Ben C Smith

How does he derive credibility with the Galatians? By reminding them of his vision and his commission. And who says he regularly preaches on the sayings of the historical Jesus? That is exactly what is at issue here.

Think of it this way. Paul seems determined in Galatians 1-2 to show that his own ideas are independent of, though compatible with, those of the Jerusalem pillars. That tells me that, whatever the content of the Jerusalem message, Paul is not necessarily going to be interested in it; he is allowed to pick and choose, of course, based on what he knows, but he may not know all that much.

If (nota bene, dog-on, if) the contents of the Jerusalem message, which Paul is claiming independence from, included an historical Jesus whom the pillars had known personally, then why should we presume that Paul would be interested in the historical Jesus?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is so counter-intuitive to me that I am not certain how to respond. Paul tells us repeatedly what his chosen subject is: Jesus crucified and risen.

The medieval mystics were masters of their subject, and their points of contact with an HJ were often minimal.

Ben.

dog-on

Oh, I understood very well...

Just trying to understand why you seem to cling to the corpse. :devil1:

As you posted somewhere else, you espouse a minimalist position regarding Jesus. Paul "obviously" did the same regarding a recent historical incarnation of the Christ. :Cheeky:

Clouseau

Saul was a Pharisee, and Pharisees certainly believed in a Messiah, as did Jews generally. So why did he not believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Or rather, if he was indeed resisting the pricks of conscience, as he admits, why did he not want to believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Saul must have known much about Jesus, merely in order to have been able to deny that he was the Messiah. He must have heard the claims of Jesus' miracles, and his fellow Pharisees would have complained of Jesus' persistent perceived offences in his, Saul's, presence. It is also highly improbable that the high priest would give Saul authorisation to persecute officially unless he, Saul, knew exactly what he was doing.

Saul was present in Jerusalem at the height of the controversy about Jesus, when Peter and John had appeared before the Sanhedrin; he had been present at Stephen's speech, and must have understood the deep implication that the old way of legalism was held to be at an end. He must have been well aware of the significance of Jesus in historic Old Testament context, even if he did not know the details of his ministry. And the OT context, one he knew very thoroughly, is what Paul applied so extensively in his letters. The details of miracles, the teachings about forgiveness, etc. he was intelligent enough to take for granted. The resurrection had made them somewhat superfluous by then, for him.

dog-on

I guess the answer is that it is patently absurd to think that Paul would be, in any way, interested in the actual historical Jesus since he was only interested in his own visionary experience and scriptural interpretation.

So, just how deluded do you think he was?

Ben C Smith

Actually, just to be clear, I said that I am tempted in that direction.



He seems to be saying that his own message was not derived (at least directly) from the Jerusalem community. If the Jerusalem message included details on an historical Jesus, should we expect the Pauline message to also include those details?

Ben.

dog-on

Seems? I should say that he is quite emphatic on that particular point...


11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

TedM

Hi Vork. I hope you are well. Your response is cute, but why should Paul use Jesus' marriage or lack thereof as an example for everyone else? And, where did Jesus talk about the virtues or lack thereof of marriage? Why say "don't marry" and get yourself into even MORE controversy when Cephas and the brothers of the Lord were married, even though Paul wasn't?

Paul DID address the issue of divorce by referencing "the Lord" which could be God in the Leviticus commandments, or Jesus who repeated the commandments.

I think you need to either examine the passage more seriously, or find another example, in order for your point to work..

ted

gstafleu

Doherty's arguments don't rest on Paul alone, but on all known early writers. That means that, for your argument to hold, all these early writers were writing about a religion with a founder, without knowing much about the founder. Maybe you could make the argument for one of them, e.g. Paul, but for the whole lot...?
So from Paul we can therefore not gather any evidence pro-HJ. So from where do we get the evidence? The (much later) gospels? These are acknowledged to be mostly myth, an HJ is not needed to explain them. Plus all these other early writers all suffered from Paul-syndrome: ignore the HJ, just mention the MJ?

And this of course ignores the "positive silences."

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

My argument deals with Paul and with Paul only. So yes, if Paul is silent because of the things that I have pointed out, but yet a bunch of other epistolary writers are in the same boat as Paul for reasons as yet unclear, then Doherty may still have a case with regard to those other writers.

Correct. The argument I have made applies only to Paul, since it comes straight from his self testimony in one of his epistles. In order to apply to other epistolary authors, I would have to find self testimony in those epistles, as well.

We may not. Then again, we may. A whole lot of other arguments have to be made along the way, of course.

Possibly. Depends on the argument(s).

Ben.