GakuseiDon

On the question of silence: One thing I found interesting is that if you examine Christian literature (both HJ and "MJ") throughout the first few centuries, you will find few historical details within, either about Jesus or the contemporary world in which the author was writing. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult for scholars to pinpoint the date that some early materials were produced. The lack of "historical markers" makes it very difficult to date them precisely.

I came across this interesting article, which looks at the writings of Plutarch:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-04-32.html

The reviewer noted (my emphasis):

"But again we return to the problem that Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world (the allusion to Domitian at Publicola 15, discussed by Stadter, is a rare and striking exception). For two contributors to this volume, his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... Schmidt's conclusion is that Plutarch's approach is entirely traditional and reflects nothing of the contemporary world: he is wholly insulated by literary confabulation from contemporary politics. Chris Pelling, meanwhile, argues that the Caesar is carefully written to avoid the many resonances it might have had, so that the text might have a timeless rather than a contemporary feel; overall, he suggests, the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel."

The "timeless feel" seems to describe Paul and other early writings well. I'm not saying that solves the problems Earl brings up, but I think there is more there that needs looking at, ie. the writings need to be evaluated against the context of the literature of the day.

gstafleu

So maybe we have a modicum of agreement here? We agree that Paul does not need to mention an HJ, his philosophy is complete without it. Whatever else we can conclude from that, a Pauline HJ certainly isn't among it.

Gerard Stafleu

TedM

I think his philosphy is complete only with all of the pieces, one of which includes a Jesus who lived, died, and was resurrected prior to the revelation to Paul that the resurrection was for ALL people's salvation. Perhaps Paul didn't NEED to mention whether Jesus was human or celestial-only in order to have formed his philosphy or a similar one, but I think that he DOES refer to Jesus as though he understood him to have been human. I don't think the silences overall are as great as portrayed. In answer to some comments in your OP, here is a list of references that sure sound like they are of a HJ in the early writings, many by Paul

ted

Doug Shaver

Why? He must have done something before being executed that set them up psychologically to have those visions, or to experience whatever it was they experienced.

Ben C Smith

In fact, I think he did do things before his execution that set up certain expectations.

But I do not think I need to argue even that much. Visions of the dead are not all that infrequent; the only requirement that I can tell is that the person seeing the vision loved the deceased... and even that may not be an absolute.

In order to inspire so many visions by several individuals and groups (Cephas, James, the twelve, and so forth), it might help if he did some interesting things before he got killed; on the other hand, the first vision could have inspired the rest in a sort of domino effect, rushed along by the discovery of an empty tomb.

My thoughts are not, however, fully formed in this area. There is still much to do, and my current interests lie elsewhere.

Ben.

TedM

It's true that Colossians 2:2 (not 2:22) doesn't specify that the mystery has anything to do with the Gentiles. However, the last few verses of the preceding chapter, while not particularly clear to me, do put great emphasis on the Gentile inclusion in the mystery. And, it appears to me from this link here that 2:2 is not real clear whether it is saying that the mystery IS Christ or that the mystery is ABOUT Christ, or the mystery was hidden WITH Christ along with God. So, 2:2 remains ambiguous to me.

As for Rom 16:25-26, the mystery isn't specified as Christ himself, though it is made known to ALL nations, so the Gentile role is again stressed. The only mystery I find in all of Romans (in which Paul writes in great length about the Gentile role in God's plan for salvation), is in 11:25, in which he reveals the mystery that Gentiles will be saved in addition to Israel.

Paul doesn't say that a historical Jesus 'in no way' revealed or acted upon the secret. He does imply that Jesus didn't reveal the secret, though. Is that unlikely had Jesus been historical? It depends on what the secret was that Paul was talking about. If the secret was that Jesus' act of redemption enabled salvation for ALL men (Paul's gospel), then I think the answer is no because Jesus didn't reveal that secret. If the secret was the very existence of a Son of God, then I would say yes because his life on earth revealed his existence. If the secret was that this Christ died and was resurrected, then I would also say yes.


I don't see that many passages, and unless the secret was revealed by the historical Jesus DURING his life, then I don't see why we should expect a mention of his historical life any more than his celestial life in these few passages. Obviously Paul talks about Jesus' existence, his life, and his act of redemption many times in other passages. It is clear to Paul that his ACT OF REDEMPTION is what made possible the later revelation of the secret of Gentile salvation.


Paul does give credit to Jesus as the giver of the new covenant of reconciliation in 1 Cor 11:25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". But it is Paul's ministry, not Jesus' that brings that covenant to the Gentiles.


Yet he says earlier in that same chapter: This not only says Jesus was in the likeness of flesh, it says that God sent his son as a result of the failure of the Law to abolish sin. It implies that the law came before Jesus came, a chronology. Had this Jesus' act of redemption already occured prior to the law but not yet been revealed, and had this Jesus been 'sent' to some other place than earth in some kind of 'parallel ' human body, it sure seems like a glaring silence for Paul not to have mentioned it in this verse.


For those following, it is 1:10. I can't get too excited about this verse, given that Paul's focus was on Jesus' death and not his life prior to the death. It was Jesus' death and resurrection that made Gentile salvation possible, not his teachings and doings.

I guess I just can't see it. Once one accepts that Paul decided to preach to the Romans whose own government leaders were responsible for the killing of his Savior about the act of resurrection and its meaning for them instead of about things this person may have taught or done which didn't speak to the issue of their salvation, these 'silences' don't seem so large to me. But, maybe that's just me.


I may take a day or two before replying to what you wrote about WHEN the celestial death and resurrection took place, and the lack of any expectation for Paul to have talked about that.

ted

Solo

Ben missed in the quote the opening part of the verse: Paul knows from his conversion ουδενα.. κατα σαρκα . He knows no man (!) according to the flesh; [just as] he once knew Jesus as a man, but he no longer "knows" him that way. Since the statement logically, and grammatically parallels Jesus with 'every man', it cannot mean as some people argue, that he refers to his own 'flesh' in knowing Jesus. Ergo, he once knew Jesus as a man.

Got it, Earl ? ....I guess not

Jiri

TedM

The proper interpretation speaks volumes on the HJ question. I kind of gave up on this a while back (perhaps prematurely) because I thought it was in essence saying something like:

Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to our sinful nature. Although we have known of Christ according to our sinful nature, yet now we know him thus no longer....

Are there any convincing arguments against this position?

ted

Solo

I see the empty tomb exercises many a thinker. Bert Ehrman thinks that Mark's original ending with the the women running away from the tomb in fear was the intended one. I emphatically agree.

As for resurrection, the Q Jesus himself is reported recognizing two kinds of "dead", as in "let the dead bury their dead". So, obviously for Jesus some dead were more dead than others, and some quite capable of manual exertion. The Lukan Jesus denies to the Pharisees, that God's kingdom is "to come", it's already there in the "midst of you". In Mark Jesus answers the Saducees' riddle of the resurrected husbands of a woman who kept marrying the kin after her husbands were dropping dead in succession: whose wife is she going to be in the resurrection ? And Jesus dismisses the concern saying it's not about the resurrection of the dead but of the living. Luke even throws in a line saying that the resurrected cannot die any more. If the NT was cross-referenced by a psychologist, Luke 20:36 would be pointing to Rev 2:11.

So, while the resurrection as Jesus appearing in a biologically alien form after his death, had a way to travel as a belief, the empty tomb "motif" makes appearance twice during Jesus travels in the gospels. Now, it looks like something strange was going on with the tombs, if Jesus adepts were praying in them as far as Rome by Paul's time. The allusion in Rm 6:3-5, is to the catacombs (the old Jewish ones, the Christian ones date from 2nd century) and esoteric practice which had nothing to do with resurrection from the second-time dead. I propose that it had to do with the Jesus magic alluded to in the gospel tales of the Gadarene demoniac and Lazarus which got Jesus (HJ) into big trouble with the law.

Jiri

Toto

Rom 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

Interesting idea, but I don't see any need to assume that Christians were praying in tombs at this time. The symbolism of baptism includes a mock "death" when the head is submerged in water, and a resurrection when the person comes up out of the water.

Do you have references for this esoteric practice?