jgoodguy

In terms of tangible, primary historical or even credible secondary historical evidence, we have nearly zip. What we have is what we have and what we have is 1:19 as it reads. Once we leave that, we are in the land of speculation.

The earliest complete Galatians text has 1:19 in it. V1 of that text has Paul claiming authorship. The available evidence holds that Paul wrote Galatians. What we have is an official copy of Galatians with 1:19 with Paul's name and considered authentic.

What actual evidence outside of the text do we have. No mention of Galatians until mid or late 2nd century and no verifiable text until the early third. Prior to the 3rd century text we have no mention of 3:19.

In the 2nd century we have 2 references to Galatians Irenaeus and Tertullian. Neither mention 1:19.

Is there tangible or primary historical evidence that Paul wrote Galatians? No. Is there tangible or primary historical evidence that Paul existed? No. Using that logic, Paul don't exist and there is a complete silence regarding the HJ until the gospels. In summary, it is an unprovable assertion that Galatians was even written by Paul in the mid 1st century. To continue on we must assume the text existed and the only complete text we have has 1:19 in it.

We have this document from early 3rd century and it contains 1:19. We have an argument from silence that 1:19 did not exist prior to the 3rd century. The basis for this afs is that 2 2nd century writers did not mention 1:19. Neither writer was commenting on Galatians but were responding to opponent(s) with a competing view of Galatians. 2 data points are insufficient to make a afs. There are many reasons that those authors did not mention 1:19.

The bottom line is that we have the text with 1:19 and no good reason to reject 1:19 except speculation. So if we wish to use Galatians in an extended argument from silence that Paul did not know of a physical Jesus, then 1:19 is in evidence.

The other way to look at it is as an literary exercise in Freshman English. Did the author Paul write of a historical person?. We have the text in the book with 1:19. We know of 2 folks that wrote essays about a 3rd person's essay and all omit 1:19. Would the teacher be impressed with our argument from silence that 1:19 was not in the original manuscript.

dog-on

That is all well and fine, but it does not change the fact that, without further substantiating evidence, the OP is no more than a presumption. This is the point, has been the point and, barring any new fantastic discoveries, always will be the point.

jgoodguy

That is a pointed comment.

Kindly keep in mind that I am an agnostic :huh: and not a HJer.

It has been noted that one can just say that there is not any credible evidence for a HJ and stop.

If one wants to continue the conversation beyond that, one has only the current crappy evidence to work with and 1:19 is part of that evidence.

The way I view it is like literary analysis to avoid being concerned with actual 'real' history. The question as I see it: Was Paul's literature silent about knowing of a historical Jesus. Apparently the answer is no.

A problem for a HJer is the question of what kind of Jesus did Paul know of? What is the relationship of that Jesus to Paul's Christ, the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of the orthodox. To that the HJ existed and stop is not more informative that to say there is no credible evidence of a HJ and stop.

GakuseiDon

Best comment of the day, and one I think that most HJers on this board would agree with. There is very little we can say about a HJ with a great deal of confidence, and to that extent he may as well not have existed.

aa5874

But you are BLATANTLY wrong.

"Paul" even VEHEMENTLY DENIED he was the Apostle of HJ. "Paul" was an APOSTLE OF MJ.

Look at the very Galatians 1.1.

Ga 1:1 - "Paul" ADAMANTLY DENIED he got his Gospel from HJ.

"Paul" got his Gospel from MJ.

Galatians 1.11-12The Pauline writings are about BELIEF that Jesus existed and NOT actual evidence that he did EXIST as ONLY human.

In the The HJ/MJ argument BELIEF that Jesus existed in any other form than HUMAN is in SUPPORT of MYTH JESUS.

"Paul" is a WITNESS and a CONTEMPORARY to MYTH JESUS and was the LAST to SEE the Resurrected MYTH JESUS in the NT.

The Pauline writings are part of the NT CANON and MUST be COMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Church and were CANONISED for that very reason.

It Simply CANNOT be found that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father IN THE CANON when the very CHURCH which PRODUCED the Canon claimed it was HERETICAL to preach that Jesus was a MAN with a human father.

HJers MUST GO FIND another source for HJ and stop wasting time trying to convince people that the NT CANON is HERESY.

aa5874

So, what are HJers making all this NOISE about? It was INHERENTLY predicted by MJers that this would be the SAD END of the HJ argument.

It was INHERENTLY predicted that HJers would EVENTUALLY realize that there is REALLY NOTHING to argue about.

Tell your favorite HJ Scholar that HJ MAY AS WELL NOT EXISTED.

May be HJ Scholars don't even know that HJ MAY AS WELL NOT EXISTED.

JUST TELL ALL OF THEM THE SAD STORY.

I KNEW IT. HJ was just a ton of NOISE saying NOTHING.

Toto

This seems to be the view of a lot of scholars like RJ Hoffman, who said IIRC that he knew his great great great grandfather existed, but that was about all he knew. He inferred the existence of a historical Jesus from the existence of Christianity.

I gather that some religious people take this position because it leaves the question open and allows them to go on believing in a Jesus of faith, even if they can't claim scientific certitude? (I don't want to speak for any religious people. I think that this is Catholic public intellectual Charlotte Allen's position.)

spin

I take it then that you make the ideological commitment that Paul uses the word "lord" in Gal 1:19 to refer to Jesus.

There are two uses of the word, one as a title, "the lord Jesus" or "my lord", and as a substitute for a name, as it is usually used in the LXX (think of modern examples such as "the Bard" or "the Governator", or an ancient one "haShem"). The difference can be seen in LXX Ps.110:1, "The lord says to my lord", both instances of "lord" in the Greek are the same word, but context makes it clear which is which: the first refers to god, the second to a person of importance. You can see the difference through the different usage. It's a difference maintained at the time of the production of the gospel of Mark in which one finds "lord" used 17 times and the distinction is maintained throughout. Here we see that Paul's use of "lord" was still in use when Mark was compiled.

The historical problem comes when we leave the Jewish context as christianity spreads through through the Mediterranean and the usage of "lord" comes into contact with other religious tendencies, where the "lord" reflected the one who is the "savior". (That's when a few interpolations such as 1 Cor 6:14 come into the text.)

Paul cites several passages from the LXX with the catch phrase "says the lord", which can only refer to god (Paul was not a trinitarian: he believed in one god, the father, and one lord, Jesus). He obviously uses "lord" as found in the LXX and the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora. Otherwise, he would be using one word with two distinct meanings (god and Jesus), but with no way in most cases for the reader to distinguish which is which. This of course is preposterous. The writer's aim is to communicate with the reader, not to confuse them (even assuming readers who "know"). And a term the reader cannot fathom at any one instance will only confuse. 1 Cor 7 uses "lord" without contextual clues, so that if the term could be either Jesus or god, how could the reader know the reference at any one time? They can't and it is a case of doublethink that modern readers can be so lax when reading this material.

The "lord" in Gal 1:19 is not a title, a fact which rules out a Pauline reference to Jesus. We have two possibilities: it's an interpolation as dog-on has suggested or it is Paul once again referring to god. I have suggested that we are dealing with the existence of people who referred to themselves or were known as "brothers of the lord" (1 Cor 9:5), who were separate from the apostles but were perhaps as important.

I see no evidence to suggest that Paul's savior was based on a historical figure. Can you outline from your reading of Paul what necessitates a historical core, when Paul makes clear that his gospel doesn't come to him from other people, but from god (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16)? As I see the evidence, there may have been a historical Jesus, but Paul provides no help in deciding.

aa5874

It is almost unbelievable that so-called Scholars would make such a horrible basic error.

It is as if they have NO idea that there were Christians who did NOT believe the Jesus story in antiquity and that word "Christ" or the Anointed PREDATE the Jesus story.

The fact that CHRISTIANS worshiped Marcion's PHANTOM as the Son of a God who came to earth is NOT evidence at all that there was an "historical PHANTOM" and even characters described as human may be myth.

There can be NO reasonable inferences of an HJ merely on the existence of Christianity when NOT all Christians believed the Jesus stories.

Solo

You are right, dog-on, but there is a hitch. Tertullian evidently knew about the passage in 1 Galatians as he writes in The Prescription Against Heretics (XXIII.):

There is a clear allusion to Gal 1:18 and 1:24 in the passage. This seems odd because according to biship Kaye's chronology of Tertullian's writing, The Prescription precedes Against Marcion, which is apparently one of the late works.

At any rate - before ApostateAbe get his hopes too high, there is quite an interesting issue around the number of visits to Jerusalem in Galatians. I find it mind-boggling that none of the scholars I have consulted noticed that Paul has no reference to the leaders when he goes to Jerusalem the second time (2:1). He goes by revelation, which is really odd in itself if he had done it before, but what is striking is that he had Peter's and James' acquiantance - i.e. knew with whom to do business in Zion and instead of going to them directly, goes to some unknown non-entities (hoi dokountes), from among whom James and Cephas finally emerge - but not before some characters who don't even look like they belong to the Jesus Christ department of the house (2:4) want to do mischief. But Cephas and James don't emerge with the titles of the first encounter: they are now "pillars" or "so they appear".. "but what they are doesn't really matter" : They are not saints, not apostles, not brother of the Lord.

Can you figure this out ? I can : there was no first visit. The interpolator evidently did not think it through.

Best,
Jiri