Toto

I don't think he could have. I don't see how he could have avoided mentioning some fact about Jesus. I don't see how he could have discussed marriage without either telling people to be like Jesus and remain unmarried, or to be like Jesus and have a certain type of marriage, or avoid marriage in spite of Jesus being married. I don't see how he could have mentioned James as Jesus' brother without explaining why James didn't outrank him in spite of being Jesus actual brother. It goes on and on.

Why do you think that Justin is of any aid in interpreting Paul? You can look at more contemporary literature, such as Philo. Philo writes about philosophy, but can also write about real people when needed.

jgoodguy

I agree. :banghead:

Toto

Perhaps he knows that those gospels are just allegorical, with no basis in eyewitness testimony?

jgoodguy

We cannot assume that. We can only assume just the fact that he did not use them as such. Justin may have concluded the gospels were fiction, not needed, not appropriate or not traditional for recruiting new Christians. We cannot assume ahistorical because there are several possibilities. However the silence is suspicious and makes either mythical history or inconsequential history as the most likely possibilities.

JonA

With what aspects of Jesus was Paul concerned?

But why does Paul mention marriage? Is his goals to make the lives of his converts more 'Christ-like'?

Where's the evidence that Paul even considered things like rank? Perhaps if we look close enough we see that Paul wasn't only unconcerned with rank, but was out-right opposed to the implimentation of any apostolic ranking system:

Yes, it does. And it will never end, so long as you read your own motives into Paul, instead of looking at Paul's motives. The list of inconsistencies is infinite when you invent them by reading into the text what was never meant to be there.

Jon

GakuseiDon

Evidence for this?

Toto

The gospels look allegorical, have no basis in eyewitness testimony, and Justin does not rely on them as ultimate authority. What more evidence would you expect?

GakuseiDon

Well, let's look at the wider literature. What do the Gospels say? After all, even fictional people are married or single.

Paul took his gospel to James to make sure he hadn't "run his race in vain", not the other way around. What do you take from that?

For example?

Steven Carr brought up Justin. I think it highlights a point that comes up again and again: mythicists tend to look at the early literature in terms of what we would expect. Steven rightly noticed a lack of reference to a historical Jesus in Justin, where he was obviously expecting there to be. So what does that mean that those references aren't there?

Your point on Philo seems like flakey pastry to me. Can you add some filling to it, please?

GakuseiDon

That is, evidence that Justin thought this.

Toto

Paul does not seem to be concerned with any aspects of Jesus. That's the problem.

Marriage was a central institution in the traditional society that Paul lived in. He mentioned it because it was important to his listeners, because it had implications in the Jewish law, because he couldn't avoid it. He might have been trying to prepare his converts for the coming end of the age. Whatever his motives, how could he avoid the issue of whether Jesus was married? If he preached that it was better not to marry, what did he say when one of his opponents pointed out that Jesus was married? Or, when he said that it was better to marry than to burn, what did he say when an opponent pointed out that Jesus didn't marry?

Paul was no democrat. He was quite concerned that no one should outrank him.

But that's the point. Paul's motives did not include making any reference to a historical Jesus. How can that be reconciled with a recently deceased historical Jesus?