes and modern concerns about historical existence.

There "historicists" of that age didn't know the details of Jesus life, and didn't care so much about details as much as they did about the orthodox dogma of Jesus as the fleshy part of the trinitarian God. They only interpolated enough to reinforce their interpretation of Jesus' nature - born of a woman, according to the flesh.

They weren't worried about 21st century critics looking at Paul's work and wondering why he didn't have any curiosity about Jesus as a person. If they had foreseen that problem, they might have included more details. But they were more concerned with bringing Paul's letters in line with correct orthodoxy than creating what later critics would see as a good forgery that would prove that Jesus existed.

Malachi151

Yeah, its a somewhat good point, but the bad thing is that Ephesians isn't considered an authentic letter of Paul, so it makes it hard to tie it all together. Its still a good point, but I'm not sure you can totally say that this was Paul's view based on these things.

Ben C Smith

I think much the same of Paul himself.

Paul, in his age, did not care so much about the details as about his own dogma that the resurrected Jesus was Lord. He inserted only enough of these details into his letters to reinforce his understanding of Jesus as present, reigning-from-heaven Lord.

(I would add that Paul wrote about Jesus in much the same way that imperial propagandists wrote about Augustus on their inscriptions and coins.)

Paul was not worried about future critics looking at his own work and wondering why he did not have any curiosity about Jesus as a person. If he had foreseen that problem, he might have included more details. But he was more concerned with bringing his gentile converts in line with his own correct dogma (about Jesus as presently reigning Lord) than with creating what later critics would see as proof that Jesus existed.

Ben.

Gregg

Come on, G'Don. Can't you do better than this? This is like taking candy from a baby. Do you always consider every scripture verse in isolation, not taking into account things Paul, for example, says elsewhere?

I'm not going to look it up right now, but in that other thread where we were discussing this issue, I posted a quote from Paul in which he talks about the Jews in the wilderness eating and drinking from the "rock" which "followed" them, "and the rock was Christ." Now are you going to tell us that Paul was talking about an actual historical man following the Jews around, leading the pack mule? I certainly hope not.

All Paul is saying is that the Jews did not have faith (in Christ). They tried to find salvation by following the Law. As we can see from the passage above, Paul believed that salvation through faith (in Christ) had ALWAYS been available to the Jews. To him, Christ had been a constant presence in Jewish history, even if they were not aware of it (see above). Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc. had been justified by faith, not by works. In some fashion, to Paul's mind, they had had sufficient faith to be "saved," even if the mystery of the Christ had not yet been revealed to them as it had been in the present time to Paul and apostles like him.

Paul is not talking about a specific, recent moment in Israel's history, when the Christ was revealed in flesh and the Jews rejected him or "stumbled" over him. He's saying, that, collectively, and over a period of time, the Jews have stumbled by seeking salvation through the Law rather than through faith (in Christ), as their ancestors did. Even with the mystery of the Christ finally being revealed through Paul and apostles like him, the Jews are still rejecting the message, still seeking justification through works rather than faith.

There is simply nothing in this passage that poses the slightest difficulty for the mythicist position. Sorry.

Gregg

Ben, this explanation has been thoroughly addressed by mythicists, especially Doherty. Sorry, but I find it wanting.

Paul was not talking about Augustus. Everyone knew who Augustus was. He was the frigging first Emperor of Rome! (Caesar was a dictator, not Emperor.) He was the one who defeated the enemies of order and restored sanity and stability to the world. He was a public figure. He did big, grand things and whatever else was expected of him as a head of state. His activities were a matter of public record.

Paul, was, supposedly, talking about a humble and virtually unknown rabbi who'd been executed as a criminal. Why should anyone have listened to him when he put this guy on Augustus' level, and far beyond it? For that matter, why would any Jews, any at all, including Paul, have made such claims about a simple rabbi? G'Don is constantly asking for examples, just two or three examples. I ask him to give me just two or three examples of other Jews elevating other crucified rabbis into the Godhead. Making a crucified Jewish teacher into the earthly embodiment of the creative force behind the universe. Convincing thousands of Gentiles to accept this claim.

Here is your argument, Ben: Paul doesn't write about the historical Jesus because he just isn't interested in him. All he cares about is the cosmic figure he has turned this obscure rabbi, whom he never met, into. He's writing letters to churches filled with new, raw Christians, shaky in their faith, being courted by apostles of "another Christ" who was not (!) crucified. But this doesn't matter. He's going to stick to his guns. He's going to keep talking about his cosmic Christ and quoting from Scripture when he wants to tell his readers something Christ "said." He's not going to say anything about how he first heard the story of that brave young rabbi, or whoever, who was crucified outside Jerusalem for the sins of the world, and how he was convinced by the passion and utter conviction of those who knew Jesus personally. He's not going to offer any teachings, any anecdotes from Jesus' ministry to cajole, persuade, shame, or inspire his readers. Just about anything he says about Jesus is going to come directly from Scripture. He's not going to say about those who are preaching an uncrucified Christ, "They don't know what they're talking about, people who saw Christ crucified are still alive!"--instead he's going to prove Christ's crucifixion from Scripture. Apparently, no one Paul is writing to has any interest in Jesus' earthly life either, not even those brand-new Christians being pulled this way and that and made to doubt their faith that a Jewish rabbi they ever met is the creative power of the universe and the reconciler of creation to God. We get no hint from Paul that anyone asks these questions or that he has to tell anyone they're not important. (And don't forget, the rest of the epistle writers are the same way.)

Now, here's my argument. Paul doesn't talk about an earthly Jesus because ... tah dah! ... there wasn't one. Take away the earthly Jesus and all those strange silences about him, and all those tortured, ad hoc explanations for those strange silences, disappear.

Occam's Razor, anyone?

GakuseiDon

Yes, but don't you see the problem with that kind of logic? What you are proposing is an interpolator who is much like the Paul we see in the letters already. In other words, the interpolators were historicists who "didn't have many details of Jesus life, and didn't care so much about details as much as they did about the orthodox dogma of Jesus as the fleshy part of the trinitarian God. They only interpolated enough to reinforce their interpretation of Jesus' nature - born of a woman, according to the flesh". And why are you proposing this? To explain the existence of the Paul who, according to mythicists, for some reason couldn't have had that same exact view. I can't help feel that Occam's razor would remove that extra layer of interpolation, all other things being equal.