NOGO

These are my personal thoughts. Any comments, criticism, or corrections are greatly appreciated.

Are statements like “of the seed of David�, “of a woman�, “under the law�, the Last Supper scene and others, references to the historical Jesus? Or are these bits of data Paul found in scriptures?

The Gospels do two things that Paul does not do.
First, Paul does not claim Jesus’ life nor his teachings as a source of revelation of God’s plan for salvation and second, Paul never tries to show that Jesus the man was the Son of God because of some aspect of his life was prophesied in scriptures.

Paul makes two types of statements concerning the source of the information, which he passes on to the Christian communities. Paul claims that Jesus is revealed from scriptures and that he, Paul, has direct revelation from the risen Christ. Paul makes no claim whatsoever to have information from Jesus of Nazareth or about him through another person. One can say that Paul insists on having direct revelation for this is his claim to fame and is also concerned that some people have doubts about it.

I will now review what Paul says. I apologize for the size of this post but it seems that the only way to bring the point home is to highlight it in detail.

This is certainly not from silence Paul states that he did not get the gospel, which he teaches, from any man nor was he taught it. This effectively kills any possibility of anyone claiming that Paul received this information through apostolic tradition. Instead Paul claims to have received revelation directly from God.

Strangely enough even when Paul says that he went to Jerusalem he states his purpose as “to become acquainted with Cephas�. His prime concern does not seem to be to go to Jerusalem in order to discover the HJ. Paul obviously wrote this after his Jerusalem visit and so the first thing that came to his mind as to what happened there is that he became “acquainted with Cephas�. Even in these subtle matters Paul seems to be a million miles from the HJ.

Paul here claims that the word, which he speaks to others, comes not from him but from God. One would be tempted to say that Ga1:11-12 perhaps says that Paul did received from other people (who had the spirit of God) because Paul considers the information to come from God. So passing on information from God is not considered to be from man.
But unfortunately Paul adds that he was not taught it. This effectively kills the possibility of someone just passing on the message from God because this can certainly be called “teaching� it.

What I want to show here is that the above are not isolated statements but rather go hand in hand and are entirely consistent with many other statements found throughout Paul’s letters.

One cannot be clearer; Paul says that he has the mind of Christ. He knows the things of God because he has the Spirit of God. Notice that Paul does not care to talk about the archetype of somebody having the spirit of God namely Jesus of Nazareth. These statements also do not leave much room for apostolic tradition.

Here Paul has “commandments� from the Lord. But is this Jesus of Nazareth? Very unlikely! If there was any kind of text or stories of the historical Jesus going around which had Jesus commanding “Let not the wife depart from her husband� it would be very presumptuous of Paul to state “I command� or “I give instructions�. Surely Paul is talking about inspired messages from the Spirit of God, which dwells in him. In the context of other statements Paul makes one can only retain the “inspired� commandments and not some quote from Jesus of Nazareth. The verse below leaves no doubt as to what Paul means.

There is no sense here of historical corroboration. If Paul were quoting the HJ he would not rely on prophets to corroborate what Jesus said he would have to go to the source, that is, the people who had known the HJ. Paul assumes that other apostles get the same messages from the risen Jesus as he does and through the same spiritual means. Paul, therefore, does not distinguish between apostles who get information through the Spirit and apostles who get information directly from the man Jesus.

Paul defends himself against people who doubt that Jesus speaks in him, Once again Paul is not claiming to pass on a message, which was delivered to humans 30 to 40 years ago by Jesus of Nazareth. Paul claims Jesus speaks through him in the present.

Again Paul claims that it is through the Spirit that Jesus is made known and not by apostolic tradition.
Notice the perspective here. Paul is comparing this age to other ages. In other ages Jesus was not made known compared to this age where the SPIRIT makes him known. This leaves no room for any other form of transmission.
The case can be stated thus:
According to the Gospels Jesus was a pre-existing divine entity who incarnated in order to bring humanity a message.
Paul does not claim to have received the message from the incarnated Jesus; Paul claims that he and other apostles and prophets have received and are continuing to receive the message from the SPIRIT which is in them.

Paul fails to acknowledge that the historical Jesus revealed the mystery of Christ and salvation to the world.

The very foundation of modern Christianity is shattered here. This may not prove that there was no HJ but it is clear that for Paul the HJ is not the founder of his faith.

This is a famous statement attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels yet Paul does not quote the man Jesus. One must therefore conclude that this commandment is like any other commandment that Paul passes on to the Christian community and comes therefore from the risen Christ and by paths of inspiration. Here is another instance of the same saying.

All the word in capital letters come from scriptures.

The WORD of Christ is not something, which a man has spoken 30 or 40 years ago and which is kept through apostolic tradition. No! it is something which dwells in every Christian who teaches it to other Christians.

Read also 2 Corinthians-3:2-3 and 2 Corinthians-3:6-8

Every Christian, then, has the Spirit of God that dwells in him.
God speaks through Paul; God speaks through all Christians. One is reminded of a verse in Acts of the Apostles…

So when Christians receive the Holy Spirit they become a mouthpiece for Jesus/God.
In the Gospels Jesus tells his disciples that they would be told what to say.

A nice tie-in to what Christians already knew when the Gospels were written. Jesus is saying that what he has taught his disciples is of no importance and nobody needs to remember any of it. Why? Because all information will be given by the Holy Spirit.

Variations of this tie-in can be found in the synoptic Gospels as well. This tie-in was probably necessary because it explained why apostles like Paul knew absolutely nothing about the human Jesus, his life and teachings.

Here is another in Acts.

So “Acts� claims two source of information from Jesus, what he taught while on earth and after that through the Spirit. Of the two Paul claims only one, the Spirit. The first, ie teachings while on earth, did not seem to impress any of the early Christian writers.
So why does this author and the Gospels authors have a need to point to the fact that Jesus communicates in two ways? If apostles were teaching both sources then it would be superfluous to state it. These statements betray the reality that at the time nobody knew of any teachings of the human Jesus.

Now if what the Gospels say and what Paul says agreed then one can forgive this problem and claim that it is simply how Yahweh chose to do it. Unfortunately for believers what Paul says from the “Spirit� is in many places very different than what the historical Jesus is claimed to have said in the Gospels. I do not want to diverge here into the subject of differences and discrepancies between Paul and the Gospels because it is a sizeable subject onto itself. As an example I would start with Jesus’ role. Paul claims that Jesus’ role was to reconcile humanity to Yahweh because of Adam’s sin, which we all inherited Jews and Gentiles. Paul, then, gives Jesus a universal role. The Gospel Jesus says nothing of the sort. Not only that but the Gospel Jesus clearly says that his message is only for the Children of Israel and not for Gentiles. This is confirmed in Acts where Peter gets, in a dream, the order to bring the message to the Gentiles. Which strongly implies that Peter did not get this command from the historical Jesus, if there was one. Yahweh works in mysterious ways! Clearly the story in Acts was written in an attempt to harmonize.


Scriptures
The other path through which Jesus is made known is, “through the scriptures of the prophets.�

So the mystery of Jesus Christ the Son of God is revealed through scriptures. Nowhere does Paul even hint that Jesus himself made such a revelation nor that his life was a revelation of the mystery.

But what is Paul saying here about scriptures and revelations? How was the mystery kept secret and now revealed?

If we read between the lines what Paul is saying is this. Once you have been properly inspired you begin to read scriptures differently. You see things that you did not see before. They were secret before but are now revealed if you have the proper mindset.

This reminds me of a verse in Luke.
24:32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

Yes indeed “opened the scriptures�.
I find this passage strange because Jesus opened the scriptures after his death and not while he was with his disciples. Also strange is the fact that the message is not from the Son of man himself but comes from scriptures.

This too is a nice tie-in to what Paul is saying. The Gospels, however, have a different view. The Gospels claim that all that Jesus did was prophesied in scriptures. Paul never attempts to link Jesus’ life to scriptures. I will return to this subject. First I want to look at the unique way Paul reads scriptures.

Paul’s purpose here is to remove the Jews who clearly are the object of Yahweh’s promise and put Christians instead. So he latches on the word “seed� which he says is singular and therefore means one person even though Gen 13:16 clearly states that “seed� means many.

So clearly Genesis is talking about Abraham’s descendents. Paul, however, uses the singular “seed� to attempt a “tour de force�. The seed, he claims, is Christ and through him all the Christians. Such logic! Here we see clearly who Paul is and what spirit inhabits him. It is certainly not the spirit of God revealing to him His hidden purpose. It is more Paul’s imagination in twisting scriptures to suit his self appointed role of bringing the faith to the Gentiles.

This bit about putting all enemies under his feet is drawn from Psalms

Here we can see how Paul works. Take a statement out of context and apply it to anything one fancies. The “things� in Psalms is stated in verse 8 and refers to sheep, oxen, beasts of the field etc. Paul on the other hand is talking about rule and authority and power as well as death.

Paul is talking about some future event where “he shall put all enemies under his feet�.
Paul reads into Scriptures some future event, which he states as a matter of fact.

Here Isaiah 25:8 is probably where Paul borrowed this passage. But what Is25:8 says and what Paul writes are completely different. Is25:8 refers to turn defeat to victory over the enemies of Israel. Paul twist the meaning here to suit his purpose. Paul is talking about victory over death when Jesus comes and people who are alive shall, as Paul believes, be changed. They will be changed from a corruptible body to an incorruptible one.

Again a future event read out of scriptures.

Paul takes the statement “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed� and says essentially that this proves that the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles was planned before Abraham. This is quite a stretch even today since we are far from ALL the families being blessed with the Christian faith. But how does one go from “blessed� to “justified through faith�? Here again Paul tries to move the promise made by Yahweh from the Jews to the Christians.

What is more interesting about this passage is that Paul clearly says that he is looking at a prophecy. Paul does what he does not do elsewhere and that is to relate some current event to some passage in scriptures. Nobody can claim then, that Paul does not know the difference or that all of his statements from scriptures mean prophecies of current events. More on this below…

The logic here is bewildering. Capitals are quotes from Hebrew Scriptures.
Behold! This is inspired revelation of the mystery long held secret and now revealed to apostles (like Paul) and prophets through the Spirit.

If anybody did something like this in a field other than religion he would be run out town or sent to an asylum. In religion, however, they honor them with the title of “Saint�.

But was Jesus really “hung� on a tree?

What is interesting about the above statement is that nobody knows which scriptures Paul is referring to. This is part of the mystery which was held secret from generation past and is now revealed to Paul. Unfortunately nobody else seems to get this revelation. Judging from the way Paul reads into scriptures whatever he wants, these statements can come from just about anywhere and nobody should be surprised.

So is Paul saying:
a) Jesus died for out sins and it was foretold in scriptures
OR
b) Scriptures tell us that Jesus died for out sins?

In these verses Paul is preaching in much the same way as preachers do today. He says that we should do this or that and then tells us that Jesus did this very thing. So if Jesus did this very thing then we should do it as well. Fine!
But wait a minute! Something is missing.
Instead of telling us about a passage in Jesus’ life, which demonstrates the point, Paul quotes from scriptures. In other words Paul knows that Jesus pleased not himself not because the man Jesus did something that demonstrated that he pleased not himself. No, Paul knows from scriptures (Ps69:9) that Jesus pleased not himself.

What Paul did in Galatians 3:8 (claimed a prophecy) he does not do here. Rather Paul gives his conclusion and then quotes the supporting scriptures.

This is a key point. If Jesus was a man who walked the earth in recent times and Paul claimed that Jesus was foretold in scriptures then one would expect what the Gospels do and that is to relate scriptures to passages in Jesus’ life. Paul does not do this. Paul reads his facts directly from scriptures.

So once again Paul is not saying
a) Jesus pleased not himself in this or that situation and it was foretold in scriptures – here is the reference.
Paul is saying
b) Scriptures tell us that Christ did not please himself – this reference proves it.

This is perhaps the strongest statement of something, which Jesus has done and said in the entire NT outside of the Gospels and Acts. The thing that one must notice is the initial statement from Paul. In typical fashion Paul says that he received this information directly from the risen Jesus. (also keep in mind Galatians 1:11-12 where Paul says that he was not taught these things).

What is interesting about this passage is that the disciples of Jesus are totally absent.
Compare with Mark
Notice the “While they were eating� and “Gave it to them� and “they all drank it�
These words place the event in an historical context. Jesus is with someone to whom he hands the bread and wine. Paul’s statements are devoid of historical context. Jesus speaks to all the Christians and not just his 12 disciples. Paul did not take this detail out, it was added later when the HJ was created or discovered.

This is an essential element of the apostolic tradition thesis. Jesus had his Passover meal with his disciples just before he was crucified. Was Paul aware of this and took any reference to disciples out because it diminished his role as an apostle? Is Paul a liar?

What is most likely is that Paul knew nothing of an historical Jesus.
I do believe that 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 was derived from scriptures. Paul says that he received it from the Lord because it is not an exact quote. It is inspired!

So was the above
something the historical Jesus did, that Paul heard from other Christians, modified it to remove the disciples from the scene and then claimed that he got it from the risen Jesus in accordance with everything else he says.
OR
The above scene never took place; Paul invented it and it was placed in the Gospels by well meaning writers who could not ignore the inauguration of the Eucharist.

I vote for the latter. A perfect example of how fiction becomes history.

Retaining the former is not very pleasant for the believer either. It leads to the conclusion that Paul actually knew about the historical Jesus, got this information from other Christians, knew that the disciples were with Jesus, knew that Jesus revealed to them the secret of salvation etc … but Paul purposely and systematically removed all of this from his preaching.

Is “the seed of David according to the flesh�
a reference to the historical Jesus?
Or
yet another strange interpretation of scriptures?

Point 1
Notice that Paul introduces the subject by talking about the gospel of God, which he stated elsewhere as revealed to him through scriptures. He does not introduce the subject by speaking about the birth of Jesus, nor his baptism, nor his life on earth as the gospels do. Paul’s gospel starts in scriptures.

Point 2
The second statement above in verse 4 is also mentioned by the author of Hebrews who writes

After Jesus had purged our sins he sat down at the Yahweh’s right hand, having obtained the title of Son of God. So by resurrecting Jesus from the dead Yahweh made him a son.

This is exactly what Paul is saying in Rm1:4 and elsewhere.

But where does all this come from?
Scriptures!

Once again taking a statement from scriptures totally out of context and with the “Spirit� of the Lord residing in him Paul sees a revelation about when and where Jesus got the title of Son of God.

Point 3
So is Paul saying
a) Jesus is come of the seed of David as foretold by scriptures.
OR
b) Scriptures tell us that Jesus is come of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Is Paul saying
a) Jesus is marked out Son of God by the rising from the dead as foretold by scriptures.
OR
b) Scriptures tells us that Jesus is marked out Son of God by the rising from the dead.

The bit about Jesus become Son of Yahweh upon his return to heaven is clearly read from scriptures. Paul cannot possibly know what happened in heaven after the resurrection and claim that it was foretold in scriptures.

So the second part is clearly a (b). Paul read this from scriptures as a fact as he does elsewhere.

Once again what Paul did in Galatians 3:8 where he clearly called the passage a prophecy here he does no such thing.

One is compelled to a choice of (b) for the part about the “seed of David� as well because Paul does not identify it as a prophecy and also Paul combines it with another statement which is also a (b).

What could Paul possibly mean by “is come of the seed of David according to the flesh� other than a human Jesus?

I don’t know. What I do know is that for Paul logic is not his prime concern and this can be just another example of a wild interpretation from scriptures, for which we have no explanation. Ditto for “of a woman� and “under law� etc.

If “in the body� was this man “under the law�?
Was he born of a woman?
And what is the third heaven?

This also brings to mind the strange story in Revelations chapter 12.
A woman is heaven is about to give birth. A dragon is standing by to devour the child as soon as it is born. A man-child was born who was supposed to rule all nations with a rod of iron. The child was immediately snatched up to Yahweh’s throne.

Is this Jesus? Was he born of a woman?
The possibilities are endless.

Conclusion:
Paul stakes his apostleship and credibility on the fact that he is inspired by the risen Jesus. He manages to raise this issue in almost all of his letters.

Paul claims that the Spirit in him and scriptures revealed the mystery of Christ. Paul does not say that Jesus of Nazareth or his teachings were a revelation.

Paul makes statements of fact about Jesus directly from scriptures.
Paul does not do what the Gospels do and that is to claim that scriptures prophesied some event in Jesus’ life.

Paul makes wild interpretation of scriptures and some of the key statements about Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and others cannot be traced or explained.

How did early Christians relate the man Jesus with what they read in scriptures?
In other words how did they know that it was this man and not that man?
To make a link we need to enumerate various common things after which we can declare that the man in question is spoken of in scriptures and is therefore the Christ. Clearly the Gospels do just that, but how did Paul make the connection or became convinced of the connection?

Why is Paul not the least interested in preaching about the things which link the Christ found in scriptures with the man and his life?

So Paul does not
a) Consider Jesus` life nor his teachings as a source of revelation
b) Link the man Jesus with the Christ in scriptures to show that he was the one.

I conclude that Paul knew nothing of the man Jesus with the exception of things that he read in scriptures. This, of course, raises the question of whether there was an HJ at all.

If Paul did not know that Jesus was a man certainly he would have found out when he went to Jerusalem and met Peter and James. What are the possibilities?
1. Peter did know Jesus as a man but did not mention it to Paul and Paul did not ask.
2. Peter did know Jesus as a man and talked to Paul about him and his teachings.
Paul chose to ignore it all.
3. Peter was an apostle like Paul and did not know the man Jesus.
4. Peter was an apostle like Paul and there was no man called Jesus.

I think that 3 is the minimum one can hold.
1 and 2 are simply not credible.
Paul was running around preaching to as many people as possible because he believed that the end of the world was at hand. He wanted to “save� as many people as possible. Jesus was at the center of his teachings and at the center of his idea of salvation. Could Paul have ignored the man-Jesus’ teachings?
I just cannot conceive this could have happened. Obviously Paul did not know what Acts 1-2 claims.

If there was an HJ then there must be a very special reason for Paul to ignore his life and teachings as he did. We are, therefore, missing a key element of early Christianity.

If Jesus was a heavenly entity or the man was a legend derived from scriptures then we are missing nothing.

SaintCog

This is a very extensive post, and I confess that I only read half of it carefully. The rest I skimmed, but for the sake of this response I will assume that all of the passages you cite show no evidence that Paul either knew the personal "earthly" Jesus or had any interest in the life of Jesus. But I would also stress that none of these passages imply that Paul did not know of Jesus' earthly ministry. Nevertheless, I will assume the burden of proof in this case, and attempt to show that Paul did know of Jesus through Peter or some other apostles who knew him personally.

In your exhaustive list of references, you leave out one that I think is fairly important. 1 Cor 9.14-15, "the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case." What is striking here is that Paul admits he is acting contrary to what what Jesus commands. Jesus commands evangelists to be supported by the communities to whom they preach. But Paul opts not to accept support from the Corinthian community. If you read the entire Corinthian correspondence, you will note that this is a big point of contention between Paul and the "super-apostles," his rivals. Paul is criticized for not acting in accordance with Jesus' directives to missionaries.

Why would Paul voluntarily fabricate a command of Jesus and then go on to explain why he is violating this directive? He probably wouldn't. The more likely explanation is that this directive is something his opponents were touting, and accusing him of not following. Thus, Paul brought it up in his letter because he had to defend himself against it. Now, this doesn't prove that Paul's opponents knew Jesus, only that they claimed to know his command with respect to missionaries. But then why didn't Paul simply disagree and say, "No, Jesus didn't say that. These guys are lying to you. They're just trying to swindle you out of your money and take advantage of your hospitality." This would have been a damaging criticism, since peripatetic teachers and philosophers were notorius in ancient times for being swindlers and sophists. Instead, he goes on the defensive, as though the best he can do is show that he is no worse than his competitors.

I think the best explanation for why he doesn't challenge his opponents head on is that there was something about them that was unassailable - namely, they knew Jesus personally before he was executed whereas Paul did not.

This lends credence to your option 2, which you dismiss as not credible. I find it to be the most likely option. Peter knew Jesus as a man and explained many of his teachings to Paul. But Paul during the course of his ministry eventually started to downplay the significance of the earthly Jesus in favor of the risen Jesus. This was in response to certain conflicts between himself and his mission to the Gentiles versus the Jersusalem church and its affiliates. As this conflict heightened (see 1 and 2 Cor as well as Galatians), it became imperative for Paul to stress the importance of the resurrected Jesus and deemphasize the importance of the earthly Jesus. To do otherwise would be to concede power to those whose authority rested with knowing Jesus personally - a claim that Paul could never make, much to his embarrasment.

Again, I apologize for not reading your entire post carefully. If there is anything in my response that shows ignorance of one of your points, please let me know.

Cheers,
SC

Amaleq13

What sort of passage would create such an implication?

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the living Jesus instructed his disciples about the "gospel" of the risen Christ prior to being executed. Setting aside any inherent assumptions predicated on magical thinking (eg genuine prophetic powers or actual returns from the dead), this seems to me to create more difficulties than it attempts to solve. Paul not only fails to mention anywhere that the living Jesus predicted his execution and resurrection, he indicates that the gospel was a mystery that wasn't revealed until the risen Christ appeared though it had been hidden in Scripture all along.

It seems to me that a less problematic explanation is that this is a "command" obtained from the risen Christ that was part of the preaching of the original apostles.

Either Paul has ignored a magically prophetic command known to have been given by the living Jesus or he has ignored a revealed command preached by the original apostles. Of the two, the latter seems much more likely. Especially if he is playing off the typical suspicions you mentioned.

Original apostle: "The risen Christ appeared to me and you know what he said? He said that I should be supported by you because I have shared this good news with you!"

Paul: "Hey, I know that they've taught you Christ said this but have you seen me try to use it on you? Nope."

NOGO

Thanks for the effort.
This commandment come from the risen Jesus and not from the HJ.
Maybe you missed some other examples that I gave.
I suspect that this commandment is inspired from scriptures where Yahweh gives a similar directive.

I also quote an example where something Yahweh said is scriptures is read by Paul as being Jesus speaking. We should therefore not be surprised of such borrowing of commandments.

So Paul does not want to take advantage of this RIGHT.
Paul does not see this as an obligation but a right which he does not want to use.

SaintCog

This response covers both Amaleq13 and NOGO's contributions, although only A is quoted.

I acknowledge that we shouldn't expect to see such negative evidence. I wanted to make the point clear that any sort of argument claiming that Paul knew nothing of the historical Jesus must be based on absense of evidence. Given that, for the sake of the argument I accepted that the burden of proof rests with the one who would make the contrary argument. I just wanted to lay the groundwork.

You are not understanding me correctly, which is probably my fault for not explaining my position more clearly.

First there is no reason to suppose that the "Gospel" of the HJ would have had anything to do with the risen Christ. It would be simpler to argue that the synoptic gospels more accurately preserve the essence of Jesus' gospel, i.e. "The kingdom of God has come near." Jesus would thus be an apocalyptic preacher in the manner that Albert Schweitzer understands him. This is a perfectly mundane explanation. There is nothing magical about it.

But I won't take that approach as that wasn't my original point, and I'd rather not offer too much fodder for digressions. Let me be clear about what I was suggesting about this command of Jesus. I actually do not believe that the historical Jesus ever spoke these words, or anything like them. I do believe that this was a fabricated (although not maliciously) dominical saying by the first missionaries. My argument was that Paul had to contend with other apostles who were making this claim about Jesus, and that this put Paul on the defensive. He did not contradict this claim, which would have been the simplest and most effective thing to do. Instead he awkwardky refers to this "command" of Jesus as a "right" for apostles. This of course is not what the text says, but is simply a rhetorical pivot for Paul to avoid the appearance that he is disobeying a command from Jesus.

There is evidence that this dominical saying was originally peddled as a saying of the human Jesus. It is preserved as such in all three of the synoptic gospels, and uniquely so in both Matthew (10.5-15) and Luke (10.1-12), which places it in Q. This dates the saying in written form to around the time of Paul, and probably earlier as an oral tradition.

NOGO, I submit that the burden is now on you to show what in the Hebrew scriptures corresponds to the command that those who preach the gospel should get their living by the gospel better than the missionary discourse in Q.

Cheers,
SC

andrewcriddle

When Paul describes his second visit to Jerusalem (in Galatians 2:1-10) he mentions his concern 'lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain' and how the 'pillars' there reassured him. IE in principle Paul appears to recognise the leaders in Jerusalem as privileged authoritative sources about the Gospel of Christ.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Nice work, Nogo.
What is the gospel that Paul preaches, though? If it is as simple as a statement that God raised Christ, then he DID receive that via revelation.

Has anyone tried to reconstruct Paul's gospel message?

Amaleq13

Actually, there is a reason and it comes from Paul's description of "the good news". The risen Christ is that good news and the only other "gospel" he mentions is called false or perverted.

That is part of Paul's gospel only the reason he knows the Kingdom is near is because Christ is risen. I don't think there is anything simple about ignoring what Paul says and assuming later texts or their hypothetical sources are more accurate. I tend to accept the existence of Q and I've certainly been willing to entertain speculations based on possible dating schemes of layered contents but I wouldn't call any conclusion obtained from that process "simpler" than dealing only with what Paul tells us.

That seems to me to reduce the difference between the possibilities almost to the point of indistinguishability. To rephrase my offered dichotomy:

Either Paul has ignored a previously unknown command alleged to have been given by the living Jesus or he has ignored a revealed command preached by the original apostles.

That he has ignored the command doesn't seem to help establish which of these is more likely. If we assume it was fabricated and note that Paul refers to information revealed by the risen Christ as well as the mystery of the gospel being revealed after(by?) the resurrection, why would we assume the apostles attributed it to a living Jesus? Isn't this circular reasoning?

Wouldn't he be on the defensive merely from the fact that the claim was known from the beginning of the apostles' preaching? You seem to be assuming that his defensiveness requires that the command be connected to a living teacher but there doesn't appear to be any basis for the assumption. A command attributed to the risen Christ by the apostles would result in the same defensiveness, wouldn't it?

Contradicting the command wouldn't allow him to be so self-congratulatory for refusing to take advantage of it.

I don't think it is awkward at all. It makes more sense to understand it as a right given by Christ to his apostles. It is a command to those who hear the gospel and Paul is pointing out that he has not enforced it with his audience.

Well, the same sentiment is expressed in Q. It isn't the same saying but the same idea is expressed. Is this idea so unique that it can only be explained by a direct connection? Were the apostles the only wandering preachers making this claim or was this a standard tool used by those swindlers you mentioned? If this claim was unique, I would agree that this appears to be a strong connection between the living teacher of Q and the risen Christ of Paul.

SaintCog

There is an assumption at work here that I believe needs to be unpacked. If there were an historical Jesus who preached a certain gospel, what makes you think Paul would have reproduced it precisely, without any input of his own? The fact that he acknowledges the existance of another gospel is revealing. Paul's gospel was not the only one in town. Given that we have good reason to infer that he was in conflict with missionaries connected with the Jerusalem apostles, if not the apostles themselves, there is good reason to believe that he was calling the gospel of the Jerusalem apostles perverted or false. This doesn't tell us that the Jerusalem Gospel was perverted, only that Paul described it as such. Now, if there was an historical Jesus, and we know that Paul never knew him but the Jerusalem apostles did, whose gospel do you think was perverted? <-----rhetorical question

I wasn't ignoring what Paul says. I was responding to your supposition that if Jesus preached the gospel then this would be a magical feat. I responded by pointing to another gospel tradition that is different from Paul's, namely the gospel tradition preserved in the synoptic gospels. If Jesus preached a gospel akin to what we see in the gospels, then there is nothing magical about it. We know from Paul that there was more than one gospel being preached. We see in the new testament two gospel messages represented. The simple explanation is that the synoptics preserve part of a traditoin that reflects the gospel message of Paul's opponents.

I'm not assuming anything about how the apostles attributed this command. My argument is a bit more subtle than you have, I think, read it. What we know is that the apostles criticized Paul using a saying of Jesus. Paul, then, makes no attempt to refute this claim although it would have been to his advantage to do so if he could have(I answer your objections to this below). This requires us to explain why Paul does not refute this claim. The best expanation to this I think is that Paul did not know Jesus personally whereas the apostles were reputed to have known Jesus personally. So he was not in the position to contradict them on dominical sayings. All this shows is that Paul believed that the apostles knew Jesus, and that the apostles claimed to have known him personally. From here it is just simpler to accept this at face value rather than concoct some elaborate conspiracy theory about a group of people fabricating the story of a Messiah who was crucified, especially since there is no evidence to support any such conspiracy.

It would have allowed him to do far better than that. By accusing his opponents of fabricating a tradition in order to gain material profit would have set him apart as the sole honest apostle who had no interest in material gain. By conceding that apostles have a right to demand support, he is effectively condoning the missionary practices of his opponents, even while he's trying to bolster his own standing. But by accusing them of falsifying the gospel, he could have made the argument that he alone is the true apostle.

Here we need to look at the Greek.
- ho kurios diataxen tois to euaggelion kataggellousin ek tou euaggeliou zen / the lord commanded those who proclaim the gospel to live from (or better, "by") the gospel.
With the verb diatasso, the dative noun indicates the one to whom the order is given. In this case the dative is "those who proclaim the gospel." So this is not a command given to those who receive the gospel but those who preach it. Paul is playing rhetorically fast and loose here. You see this in poltical discourse all the time.

It seems to me that you're splitting hairs here. We shouldn't expect the dominal saying reflected in Paul to appear word for word as a Q saying. All we would expect to see is the same basic idea - Jesus commanded the disciples to receive material support from those to whom they preached.

Cheers,
SC

Ben C Smith

Stanley K. Stowers made a speculative attempt in A Rereading of Romans. His reconstruction centered on a messiah who mercifully delayed the final day of judgment.

Ben.