Toto

But didn't Jesus preach?

Gamera

Jesus didn't preach his own narrative, by definition. From the synoptics we learn that Jesus expounded on Jewish law and "explained it" in light of a reinterpretation that only become clear (from Paul's perspective and the perspective of the authors of the synoptics) at his death and resurrection. The authors are at pains to explain that nobody understood what Jesus was really saying until after he died and was resurrected

I believe it's mentioned that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, but that is, I would suggest, a metanarrative, that takes place at a "higher" level.

Gamera

As I suspected, the "gospel of the kingdom" Jesus identifies is escatological and involves a larger metanarrative. It isn't the gospel Paul preached, which is soteriological, the gospel of Christ.

Matthew 24:4-31
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17

And note that Jesus's use of the gospel elsewhere (not something he preached, but the events before him) refers to his biography. Thus, the annointing of his head with perfume before his death becomes part of a gospel he says will be preached. That's Paul gospel, the narrative of Jesus' life.

Matthew 26:6-13
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. 8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9 "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor." 10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

krosero

For purposes of historical investigation, I do not insist on a divine personage, and I don't think it's needed for this argument that I'm making. Let's say we have no idea when his special status as a divine being became known to those around him. Let's say we have no idea when it became clear to him, especially since we have no writings from him to illuminate his most private thoughts. I think we're on historically solid ground if we refrain from trying to guess such private things. All I'm positing is, not so much Jesus' personal specialness as what we see he already is for Paul: the savior, and not one of the saved. Not a normative case for proving anything.

I'm not trying to say that Jesus was so special that "none of the societal norms would apply." I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase, but I think you mean that if Jesus had been upheld as a model of celibacy, according to societal norms the listeners would have readily taken the example and felt its force.

So, just to be clear: I am not saying that Paul had no reason at all to use Jesus as an example. I'm not saying that, by God, it's OBVIOUS that Paul would not have used Jesus as an example. If Paul had done so, we would see his motive for doing so, and as with all of Paul's arguments, we would debate the strengths and weaknesses of that particular one. All I'm saying is that using Jesus as an example does have weaknesses, as an argument: anyone can then say, "Well, yes, but that was Christ." It's as if you wanted to recommended celibacy to me today, and you used Christ as an example. I would give just that retort. It's an example, and an elevating one; and certain people (like Catholic priests) do try to emulate it. But it's hardly a slam-down argument. It's not OBVIOUS, at least to me, that Paul had to use Jesus to make his argument about celibacy. And if it's not obvious, then how much meaning can be placed upon this silence?

Kevin Rosero

Sparrow

I'm ok with this, but in the overall picture which spawned the OP, we're trying to understand whether Paul thought of the Christ as a human figure from the past or not. All it seems you have managed to do is confirm that Paul thought he was special. If Paul thought that Christ was purely divine/spiritual, then it makes sense for Paul to use someone else as an example. If Paul thought of Christ as having been human, then it seems appropriate to explain Christ's status relative to the behaviors he preaches. Especially since Jesus ministry began so late in his life. The questions are bound to arise.

For me it's not one silence but the combination of all of them, taken with my preference for naturalism. Since we do not have the original texts we cannot be certain of what was initially there and the scant entries we have in Paul's writings to tie Christ to a historical human could have been added or changed by later scribes. Even if we have the authentic text, as Paul is writing theologically (in my view), the assumption that his meaning was the plain reading may be wrong.

I have not yet seen a scenario for either HJ or MJ in which every question is answered. There are always little pieces that do not fit.

James Brown

Whenever an apologist claims, "Jesus was tempted in all ways, yet he never sinned," I usually reply, "Oh? Was he tempted to cheat on his wife?" They usually mumble something about fornication, which is of course an entirely different sin, thus yielding a different temptation.

Put me down, by the way, as someone who thinks that Paul should have mentioned an historical Jesus' marriage status.

Ray Moscow

Alternately, I would take Paul's ommission of such details as evidence that he didn't know anything about an earthly Jesus as portrayed in the gospels.

Ray

Solo

Yes, if she was suing for abandonment.

Jiri

krosero

I don't think there's anything wrong with questions arising about, and there's nothing unreasonable about arguing that Paul should have mentioned Jesus here. It's a curious silence -- meaning it makes me curious. But it's not a smoking gun. On that note --

I agree: Doherty's argument from silence is a cumulative one, that does not depend on any smoking gun.

Kevin Rosero

spamandham

Jesus F. Christ! Is this all the knowledge required to be a Biblical scholar these days?!

Why does Tabor also not note that Paul seems to know nothing at all about the man Jesus aside from creedal aspects? Why does Tabor not mention that in 1 Cor 15, Paul explcitly states that the gospel that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead is according to the scriptures - aka derived from them!?