Ben C Smith

The apostle Paul is, of course, frequently turned to either to support or to topple various data about the life of Jesus.

Sometimes one person will assert that, since Paul shows no knowledge that Jesus said X or did Y, therefore Jesus probably did not say X or do Y. Occasionally another person will assert that Paul did not need to explain X or Y because everybody already knew about it (I have heard this defense associated with a certain J. P. Holding, but I doubt he is the first to use it).

What is common to both sides of the argument is the presupposition that, if Jesus said X or did Y, Paul would have known about it. My question here is: Why does anybody presuppose this?

We do not know exactly how much Paul knew about Christianity (for lack of a better term) while he was persecuting it, but is it reasonable to assume that he knew a lot? All he had to have known was that Christians (for lack of a better term) were perverting Judaism in some way(s); high on my own list of ways in which he may have felt they were doing this is that they called a crucified man the messiah (and thought he had risen again). I am not certain we can assume that he knew much more than that.

We also do not know exactly how much he learned about Christianity after he converted, but we do know roughly how much time he had to learn it. Galatians 1.11-2.2 (emphasis mine):

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But, when it pleased God, who separated me from the womb of my mother and called me through his grace, to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of the Lord. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only: He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. And they glorified God in me. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

Even allowing for some underestimation on the part of Paul to make his point, it would seem that he converted, then spent 3 years out on his own before even meeting with anybody authoritative. When he finally met with Cephas, it was for 15 days. Then 14 years later he goes to Jerusalem again, and he submits the gospel he has already been preaching to the gentiles to the leadership there. IOW, 14 or even 17 years after his conversion, Paul knows that his message to the gentiles (the whole point of his conversion, in his mind; see 1.16) has not yet been officially approved; and the sum total of his contact so far with the apostles has been about 2 weeks.

Even more important, however, than the exact time is the entire thrust of the passage. The whole point is how little contact Paul had with the established apostles after his conversion, and how little he owed to human teaching and tradition.

How much should we expect him to have known about the earthly Jesus? Why indeed should we expect him to even care very much about the earthly Jesus? It was not the earthly Jesus who called him; it was the heavenly Jesus, giving him a special commission that was apparently given to no other apostle at that early time.

If in this passage Paul is telling us exactly how little Christianity as it then existed influenced his gospel, why would we expect him to know or even care much, then, about the detailed content of that Christianity? So long as the basics were agreed upon (I doubt, for example, he would even tolerate the pillars of Jerusalem unless they held, for instance, to the resurrection, at least in some form), what would the details matter to Paul?

(BTW, I do not wish this thread to go into Pauline interpolations; please assume for the sake of the exercise that Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians pretty much as it stands, since that is the usual assumption of both the argument from Pauline silence and most defenses against that argument.)

Ben.

TedM

We assume it is normal for Paul to have been curious about what Jesus was like on earth since Paul believed he had been the messiah and had been sinless. We assume he would have been interested in the sayings and doings of Jesus because we assume that Paul would have assumed that they reflected the very nature of God. Therefore we assume that Paul would have sought out information about Jesus' sayings and doings. Even if ALL he had was 15 days with Cephas, that should have been enough to learn a LOT about the sayings and doings of Jesus.

Having said that, I agree with you that Paul's message of salvation to the Gentiles did not require knowing Jesus' saying and doings, as they were immaterial to the message since such salvation only required God's son to become man, be sinless, and break death's grip through resurrection. Through such actions Paul believed that salvation became accessable to ALL men because ALL men sinned and were condemned to death as a result, and the scriptures refer to the end times in which the Gentiles too will be saved. Paul's theology was profound--and in reality the sayings and doings of Jesus were almost immaterial to this theology.

So, I believe Paul would have been very interested in Jesus' sayings and doings, but that they didn't really add much to the gospel he had already been called to preach. IMO THAT COULD serve as an explanation for why Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' sayings and doings. He had a much higher calling, and his letters are very focused on that.

Those that question the 'silence' of Paul regarding the sayings and doings of a human Jesus need to take Paul's own motivations into account, and not project their own onto Paul. Paul was a Pharisee (Jesus strongly criticized Pharisees) who persecuted the early Christian church, converted through a personal revelation and not via this church, and was given a mission that differed from those that would have known a historical Jesus. There was plenty of motivation for Paul to have not discussed the relationship of Jesus to his followers since some of them may have still distrusted Paul and/or differed from Paul's mission. There also may have been a lack of motivation for Paul to have written about Jesus' sayings and doings since those were primarily immaterial to the profound message of Paul's gospel.

ted

Steven Carr

Perhaps the details would have mattered very little to Paul himself.

But they would have mattered to many other people, and if Paul wanted to be considered an authority on his religion, then he would have had to naster his subject.

Chris Weimer

But what subject is that? Paul takes it to a new direction, not revitalizes the old.

dog-on

Which details would those be, Ben? What evidence can you present of any "details" that would have been extant prior to the time this letter (Galatians) was supposedly written (for the sake of arguement, just say after 40AD)?

This is exactly what I asked for on another thread, so lay out those cards...

gurugeorge

This kind of behaviour doesn't look like the behaviour of someone who had a vision of somebody who had recently existed and been crucified. It's more typical of straightforward mystical experience (long retreats to fully absorb a revelation or enlightenment experience).

Again, there's an assumption here that Cephas and the others in Jerusalem knew a human being who's the human aspect of the spiritual being Paul had a mystical vision of after his death. But you can't actually find that connection between Cephas and a human being: in all the mountains of scholarship on this subject, it looks to me like that absolutely crucial connection is just assumed on the basis of a reading of Corinthians 1:15 that reads into it the later, proto-orthodox idea of "apostolic succession".

Absent making that connection, what we have in Paul looks just like somebody who has a vision or mystical apprehension of an idea that Cephas and the others also had.

i.e., it looks more like Cephas and the others are part of a religious community that shares the Big Idea of an (highly spiritualised, Archon-fooling) Anointed One who has been, rather than a (earthly, kingly, militarily adept, utopia-ushering-in) Anointed One who is to come. (Both being, of course, entirely mythical concepts.) It looks like this idea was partly a vision (i.e. partly an entity they experienced and communicated with in visions) and partly an idea got from poring over scripture.

youngalexander

Perhaps very little, as you have sweetly argued. Regrettably, from the HJ perspective, this rather begs the question. What earthly Jesus?

For, if Paul does not know any details, and clearly he does not, then who does? Cephas, James? Yet they are silent. It seems that we must await Mark, but he writes fiction. This line of argument can only be disastrous for the HJ case.

Why indeed?
Oh dear! Either you expect us to except a heavenly Jesus, and I for one do not, on grounds which are far removed from Christianity. Or you are telling us that Paul was deluded, which is very likely true. In either event there was no HJ. Or, at least, there is no evidence for one.

Again, perhaps you are correct, but this does nothing for the HJ case. It is those very details which we seek. Without them Jesus has no substance and no early witness.

You appear to be rather hoist upon your own petard with this one. Better to stick with the orthodox line "he didn't need to ...".

Vorkosigan

PAUL: Here's what a Christian should do about marriage....
SIXTUS: WAIT! Ok, I've heard what you've said. But what did Jesus do? I mean, was he married?
PAUL: Look, that's not important. What's important is that he has risen and conquered death.
SIXTUS: Yeah, I got that part. But, I mean, I'm married. And my wife, well, she doesn't buy all this Jesus stuff. So what should I do?
PAUL: Well, it is better to marry than to burn with lust. I recommend you stay with her, maybe try to convert her.
SIXTUS: Oh. Is that what Jesus did? So was Jesus married? What did he think of marriage? What did his wife think of his being the Son of God and all?
PAUL: Well, that's not the key issue here. It's what I say that really matters. I've seen Jesus, in visions, and he says you'll have eternal life with him in heaven.
SIXTUS: Oh. But....well...was he married? I mean, I just want to know. Did he have kids? My wife and are trying.....
PAUL: WHAT DOES IT MATTER!?!! @#@*#&^$ Just listen to me, OK?
SIXTUS: Well, I mean, he had a brother, that guy in Jerusalem, what's-his-name, Jacob, right? So did they get along? I mean...you know them...what was Jesus really like? And what did Jacob think about Jesus' wife?
PAUL: Jesus is Risen! Amen! Let the Gospel be spread!

Vorkosigan

OK. So how does he have any credibility preaching on the sayings and ideas of a historical person he has never met?

Ben C Smith

You are profoundly missing the point. The issue on this thread is not whether the details existed, but how Paul would have treated them if they existed.

Ben.