TedM

I agree that it is more likely that something other than a crucifixion on Passover would have triggered veneration. A couple of possibilities that come to mind are 1. a claim to have been the Son of man. 2. One or several incidents that appeared to have been supernatural. Either or these could have gathered a following, but been low-key enough for Paul to not have highlighted them (though he clearly implies that Jesus was the Son of man in Daniel). This is somewhat a compromise between a nobody who is crucified during Passover and the full-blown Jesus of the gospels.


It does seem unlikely at first glance but I am convinced that is exactly what Paul is talking about. It may be that Paul includes a number of other things when he refers to his "gospel" in various places, but in Galations, it seems pretty clear to me that the differences Paul is talking about are generally about salvation through faith, but with great emphasis on the issue of circumcision. Here's something I came up with a while back when examining Galations:



If by 'this' you mean the Gentile role in the kingdom, the council is one evidence, Paul's letter to the Galations is another.


Acts doesn't depict a strong Gentile-conversion role by Peter or Philip, just the message to them that it was acceptable. The passages I cited were meant to show that Acts suggests a lack of clarity among the pillars on issues such as this since it doesn't paint a picture of consistency in the role of Gentiles from the beginning. My point though is that it appears that Paul was being persecuted but the pillars weren't, yet the pillars were giving Paul the "right hand of fellowship". If that is the case, it is hard to believe that the pillars were as vocal in their support of Paul--especially given their Jerusalem location. The conclusion is that their message probably wasn't all that clear from the very beginning, and the council reported in Acts is evidence of that.


Why would 'any other Jew' have the knowledge that Paul had?


If Jesus was seen as a teacher and a savior by 100AD, the date many consider the Didache to have been compiled, then the compilers' own bias can reflect their orientation. Paul combated doubts by the Corinthians about whether resurrections really occurred, and the Sadducees didn't believe in resurrections. It is entirely possible that some groups favored the idea that Jesus had been a prophet or teacher to help the Jews become more true to the law over the resurrected savior idea by this time, decades after the probable deaths of the earliest known followers of Jesus.

I think it is just an appearance. We can't know since Paul says in one place "I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I swhould be running or had run in vain", and in another "what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those I say, who were of repute added nothing to me." Paul DID care what they thought. The question is WHY? What was so special about them and their reputation? Why did Paul need to spend 15 days with Peter? Why couldn't he just remain 500-1000 miles away from them nurturing 'his' own churches and claiming that his revelations were the right ones, as he does with regard to those who disagree with him on the circumcision issue? What was the source of the pillar's authority? Paul never says it was revelation.

I'm not suggesting that the only inspiration was the "simple message". If I was I'd agree with you. It's hard to know exactly what the initial apostles believed, but we know what Paul wrote, and we know that Paul said in Galations that he preached the same faith he once tried to destroy. I think it is unlikely that the apostles believed something drastically different than Paul without Paul addressing it, given how much attention he gives to the circumcision issue.

Paul says Jesus was a man who was crucified, died and resurrected, and as such he was Lord and Christ. Paul never says the other apostles perceived Jesus to be the Christ through revelation. And Paul's 'mystery' isn't what Doherty says at all. It isn't some novel 'idea' that the Christ had come at some unspecified point in time, revealed through the scriptures. From a review of Paul's references to the mystery it is clear to me that the 'mystery' was not that of Christ having lived and died in some unspecified time in the past as perceived through the scriptures. It was that salvation through faith was available to Gentiles because of Jesus, whom Paul describes as a man who lived and died, and never indicates that it wasn't on this earth. There is little evidence to support the 'novel idea' theory as having created Christ. Rather, the evidence from Paul supports the 'novel idea' as being Paul's interpretation of what Christ's death and resurrection meant.

ted

Amaleq13

Yet it was apparently something that Paul felt free to ignore?

A phrase Paul never uses let alone to refer to Jesus. That's really odd if he was known for it and especially so if Paul, as you suggest, implies the same imagery. What passage are you thinking of for this implication?

But Paul never found any reason to mention them and seems to have believed the incarnated Christ had set aside his divine power. That he had no reputation and took on the form of a servant doesn't really suggest a miracle-working prophet, does it?

It sounds like the divine Son really took his disguise of the flesh seriously and wanted to make certain nobody figured out his true identity before executing him. With a disguise like that, he could be almost anybody.

No, I was referring to your question about why they believed the Kingdom of coming soon.

With regard to the "persecution of Paul", I thought you were referring to his persecution of the early church. If preaching to the Gentiles was the reason for persecuting the sect, that suggests it was happening well before he converted.

You think he was the only one who read Scripture?

I don't find this appeal to "bias" very credible. What sort of bias motivates a Christian to ignore the sacrifice of Jesus? Also, I question the reliability of that date. It is my understanding that it should be considered a text that underwent revision over time and that a much broader range is more reasonable (50-120 per Kirby).

Jesus is depicted as the incarnation of God's Wisdom in Q but not as an atoning sacrifice.

If Q is genuine and the similar Didache depiction of Jesus is part of the earliest layer, it would be contemporary with Paul.

It seems obvious to me. Paul knew that others considered the opinion of the Pillars important though he considered himself to have just as much authority. "I checked with them to make sure they weren't going to declare my efforts false but, if you want to know the truth, I'm really not all that impressed with their reputations, myself."

As far as I can tell from Paul, absolutely nothing except that they were the first to claim to have seen the risen Christ.

No, he says it was an appearance of the Risen Christ just like his own experience.

Where does Paul get into to it with the Pillars on circumcision? It seems all they were concerned about was the purity of their fellow Jews (ie communal meal issue).

Paul says Jesus was the pre-existent Son of God who took on a disguise of flesh so as to be unknowingly executed and subsequently resurrected back up with God.

You don't think he considered their experience of the Risen Christ to be just as much a divine revelation as his own? I think you are entirely mistaken on this whether Jesus existed on earth or not. Even the Gospels depict this as a revelation to the disciples.

Let's not get distracted by attacking Doherty's thesis and stick to trying to imagine what sort of historical Jesus could inspire the messy evidence we have.

TedM

Before continuing, I want to summarize the points I'm making in support of the idea that the variety you claim existed could have arisen from a HJ.

1. We have no evidence of variety prior to Jesus alleged lifetime

2. Paul's reference to "another gospel" shows evidence of variety which is explanable by a HJ. That is, Paul is talking generally about salvation through faith alone for Gentiles, with particular emphasis on their being no need for circumcision. The other gospel is those who thought circumcision (and other things) was necessary. All that was needed in a HJ to result in such variety was the lack of clarity on this issue in his teaching.

3. We have evidence that the original followers of this HJ were not clear on the teaching with regard to Gentiles. Evidence from Acts (the later 'vision' of Peter, the need for a council to decide) and I'll also add the apparant dichotomy between the book of James' focus on works vs Paul's on salvation yet the indications elsewhere that the pillars gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.

4. The dating of the Didache is thought by many to have been 40 years after Paul--long enough to appeal to a group that created its own 'variety' of Jesus after the original pillars and Paul both were gone.

5. The lack of any clear reference from Paul that the earliest Christians we know of were led by 'pillars' who received their faith only through revelation.


While your theory is workable, I don't think you've shown how mine isn't. You haven't shown the existence of many varieties of Jesus preceding Paul, and your arguments for the idea that the message of the founder could not have been missing components that led to variety about who he was and how he should be seen are not borne out by the early record. Your arguments that he would not have had some personal claims or some supernatural event attributed to him without Paul mentioning them is something I disagree with because I can 'imagine' the possibility that if they were NOT grand enough to convert Paul or even convince his own disciples during his lifetime, and it was only after his death that somehow they became convinced, then I wouldn't place a high expectation on Paul mentioning them unless he was writing some kind of biography about Jesus. The context of Paul's writings is so far from a biography--and they only totall about 70-80 pages--very focused on his conception of what the death and resurrection meant to Jews and Gentiles and his role in telling them, that I don't see a mention of a claim by an earthly Jesus or a strange event or two as any kind of glaring omission.


The description of the Son of man in Daniel 7 is "with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man (which actually just means 'man'), and he came to the ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him"

This Son of man was considered to have been seated on the right hand of God, and his arrival would be at the end times with the kingdom of God. Paul refers to the 'kingdom of God" or "reign of God" several times. Other similar references that imply that Jesus was the Son of man of Daniel are (Youngs Literal):

Romans 8:34 "who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us. "

Ephesians 1:20 "which He wrought in the Christ, having raised him out of the dead, and did set [him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places]"

Colossians 3:1 "If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated, "

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 "16because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first,
17then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; "


Being a servant and working miracles aren't mutually exclusive. Jesus is both in the gospels. One or two incidencs is very different than a 'miracle-working prophet'. If it was one or two incidents I don't see a conflict with what Paul wrote. If it was a bunch, then his silence is much more suspicious.

Persecution wasn't just for preaching to the Gentiles. According to Acts, the persecution first was the very claim that a man they crucified was the risen Savior. Later, as applied to Paul, they were also due to violations of Jewish law, and positions towards Gentiles.


There are people today who might calls themselves Christians but don't really believe in the resurrection, but consider Jesus to have been a great teacher. I understand that the Didache is considered to be at least two works, including an original Jewish work that has been 'Christianized'. It hardly seems to have enough information to draw many conclusions about early Christianity--just a few about what some groups may have believed--which isn't that different than what we see 2000 years later even with the gospels widely known!

Where is the evidence that Q existed before a HJ? The Jesus in Q could be what you say, but it also could be the attribution of Wisdom to an actual HJ. I don't see this as an argument against an HJ--just a possible alternative explantion to one.

This is the evidence of 'widely varied' beliefs that precludes a HJ? We don't even have a Q document, and we can't date the Didache with reliability, and it is a compilation of several works. Seems, pretty flimsy evidence to me.


You are assuming that is their claim to authority. Paul never says it is. We could just as easily assume it is that they were eyewitnesses.

No he doesn't say that is the source of their authority. He never indicates where they got their authority.

I agree. Thanks, (I'm probably done for the day)

ted

Amaleq13

I suspect you meant to write something else here because I'm not sure what you are talking about.

First, I don't think you addressed how the preachers of this other gospel could also be characterized as preaching "another Jesus". Again, this kind of reference seems to be to a much larger difference than the question of circumcision. Second, I missed it before but why is it legitimate to jump from Corinthians where the other gospel and Jesus are warned against to Galatians to understand what Paul meant? If all he meant was folks preaching circumcision, why didn't he say so in that same letter? Third, given this early lack of clarity on the issue of what should be required of Gentiles, can we assume that the historical Jesus never preached to a Gentile audience? After all, it would seem to be the first issue given any such effort so we would expect Jesus to have dealt with it had he invited Gentiles to join his group.

Even if we assume the date you seem to prefer, that obviously doesn't date the community the text represents. How long does a community have to exist to establish such rules and traditions? Q appears to describe a similar depiction of Jesus and the same "many" (if not more scholars) consider this text, at least in its initial form, to be contemporary with Paul. This is a Jesus who taught and performed miracles but isn't described as an atoning sacrifice. Coincidence or "another Jesus" at the time of Paul?

We work with what we've got and that is all Paul tells us about their faith. The risen Christ appeared to them. That made them apostles just like it made Paul an apostle. He is very clear about that and makes the statement several times.

We have no evidence of the beliefs preceding Paul except Paul but he does mention false apostles preaching another Jesus. Did this other Jesus preach that Gentiles were to be circumcised?

I'm afraid your "somehow" ruins any notion that the above might be considered an explanation of anything. They weren't impressed when they saw it but they suddenly became impressed by it after the risen Christ appeared to them? That doesn't seem very believeable to me. Perhaps I lack sufficient imagination?

I wouldn't expect Paul to refer to such a man as having no reputation or as setting aside his supernatural powers ("empty himself" YLT). I also wouldn't expect him to consider the Jewish requirement of "a sign" (1Cor 1:22) as misguided if he knew of an actual "sign" Jesus had performed. Then again, I also wouldn't expect him to consider the Greek desire for "wisdom" to be misguided if he knew that Jesus had been considered a wise teacher. Looks to me like his Jesus performed no "signs" and taught no "wisdom".

Where do you find this in Daniel? How can the use of a phrase that is not found in Daniel establish that Paul knew Jesus to have claimed to be the "Son of Man"? As I said before, if we assume that Paul made the connection between the arrival of Christ at the End Times and the prophecy of Daniel, it only makes it more strange that he fails to use the phrase "Son of Man" to refer to Jesus if it was something the living man was known to do.

No "signs", no "wisdom", no "Son of Man" for Paul's Jesus. What the heck did Paul's Jesus do to get his followers to attribute so much to him after he died? What the heck did he do to get crucified?

No, the conflict would then be with the veneration of the disciples. They followed a guy around for a few years because he managed to pull off one or two apparent miracles? Why did this guy get crucified?

What passage, please? And why do you presume the accuracy of Acts when you do not presume the accuracy of the Gospels?

And Paul was dealing with folks who apparently would have called themselves Christians yet questioned resurrection and folks who required signs or sought wisdom but would find neither in his Jesus. We don't appear to be obtaining a clearer picture of the historical Jesus.

What are you talking about? I haven't said it did or even suggested it. I think you can find similar sayings earlier but not the collection. Your question confuses me.

This discussion isn't about arguing against a historical Jesus. It is about imagining what he must have been like to result in the available evidence. Here we have a conception of what is arguably "another Jesus" contemporary with Paul. How does a group depict a Jesus giving signs and preaching wisdom but not being executed as an atoning sacrifice exist in the middle of the 1st century while Paul preaches the exact opposite?

It certainly appears to make it difficult to describe a coherent picture of the guy, yes.

You are willing to rely upon "many" scholars for the dating of the Didache but not for the existence of Q? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Who are you kidding? He clearly and repeatedly identifies it as the criterion for establishing one's bonafides as an apostle! I'm assuming nothing except that what Paul says is true.

Unless you are talking about being eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, you would be assuming something that is nowhere to be found in Paul's letters.

He clearly states this to be his source of authority as an apostle and just as clearly asserts himself to be equal to the others. The math on that isn't complicated, Ted. His claim of equality would ring entirely hollow if they had some other basis for their authority.

andrewcriddle

It occurred to me that Paul's need to defend his own authority as equal to Peter et al, might be a reason for Paul's tendency to avoid basing his teaching on the teaching of the earthly Jesus.

This would be a subject on which Peter et al knew much more than Paul and hence making it central would emphasise Paul's inferiority to the other apostles.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

That's reasonable given that he was already having to defend his liberal views regarding the Gentiles. He can't appeal to his revelation as superior to them actually having known Jesus on earth, nor can he say he knows of Jesus' actual teachings better than his closest disciples. If Paul's revelations were on par with the pillars, why did Paul and/or the people Paul was writing to care about the authority of the pillars so much given his ability to 'do his own thing' miles away? Why was the authority of Peter John and James in the people's minds any greater than Paul's?

All he says (that I recall at the moment) in defense of his right to apostleship is "have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not your my workmanship in the Lord?" He implies that those are criteria for being an apostle, yet it doesn't address how other may have seen Jesus: either in visions, dreams, or on earth itself, and it doesn't address why he saw any need to check with them privately to see if he had been running in vain, and spend 15 days with Peter to presumably 'get things right'..

I'll respond to Amaleq tomorrow,

ted

Amaleq13

I agree. I've been saying for quite some time that either Paul knew nothing about the living Jesus or he was deliberately avoiding making any reference.

The problem I have with the latter is understanding why anyone else would be willing to go along with him. I asked this of Ted before but he didn't answer:

If there were men preaching about Jesus who had been his disciples while he lived, why would anyone believe anything different preached by a man who only claimed to have had the risen Christ appear to him? How could Paul's revealed testimony have beaten the words of eyewitnesses in the minds of any audience?

TedM

How do we know that everyone in Paul's audience required eyewitness testimony if Paul was saying he had a vision/revelation from God? And, who says that there was competition everywhere Paul traveled to, or that his audiences even knew of other competitions? Paul began churches, so obviously he didn't even have competition in many of the places he went to. Is it not possible that part of Paul's reason for going to the Gentiles in the first place was because the pillars weren't doing so, not to mention that he likely would not have been well received among the Jews since he had persecuted them? Is it not possible that Paul was more knowledgeable in the scriptures than the others, having had formal training? Is it not possible that Paul had a better influence within the Roman community, having more knowledge of their ways, and being a Roman citizen himself? Paul's writings are very influential, highly creative and often very intelligent. Perhaps this was a factor also. There are lots of reasons to not put such a restrictive requirement on Paul's audiences--that they wouldn't have listened to Paul simply because in Jerusalem there were those who walked with Jesus personally.

ted

Amaleq13

We don't know that anyone "required" eyewitness testimony but it only makes sense to think that, if it existed, it would be considered more authoritative than claims made by a guy who never knew the living man.

Um, Paul? He is the one warning his audience against false apostles preaching another gospel and another Jesus, remember? He also seems pretty proud of getting his ass kicked in many places. If his audience was unaware of his competition (which seems ridiculous to me), he certainly made them aware in his letters.

Starting churches doesn't require a lack of competition. Keeping churches going requires either a lack of or a defeat of any competition. Paul appears to have been in the process of the latter in at least two.

Sure but he apparently didn't just go to Gentiles because he was getting his ass kicked by Jews or Jewish Christians and they also apparently didn't feel like letting him preach his gospel unchallenged. I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

It is always possible that he was more knowledgeable than some whether he had formal training or not. Of course, you have to wonder how compelling his arguments based on Scripture would be to someone unfamiliar with Scripture.

Could you be more specific about the nature of this alleged influence?

You seem to be completely missing the point of my comment. If those who differed with Paul were former disciples of the living man, why would anyone listen to anything Paul said over them? That is not even in the same zip code as a "restrictive requirement". It is just common sense. In fact, denying them this common sense is what seems more restrictive.

TedM

I guess my answer is this: If Paul got there first, that's why. If Paul had a better grasp of scripture, that's why. If Paul's presentation was more coherent and certain, that's why. We have no evidence to the contrary of any of these, and I would argue we have good reasons to believe that any or all of those could be true.

IF Paul was deliberately avoiding making a reference to Jesus' earthly life for fear of not being able to compare with those who did knew Jesus personally, then here are some reasons others would still go along with him:

1. They didn't know he was doing that
2. They knew little about the historical Jesus
3. They preferred his message because it was presented better.
4. They preferred his message because it catered to them. Who wants to go and get circumcized anyway?


ted