gurugeorge

This has it backwards. It's reading the biography of a real person known at one time by the Jerusalem people into those "details"(!), when the overwhelming bulk of stuff on either side of those "details" is spiritual and mythical, that begs the question.

You have to make that connection in Paul, and in materials from roundabout the time of Paul - the connection between the Jerusalem crowd and some real human being they might have known at some point in their past. Otherwise you are plainly just reading later ideas into the earlier situation. It's an option, but you've got no reason in Paul to take that option. It seems kind of circular to me:

Q: why should we believe in a historical person behind the Christ myth?

A: ultimately, when you strip it back, because there are some historical-looking details in Paul and other pre-gospel stuff

Q: why should we believe that that stuff is genuinely historical and not just mythical - i.e. pseudo-historical, pseudo-earthly references based on Scriptural requirements, etc., just like other myths that have earthly times and places in them?

A: because the Jerusalem crowd knew an actual person, therefore it's reasonable to assume that those details are historical.

Q: how do you know that the Jerusalem crowd knew an actual historical person?

A: because there are historical-looking details in Paul, etc.

To break out of that circle, you need the last answer to be something like: "because x and y (that are not the historical details under question, but some other bits of evidence independent of them), link the Jerusalem crowd to a real human being they knew in their past."

Well, seeing as it only takes a half hour at the most to read any of the gospels ...

aa5874

It was not Paul's gospel that was revealed, according to the scripture, it was God's Son in him. Please look at the verses one more time. Galations 1:16, " To reveal his Son in me.......'.

aa5874

That is the point of the thread, yes.


Are you really sure or do you mean maybe Paul received some details. Its very difficult to understand you when in one sentence you claim certainity and in the very next, probabilty.

What is a direct revelation and direct from whom?



Again, what exactly are you sure of?

Gamera

Thanks for the observations, Ben. But I think a good case can be made that my reconstruction does come from 1 Cor 15. Here's why.

1 Cor 15 tells us that Jesus died, was buried for three days and was raised from the dead to appear to Peter, the twelve, the 500, James and then to "all the apostles." (apostoloiV pas).

This implies, does it not, that there was already a group of people identified as apostles. How else could he appear to all the apostles, if his appearance as the risen Christ was the event that created the apostles in the first place. To reach that meaning, Paul would have had to say something proleptic like: "and then he appeared to all of those who were to become apostles [by virtue of his appearance].

But in fact this meaning is also excluded. Paul then says, that after "all the apostles" saw the risen Christ, the risen Christ appeared to him, Paul. This prevents "apostoloiV pas" from having some proleptic meaning such as "everybody who was to become of an apostle" -- which I don't think the Greek phrase can bear in any case. But it is excluded by Paul leaving himself out of this list the leads up to "all the apostles" .

From this I conclude it is undeniable that Paul understood that the apostles (whoever they were and I admit Paul's version is ambiguous as it implies a large body of people above and beyond the twelve), became apostles before Christ's resurrection. And that is what makes his apostleship different.

Anxillary to that, not distinct from it, his not being a following of the living Christ took the form of him actually persecuting the church. But in his timeline, that's a function of his not becoming an apostle in the normal way -- by following the living Jesus. If he had, he would have never persecuted the church.

Circling back, how does your reconstruction explain the perplexing phrase "apostoloiV pas" in its timeline?

Ben C Smith

I am sure (in context, assuming that the pillars knew Jesus personally) that Paul received some details. For each item on the list of particular details I can claim only probability.

One can be certain that person X communicated something to person Y without being certain exactly what was communicated.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

My words were carefully chosen, and were quite clear. Call getting each item on that list by revelation X, and getting each item on that list by tradition Y. Both X and Y are possible. It is begging the question on this thread to assume either one or the other. One is allowed, however and of course, to have a preference based on criteria not in full view on this thread. I certainly do.

So far so good.

This is where I diverge. I think Paul himself gives indications that he knew Jesus was an older contemporary. We do not in that case need to know exactly where he got his information about Jesus; as (amateur) historians we are allowed to accept contemporary evidence even where the witness does not specify his sources.

If you are wondering where I think Paul gives those indications, that is for another thread. I started such a thread as a dry run many moons ago, and have been steadily honing the argument ever since.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, Josephus, and Papias do just that. I am sure you have your reasons for rejecting those, however, as fiction or such.

Ben.

TedM

I agree with you on this Gamera. IMO Doherty's list made some interesting points, but quite a few also badly mis-read the context, and some things labeled by him as 'silences' may not have been at all. I went through all 20 in some detail a few years ago, and put them on a website. If you are interested, you can find my review of them here

ted

TedM

Yes, taken literally you are correct. But think about it. What in the world does that even mean? It is quite possible that the 'revelation' was that Jesus is God's Son because through Him the theology of universal salvation that Paul sees in the OT prophecies comes together and actually makes sense. Note the very next part of the verse: "in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles". Could that not be what Paul is talking about when he says God revealed his Son in him?

Gamera

Thanks for your link. I find it very useful for my work on narrative.

wordy

Ben that part tells me that it is more likely that Paul never existed, it looks more like a text that try to give one view more authority over the James and Peter group. The group writing in the name of Paul had a row with the Jerusalem group and therefor had to come up with a solution so they invented Paul.

Or I am wrong. Maybe he did exists but that such a group later tried to write Lucas account for the Apostles to give Paul credit for the mission to the Gentiles. To save a niche for their plot to take over. The Jerusalem group was never heard of later. The Constantine group took over and still are in charge of the Church.