Rick Sumner

I think you miss the point (and misunderstand how argumentation is supposed to work). It's a response to an argument (as per the OP), not an argument in and of itself. It's an explanation for the silence of the epistles. Any such explanation is going to be speculative, yours emphatically included. One needs to guess at motivations, because they aren't stated outright.

The question is which version one considers having greater plausibility.

Furthermore, your assertions about what the earliest church did is assuming the very point under consideration. Which sounds good, as long as one doesn't start chasing it. You'll find yourself going in circles.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

blkgayatheist

The competitive disadvantage argument is not persuasive to me. It would be a huge pink elephant in the room if Paul wrote about a Lord Jesus Christ who was based on a recently human Jesus of Nazareth and never mentioned ANYTHING about the guy's life as portrayed in the Gospels. That would be disrespectful to the life ot this "Christ" whom Paul seeks to know so much, to disregard all his miracles and teachings merely because he is jealous of the Jerusalem apostles relationship with Jesus

Not to mention that there is much in the gospel stories (were they historical) that Paul couldve used to slander his competition, such as basically all of them deserting Jesus. And why mention Cephas and James at all? Plus if you go with the line of reason that Paul deliberately excluded the historical details relating to Jesus, then "born of a woman" and "according to the flesh" seem strange as reference to historical events as well.

The argument of silence explains what we see a lot better than speculation about competitive disadvantage.

blkgayatheist

And, there's plenty that Paul would have been able to say about a historical Jesus that wouldn't involve specific teachings subject to the superior expertise of the disciples. Why would competitive disadvantage prevent Paul from mentioning more details about the crucifixion or about the miracles Jesus performed? What would have been the anticipated response from the Jerusalem apostles? "You weren’t there so you don’t know?" That would prevent anybody who wasn’t there from passing on the gospels.

And how is Paul's claim to secret information about the goings on in Heaven less subject to challenge by the disciples of Jesus? Why would this Paul, who knew Jesus not at all, be chosen by Jesus as the recipient of revelation as to the mysteries in heaven. Seems to me the disciples would be able to launch a similar attack.

And for me, the fact that Paul is even able to set himself up as a rival against those who supposedly knew the human incarnation of the son of God really speaks against historicity. If Paul worshipped a Christ whom he believed had been embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, why would he be willing to antagonize those specifically chosen by Jesus (including the one who was named by Jesus as the foundation of his church?)

Doug Shaver

Good point. Ego is one thing, but he would have to have been purely mad to think that a personal revelation could trump a year or three of personal acquaintance with the cult's ostensible founder. And if he were that mad, how did the real followers of the real Jesus let him get away with it?

Rick Sumner

I suppose Malina would counter that you hold this view because you don't live in an honor-shame culture.

One would think he'd want to twist the knife. This is one reason I think much of the descriptions of the disciples, particularly in the Passion, is not historical.

Because he is discussing his interaction with them. He, in particular, wants to point out that he raised the charge of hypocrisy against Cephas, who then acquiesced.

No, they don't. The suggestion is that he "deliberately excluded" events in the life of Jesus, in particular those received from the disciples (whose authority he would then be expected to acquiesce to, again, being an honor shame context).

To state that "Jesus was born human" is not the same thing as to state "Jesus did such and such." The former sacrifices no authority. Whether one finds the general argument persuasive or not, this particular rebuttal is meritless.

I suppose that's ultimately a matter of opinion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Didymus

Yes. Not only are no such writings extant, there's no indication of them in the epistles. And no suggestion that anyone who knew Jesus was working the same circuit as Paul. If no adversary with eyewitness credentials was publishing on the subject or chasing him from town to town, why would he be so timid?

There's Peter of course, but he wasn't preaching to Paul's congregations. And Paul seems to have had no problem standing up to Peter.

Of course, Paul didn't say that Peter had been one of Jesus' earthly companions. That particular silence is often attributed to rivalry and competitiveness. Gee, as saints go, Paul seems to have been off the scale in the petty jealousy department, now even to the extent of deliberately redacting Jesus' words and deeds.

BlkGayAtheist is right. That's waaay transgressive.

A more parsimonious explanation is that Paul told us everything he - or anyone else - knew about Jesus' time on earth. In other words, Paul's Jesus is the historical Jesus. As is widely acknowledged (at least on IIDB), virtually all that came after is fiction.

Didymus

Didymus

Absolutely. At least the sort of historicity that posits the gospels as a historical core. Even in ancient times, empiricism held sway, especially if there was abundant eyewitness testimony over a long period from disciples and observers alike. If Jesus' life was anything remotely similar to that described in the gospels, Paul wouldn't have stood a chance.

Then again, the gospel Jesus is not the only possible historical Jesus.

The silences - and Paul's audacity - can be parsimoniously explained by a obscure crucified Jesus who performed no miracles and had no disciples.

Didymus

DramaQ

But that makes me wonder how such an obscure and relatively insignificant person got elevated to such a supreme state, if only in Paul's mind.

blkgayatheist

OK, I'll grant you that, but Paul supposed description of the last supper would clearly fall in the the category of events for which the disciples would have experiential authority over Paul; this was one of the most intimate and emotionally charged moments between Jesus and the disciples portrayed in the Gospels. So under the theory of competitive disadvantage, that passage would be best read symbolically and scripturally rather than historically, which is what the mythicist position advocates.

blkgayatheist

OK, I'll grant you that, but Paul supposed description of the last supper would clearly fall in the the category of events for which the disciples would have experiential authority over Paul; this was one of the most intimate and emotionally charged moments between Jesus and the disciples portrayed in the Gospels. So under the theory of competitive disadvantage, that passage would be best read symbolically and scripturally rather than historically, which is what the mythicist position advocates.