Toto

. . . and the conclusion that I draw from this is that the reason Paul is silent on the subject of the details of the HJ is not because of his competitive disadvantage. There must be some other reason. Perhaps there was no identifiable Historical Jesus? Perhaps Jesus had lived 100 years before, and no one knew any details about him? Perhaps whatever Paul wrote about a historical Jesus was so embarrassing that later church fathers dropped it down the memory hole? There's a lack of evidence for any of this, but they are coherent possibilities.

Sheshbazzar

Paul relying only, or principally upon, a unique personal revelation and experience, would only be comfortable in speaking upon those matters of which he was assured of possession of authority (that office and authority granted exclusively to him in a personal revelation not experienced by nor immediately accessible to any other individual)
In which case, whether the "HJ" lived 100 years before" or "was mythical" other similar objections would be, and would have been useless.
Paul upon hearing such suggestions would have discounted them only as displays of lack of faith by the unconverted - but his letters were directed to the "converted" and the "believers", he does not waste words attempting to convince unbelieving outsiders. To this day his testimony is accepted by them to whom it is directed.
For Paul, (or any other person) with a peculiar and particular office founded upon a personal experience, and a conviction of a "calling" and "election", with an service or duty to be performed in obedience to the directives of that personal revelation, doubts are not a goal to be served but only a hindrance to the accomplishment of the objective and the vision.
So, though such various other ideas and objections may be pondered, such considerations do not remove a believers personal experiences and the obligation to effectively "work with the gifts that we have received".
Such it is also with me, I read here the many, many opinions and objections, but what I have received by personal revelation is never made void by others lacking knowledge, disbelief or by long and doubtful disputations.
Was there a "HJ"? or a real Moses? or a real David? a Flood? an Ark? or an Exodus? all such questions become secondary when the individual believer is convicted of a "calling" and filled with a vision, and is convinced of a mission, and of a duty that is to be discharged.
I do not wrangle about "HJ" Moses, David or the reality of the Ark, like Paul before me I do not expound upon the details of experiences and situations that I was not a personal witness to.
Paul's silences are perfectly explicable to anyone who has personally experienced a heavenly vision, his testimony the more convincing because he does not rely on repeating others reports.

Doug Shaver

Did those opponents write nothing in response? If they did, what happened those writings? Why did Paul's writings survive but nothing, absolutely nothing, written by anybody who actually knew Jesus?

Vivisector

Welcome and greetings, DaBuster. Good strategy on the lurking ... I dove right in and was rewarded with the experience of having grabbed an alligator by the tail! You've written much that I agree with.

I think you're exactly right. In fact, I think you can add direct kinship to the advantages of Paul's opposition.

Again, I agree completely. It strikes me Paul would scarcely have been credible citing the teachings of a man he had never met without tacitly acknowledging, at least in a way, the primacy of Jesus's kin (James), the other pillars, and the apostles associated with them.

I think it was lack of first-hand knowledge.

Exactly. I would also say, however, that Paul seems to value the significance of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection as far superior to what Jesus did and said during his lifetime. If all we had was Paul, it would almost be as if Jesus's deeds and teaching were irrelevant in comparison to his atoning death and resurrection. Those who emphasize the earthly Jesus and how he lived (as a Jew) miss the entire point of why Jesus is important. What I'm suggesting is that Paul's approach might have reflected his view of Jesus in the context of salvation rather than serving solely as a competitive tactic.

Personally, I agree - but then again, I'm a HJ-er.

Cheers,

V.

DaBuster

Thanks for the kind words. Being less than an expert on this topic, I was concerned that I would get a real ego-battering from the denizens of this forum, but the responses, both for and against, have thus far been thoughtful and interesting, although who’s to say if or when the cudgel will come out….


Yes, all the scenarios you list are valid possibilities. However, my original post was an attempt to describe Paul’s silence in terms of an HJ.


You’re right. That’s actually what I meant, but not quite what I said.


Perhaps those who actually knew Jesus (who may or may not have also been Paul’s opponents) were largely illiterate, and instead relied on oral tradition to propagate their side of the story.

Nuwanda

Here's a question I don't see Paul critics address: If Paul invented his own form of Christianity and supposedly did verbal jitsu with those who had first hand witness of Christ then why didn't the other Apostles rebuke Paul in their writings?

Peter had an opportunity in his letters to rebutt Paul but instead spoke well of him. Luke, when recording the council in Jerusalem, says nothing of the Apostles stiff arming Paul. In fact, they all came to an awareness that Jesus was for the gentiles because of Paul and agreed that they would not push the OT law on gentiles. John, being one of the last NT writers, says nothing about Paul. John warns of false teaching yet never warns against Christianity's rising star writer, Paul. So if the eye witnesses of Christ's life and death and resurrection have no problem with Paul, why do modern day nay sayers?

Toto

I think you are reading the NT a little too uncritically. I don't think you will find a modern non-evangelical scholar who thinks that any part of the NT was written by anyone who knew Jesus or any of the original apostles.

Paul was not without controversy. Tertullian called Paul "the apostle of the heretics." From The Cambridge Companion to St Paul

jjramsey

The sacking of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. might be at least part of the reason. That certainly would have displaced the Jerusalem church itself.

Alf

This may be true but if so it is an argument in favor of MJ. Yes, there existed some HJ but the Jesus the christians believe in is the MJ cooked up by paul. He created this MJ and advocated belief in him in place of the historical Jesus promoted by his opponents. The followers of his opponents was later declared heretics by the pope and the jesus spoken about by the church is the mythical non-existent and never has existed Jesus that Paul taught about in place of the historical Jesus which is now forgotten.

Doubt any HJ promoters will use your argument any time soon.

Alf

Doug Shaver

I can see the Jerusalem Christians hightailing it out of town, but surely they would have taken their important documents with them? And surely they would have considered documents with eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry pretty important?