Solo

No, I don't think so. I think the theologians who say that Paul believed "Jesus Christ" to be a unique phenom are right. Paul is not at all interested in Jesus earthly history; he assumes everyone knows that JC was hanged on a tree for shame. But Paul believed he received a revelation from God about the ultimate meaning of that death; Jesus was indeed "sent" by God (in that he made a connection to the Jerusalem church), but it was to suffer death to atone for Adam's sin. He was made to appear a sinner and was executed (legally so, according to Paul), for Paul to show that God's love transcends the law.

As for Paul's beliefs of how he himself tied to that drama: It pleased God to separate Paul before he was born, to make the above revelation to the world. Paul evidently believed God crucified his former self (Saul) mystically alongside Jesus. (references in the link above) In a manner of speaking Paul believed himself dead ("dead to sin"), and reading out the uncanny recurring waves of euphoria, exaltation and clairvoyance in himself (which were sponsored by the bipolar brain chemistry) as the glorious life of Jesus Christ in heaven. As some of the people in his churches, experienced a similar process (the bipolar profile is about 2% of population) they would readily have their own "experential" reference to Paul's preaching. And again as the bipolar profile usually marks individuals with high emotional intensity, the Pauline the idea of "witnessing" Jesus in one's own body quickly spread out through his missions.

Jiri

Solo

Don't bet on either...if God wants to screw with your brain he will make a choice for you.

Jiri

No Robots

I think you mean "except for" instead of "as opposed to".

Maybe one of our experts on Paul can come up with other passages where Paul talks about himself or others in the same exalted language that he talks about Christ.

jgibson000

The problem here is threefold:

1. You have assumed what needs to be proven -- that Galatians is a "mystical writing" and that Gal. 4:4 appears within a "mystical context".

2. You haven't defined what a "mystic", a "mystical writing", and/or a "mystical context" is, let alone (a) given us the crirteria by which you determine that a person, a writing, and a passage respectively are these things (rather than someone or something else) or (b) provided us with any evidence showing both that your understandings of these things has any validity and that Paul, Galatians, and the context of Gal. 4:4 are what you say they are. So right now your claim is specious.

3. You beg the question is assuming that even if Paul is a "mystic" (however defined) he is only a "mystic" and nothing else and, more importantly, that all of his writings are "mystical writings" (whatever MWs are).

Jeffrey Gibson

spamandham

Do we agree then, that if Gal 4 is mystical, and if Paul is a mystic, and if 4:4 is part of a mystical train of thought, then there is no reason to even suspect that "born of a woman" is meant to be historical rather than mystical?

I can't seem to even get agreement on that much, which astounds me. The entire discussion is at a stalemate as a result.

It seems pointless to try to determine whether or not this writing is mystical if there is no concensus as to the implications.

No Robots

Why would that be? Isn't it valuable to understand the passage for its own sake? Do you need to be certain of your destination before you set out on your journey? Is that how you think scholarship advances? Where is the disinterest?

Ben C Smith

This should not astound you. I for one am not at all clear yet what you mean by mystical writings. Number 2 on the list that Dr. Gibson gave you had to do with the definition of mystical texts or mystical contexts, and defining those terms will be vital to determining whether such a text or such a context can be expected to contain history.

So... what is your working definition of a mystical text or a mystical context?

Ben.

jgibson000

No, we don't agree, nor should we do so, even leaving aside the fact that we still lack of any definition from you of what "mystical" and "mystic" means. And this has nothing to do with intractability on the part of those you are correspnding with. Rather, it's because you haven't done what you should have done from the beginning -- i.e., shown us that in other "mystical writing" that comes from Paul's milieu (1st century Judaism) and that are written by other Jewish "mystics", expressions that would otherwise be taken as historical statements are intended, when part of a "mystical train of thought", to be taken as "mystical" and not historical.

Hardly. The reason that you can't get a consensus on the above is that you have both refused to define your terms and failed to provide any actual evidence (conjecture based upon undemonstrated suppositions is not evidence) in support of them vis a vis Paul and Galatians. How can anyone go on to say anything about the validity or invalidity of your claims until it is clear what you are talking about and whether your premises are true?

Why does there need to be a consensus on this point?. The truth of your claim about what the implications are do not stand or fall with their gaining universal acceptance. And if you are ever going to get people to agree with you about the implications of your premises, you first have to show that your premises are well founded.

Forgive me for saying so, but prescinding as you have both from defining your terms and from providing evidence for your claims about what Galatians is and who Paul was and about how he had to write if he was what you say he was, looks like you are trying to hide the fact that you have no evidence for your claims, you haven't really investigated the nature and character of, or the intent behind, 1s century Jewish "mystical writings" or the aims of 1st century Jewish "mystics, and, what's worse, that when it comes to what "mystical writings" are and what "mystics" do when they write, you have no idea what you are talking about.


May I ask how well versed you are in the works and aims of 1st century Jewish "mystics" and their writings? Which of them, and how much secondary literature on them, have you read?

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

I would be more than happy to interpret the phrase otherwise if you were to provide examples that suggest I do so. I assumed you were able to support your earlier statement with actual examples:
This seems to me to imply that you are aware of examples of this phrase being used in the way you are interpreting Paul's use.

You appeared to be claiming knowledge of such examples and that would certainly give you some basis for both your interpretation of Paul and your statement above. It would appear you have no such basis for either.

spamandham

From the perspective of "let's learn everything we can about Paul", sure, there's value, but from the perspective of the OP, no. My purpose for this thread is to determine why there is a scholarly concensus that Jesus actually existed. I can never get to that point if we just meander aimlessly exploring every minutia.

I'm admittedly attempting mental triage to try to distill the salient points related directly to the OP.

The whole aside regarding "born of a woman" that has now taken up several pages is only a small part of answering a small piece of the OP. The piece related to Paul I think involves these questions:

- Are the writings atributed to Paul a good representation of the originals, and if not, can we identify parts that are? (under contention)
- Are Paul's writings actually the earliest Christians records? (under contention)
- Did Paul actually write in the mid 1st century? (under contention)
- Does Paul claim to have known Jesus? (No, he doesn't)
- Does Paul claim to know anyone who knew Jesus? (No, he doesn't)
- Does Paul believe Jesus was a historical person (presently under discussion)
- Is Paul in a position to have meaningful insight into whether or not Jesus existed as a person? (unknown)

If Paul's Jesus was mystical and Paul is the earliest Christian writer we have, and if Paul really was a Christian convert ca. 40 CE, then weight is added to the MJ position unless Paul is nuts, which he appears to be.

On the other hand, if we can determine from Paul's writings that there were people who believed in a historical Jesus in the mid 1st century, then it adds weight to the HJ position.