Jaybees

I can think of three possibilities:

1. The Pauline letters preceded much of that tradition.
2. Paul, whaterver might be said of that writer, was remarkably literate. He may simplyh not have put much trust in the spoken word passed from mouth to mouth over decades.
3. Much of that tradition runs counter to what Paul was teaching, so he could have just ignored it. Of course, that also allows for him ignoring the written gospels if they were available to him, and that means they preceded his writings.

spin

If not all.

Why would you say that Paul was "remarkably literate" and I seek textual evidence? Was he any more literate that the writers of Luke? And how many decades are you contemplating in this apparently exaggerated "over decades"? And why would Paul reject information of Jesus on the basis of it being spread by word of mouth? Wasn't he himself spreading information of Jesus by word of mouth?

So Paul is willfully gallivanting around spreading a gospel that he knows is against what was known of Jesus. That's convincing.


spin

bacht

You're using a false dichotomy. When was Daniel written? If you say it was 6th C bce then we have an amazing string of fulfilled prophecies, from Cyrus down to Aniochus IV. Highly unlikely, but theoretically possible, if we assume this writer was trying to predict the future.

If you say ca 167 bce then what is Daniel doing? Is this writer 'lying' because he isn't who he claims to be?

Mark appears to be putting a prophecy about the fall of the temple into the mouth of Jesus 40 years earlier. This would be easy to do after the event, especially if most of the witnesses were dead.

Jaybees

Paul seems to have been completely single-minded in his selling of the Jesus myh, so he undoubtedly sorted out all the stories circulating about his hero, cherry-picked what corresponded to his views and ignored the rest. It would have been easy for him to do, since what he was selling was fanciful but comprehensible to his gentile audience. Preaching about how Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophecies would have merely puzzled the listeners.

spin

I don't buy into myth, but I don't see any evidence for the claim that "he undoubtedly sorted out all the stories circulating about his hero, cherry-picked what corresponded to his views and ignored the rest." I don't see any reliable evidence that he knew anything about Jesus's activities in the real world. In fact Paul is devoid of any uniquely real world information about Jesus (except for the possibility of the institution of the eucharist in the last supper story found within an admonition by Paul to the Corinthians over bad habits during ritual communal feasts, which had nothing to do with the last supper).

There are nice stories that don't need to evince any Jewish prophecies to be treated as narrative of the life of Jesus. Why should Paul reject information about Jesus's life because of unstated value-added?


spin

aa5874

But, if Mark's Jesus was just regurgitating Hebrew Scripture then this Jesus was just like THOUSANDS of Jews who knew the so-called predictions of the prophets.

A claim that the sun and moon would be darkened and the son of man will be coming in the clouds was probably KNOWN by THOUSANDS of Jews for hundreds of years.

Any one who went to Sunday School knows that REPEATING or MEMORIZING Bible verses do not make you a prophet especially if you claim that you will resurrect within 72 hours of death.

Jaybees

If he felt it would simply mystify his non-Jewish listeners, he might very well avoid dealing with those issues--might even have rejected them as being mistaken.

All of this is merely speculation on my part. Scholars who have dealt at length with Paul and his writings have never been able to resolve the rather astonishing differences between him and the gospel writers. I don't claim to have come up with the answer. Just a suggestion.

spin

The easiest approach by far is that Paul didn't have any gospel information available to him. If we believe what he says, when he indicates that he got his gospel from a revelation (Gal 1:11-12), then there is no need to speculate so vainly. Paul gives no indication that he got anything from any other person. He gives us no indication of the beliefs of the Jerusalem messianists, nor of those groups he harassed.

All that Paul knows about Jesus is that he performed an act of self-sacrifice for the sake of those people who choose to appreciate it, as they were, according to Jewish law under the pain of sin and according to Paul without option as to change their fate. Naturally Paul's Jesus had to have been a worthy sacrifice, sinless Jew, hence a real person. Beyond that nothing about Jesus was necessary for Paul to start up his ministry.

Of course, Paul's activities have been obfuscated by later interpretation of them. It's hard for us to read Paul without being influenced by those interpretations. That's why we must start with what Paul actually says and not read later ideas into his words.

[Translations tend to facilitate misreading Paul, because they show signs of accepting those later interpretations. For example, when one translates εκκλησια in Paul as "church" one is perverting his text, for "church" means something to us that εκκλησια couldn't have to Paul. A neutral translation such as "assembly" or "meeting" would be more appropriate. Even "James, the lord's brother" is a speculative translation, where "James, the brother of the lord" is more neutral. (Consider "Mary, god's mother".)]


spin

aa5874

"Paul's" Jesus does not have to be an actual real being but just BELIEVED to be real.

A real human being could not have resurrected so it must be that "PAUL" either believed himself or wanted people to BELIEVE that Jesus was RAISED from tthe dead.

Once you admit that the Pauline writings were manipulated then you cannot ASSUME you know what "Paul" said or did not say. Or even who "PAUL" really was.

Transient

You are assuming of course that there is no god otherwise said human could have been resurrected. It is best to keep an open mind on these things otherwise the very thing excluded could actually be valid.