Vivisector

I'd assume the establishment disagreed, and probably didn't even like this belief. But if all the conversion requires is to carry around a new idea in one's head (as opposed to doing something new/different), would this alone have prompted an active persecution?

Okay, but why differentiate between Peter, the Twelve, James, the 500, and all the apostles? Why not, for example, lump the Twelve in with the 500 (call them the 512, maybe) unless there was something special about the Twelve? And if the Twelve were special in some way, what would account for that?

Exactly - he goes to make sure that what he's preaching is consistent with the "party line." Then, he says he gets a relevation (I, too, would assume it's from Christ) and goes back. But when he talks about his fear of running in vain, that's strongly suggestive that he has questions about the content of his gospel. My question is, why would the Jerusalem group be any sort of authority if both they and Paul got their information from the same source - a direct revelation from Christ?

If it's not something derived from a living Jesus, then we'd have the risen Christ saying (to Paul, earlier apostles, or both) the basic, rudimentary content that we discussed earlier (You're right about the crucified and resurrected Messiah, I'm the man, go spread the word) but also something like, "Oh, and one other thing - there's this thing about marriage ... yeah, I just about forgot - it's okay to make your livelihood from preaching." It sounds like one would have to hypothesize a really strange revelation or series of revelations.

Good question. I think the parallel is stronger to what Jesus is reported to have said on the topic than anything in the Jewish Scripture.

That's a very good point; it's difficult to reconcile it all. I don't really have a good explanation of how Paul would know and follow this as a teaching of the living Jesus and how Peter would be okay with following it until people from James showed up. Perhaps different traditions of Jesus's teachings (Paul getting his from one place, the Jerusalem group from another) would explain part, perhaps different understandings (Paul vs. James) would explain it. What do you think would explain it?

I agree completely.

It seems this would require Paul to combine only a reinterpreted Isaiah and a vague Psalm with a revelation from a (former?) man with basically no recorded past to arrive at his new belief system. It just seems like a very slim basis for motivating all that Paul did.

Always happy to provide someone with an opportunity for fun

I think you're right; reliability will probably always be elusive, or at least elusive as long as I'm doing this sort of thing. The disconnect between the ministry (less the fantastic events) in the gospels and what we know of Paul's gospel has always struck me as peculiar. Having struggled through Bultmann, I also agree with you about the scarcity of unique aspects of Jesus's reported ministry. Right now, a ministry of some sort still seems to best explain to me what we can reasonably assume to be true. However, the nature of the ministry might have been one I haven't given much consideration to (maybe it would be considered on scholarship's fringe, or maybe it was a combination of elements that's difficult to work out). Then again, maybe there wasn't a ministry - it's a possiblity. :huh:

Hope to address omitted points as time permits.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

If they just kept their beliefs in their heads, I doubt anyone would have persecuted them. Unfortunately for the Church of God, part of the gospel was to spread the gospel. I assume that the persecution resulted from being too successful in converting fellow Jews to this new belief.

I would assume that Cephas warrants special mention for being first but apparently also for having established churches (1Cor3:22). James has his independent reputation to warrant special mention. Paul gives us no idea who "the Twelve" are but we can assume they were a known group to his readers. Whether "the 500" was a known group or hyperbole can't be determined from what little Paul says.

Paul doesn't tell us enough but he also gives no indication that they were former followers of a living, preaching Jesus. They could simply have been a group intended to represent the 12 tribes for all we know.

Paul makes it clear that he does not consider them to have any greater authority than himself but seems to be acknowledging that they are recognized as authorities by others. It seems to me that the most obvoius source of this authority is the mere fact that they were the first to preach the gosple of the Risen Christ. Does it make sense for Paul to disparage their "high reputation" if it was founded on their prior relationship with the living Jesus?

That sounds exactly like what Paul describes as taking place in at least some of the churches. It is no more strange than the same claims taking place in many churches today. You don't have to look very hard to find churches in modern times where members claim to have obtained revealed knowledge from the Lord or folks speaking in tongues.

But what was the source for the written report? Did they consult a collection of sayings the living Jesus spoke or have they put later revelations into the mouth of a depiction of a living Jesus? Don't the written accounts differ with regard to what they attribute to Jesus?

Within the context of an assumed living, preaching Jesus, I think we have to conclude that he didn't teach anything on the subject.

How does assuming knowledge of a pre-execution ministry make his radical conversion and subsequent behavior more rational? You seem to be suggesting that Paul totally ignores the aspect of Jesus that provides a reasonable motivation for his behavior. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I think the evidence can be understood to support either a mythical construct or two separate belief systems akin to Maccoby's theory.

Sheshbazzar

Kal-asher hu min-ha'ameth e'shama b'koli :
v'atem tir'u eth-ben-ha'adam yo'shev li'min yah'weh
u'ba im-an'ney ha'sha'ma'eem :
al-te'hu kh'ca'meem b'ey'ney'ka : Thanks again Chili.
Sheshbazzar

Chili

You are welcome.

Amaleq13

Vivisector,

In case you missed it, this thread has some interesting and apparently relevant information regarding preChristian interpretation of Isaiah's Suffering Servant as the Messiah.

Vivisector

Thanks, Amaleq. Real life has gotten in the way of doing much in the way of posting, so I've had to adopt lurk mode for the most part. But I'll certainly keep an eye on the thread.

Cheers,

V.