Chaucer

After a cursory look-see at the range of threads here, I have not seen any direct discussion of all the Paul citations from Jesus's human ministry as a group that we find in four of the seven authentic epistles from Paul.

It's time to have that discussion of these citations as a whole, not merely one or two in isolation.

In Galatians 1:19, there is mention of a brother James whom Paul has met; in Galatians 4:4, Jesus is said to be born of a human woman and a Jew; in Romans 1:3, Jesus has a "human nature" and is a human descendant of David; in 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus is executed by earthly rulers; in 1 Corinthians 7:10, Jesus' sayings on divorce are referenced; in 1 Corinthians 9:14, it's J's sayings on preachers; in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, it's J's invite to the Last Supper; in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, there is reference to J's having died and been buried; and in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, we have J's sayings on the coming apocalypse.

Look, I know full well that fancy tap-dancing has "gone down" putting a few of these references in question on a case-by-case basis. We've even seen a few of these treated in isolation in just such a way right here on this board. But I still have to wonder at all those Netters who just ignore the cumulative force of these various references as a group. How likely is it that we're simply dealing with a series of coincidences here, once we look at this group as a whole?

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

The principle that you are referring to is consilience (you may have been the one who brought this principle to my attention). One ad hoc explanation for a contrary piece of evidence may fly. But many different ad hoc explanations for many otherwise unified lines of evidence will not fly.

So, James, the Lord's brother, is only the religious metaphorical brother: well, probably not, given the context, but maybe. If that were the only ad hoc explanation, it may pass.

But you add that to the Paul's meeting of Cephas, and then you claim that Cephas isn't really Peter, and "Peter" in Galatians is an interpolation, or that the synoptic gospels integrated the real Peter into the fictional Jesus story--it starts to look more unlikely.

And then you claim that 1 Corinthians 11--the last supper narrative--is an interpolation, and nobody else has ever proposed it...

When you have to find various diverse explanations on the go that have flimsy evidence for facts that otherwise seem to work together in favor of a single explanation, then there is a problem. That is the principle of consilience.

Andykiwi

So what's the point of this? To show that Paul knew something about Jesus?

ApostateAbe

There are many advocates of MJ who believe that Paul thought of Jesus as merely a spiritual being, based on the perception of a lack of mentions about the human character of Jesus.

wavy_wonder1

I agree.


Finis,
ELB

JoeWallack

JW:
Apparently there is no limit to how many of these Threads we can get without any consideration of a methodology for historicity. You are a long way from demonstrating that Jesus had a human Ministry. As always, the standard should be what would be quality evidence that Jesus had a public Ministry and not what evidence do we have. For those who need points sharply explained, you need to compare the evidence we have with what would be quality evidence. If there is a significant difference than you haven't proven shit.

For starters, you need criteria for evidence:

1) How direct is your witness?

We have no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus.

2) Is your witness credible?

Paul's basic theology is that the Jewish Bible says what it does not say.

3) Is the witness confirmed?

Not on a contemporary basis.

4) Is there scope for the witness? (Extended description).

No.

5) Do we have Transcription issues? (TransMission).

Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods?

In summary you will have serious problems with every significant criteria for historicity. But do us a favor and address them instead of ignoring them. Your problem of course is that you don't have anyone to copy from here. Why do you think that is?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Steven Carr

To give just one example, Bart Ehrman questions the historicity of Jesus sayings at this 'Last Supper' of Paul's, where Jesus provides a way for his cult to have access to his body.

Just how mythical sounding is that? The cult knew Jesus body was on earth. It was present every time they ate bread and wine.

How can that be historical?

As for this brother,Paul calls lots of people brothers.

And Luke/Acts, James, Jude have no knowledge of this Jesus ever having had a brother called James.

ApostateAbe

When the evidence seems to be strongly stacked against an unlikely theory, then the failure is in the entire methodology. JoeWallack, maybe you should go start a new thread on the methodology for historicity, or revive an old one.

Steven Carr

Ad hoc explanations?

But historicists have NO explanation at all for why Paul claims the reasons Jews do not believe is either that they have never heard of Jesus, or they reject Christian teaching about him.

And historicists have no explanation for Paul banging on and on about where he gets his Christianity from , to the extent that they have to claim that Paul is silent, so they no longer have to listen to him speaking about how Christianity comes from the Old Testament.

ApostateAbe

I am not sure exactly what you mean, so excuse me if I have you wrong. The issue is whether or not Paul thought of Jesus as a physical human being. Whether or not the quotes are historical is sort of irrelevant.
But the gospel writers of Matthew and Mark, and Josephus (or his unlikely interpolators), did know that James was a brother of Jesus. You can say that James was a metaphorical brother, but it is unlikely for the reason that "Lord's brother" is a unique phrasing, and because Paul seems to use the title to identify James, because there were many men named James in the Christian community. The pattern of how Paul uses the word is secondary to the argument about which definition makes the most sense in that particular usage. And, as mentioned, consilience.