Ben C Smith

Did Paul think of Jesus as a mythical figure from primordial times? Did he think of Jesus as an historical figure from the indefinite past? Or did he think of Jesus as an historical figure within living memory? Here I offer some evidence for the last of those three options. See what you think.

Evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as a real human being in real human history, not from the age of myth:

1. Jesus must have lived after Adam, since Paul calls him the latter Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45).

2. Jesus must have lived after Abraham, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of Abraham (Galatians 3.16).

3. Jesus must have lived after Moses, since Paul says that he was the end of the law of Moses (Romans 10.4-5).

4. Jesus must have lived after David, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of David (Romans 1.4).

Evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived recently, within living memory, as an older contemporary:

1. Paul claims to have had dealings with the brother of the Lord, James (Galatians 1.19; 1 Corinthians 9.5).

2. Paul believes he is living in the end times (1 Corinthians 10.11), that he himself (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or at least his converts (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14) might well live to see the parousia. Paul also believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not just an ordinary resuscitation of the kind Elijah or Elisha supposedly wrought; it was the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28). When, then, does Paul think Jesus rose from the dead? If, for Paul, he rose from the dead at some point in the indeterminate past, then we must explain either (A) why Paul thought the general resurrection had begun (with Jesus) well before the end times or (B) why Paul regarded the end times as a span of time stretching from the misty past all the way to the present. If, however, Paul regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a recent phenomenon, all is explained. The resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the general resurrection and thus the ultimate sign that the end times were underway.

3. Paul expects that he might see the general resurrection in his own lifetime (1 Corinthians 15.51). He also calls Jesus the firstfruits of that resurrection. Since the firstfruits of the harvest precede the main harvest itself by only a short time, the very metaphor works better with a short time between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the rest of the dead, implying that the resurrection of Jesus was recent for Paul.

4. There is, for Paul, no generation gap between the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15.4). Furthermore, there is no generation gap between the recipients of the resurrection appearances and Paul himself; he is personally acquainted with the first recipient of a resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 15.5; Galatians 1.18). Is there a gap between the resurrection and the first appearance? The flow of 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 would certainly not suggest one; however, I believe we can go further.

Paul claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). Paul also claims that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans? If, however, we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised recently, shortly before appearing to all the apostles, all is explained. That was the right time (Romans 5.6).

5. Paul writes that God sent forth his son to redeem those under the law in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). It is easier to suppose that, for Paul, the fullness of time had some direct correspondence to the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10.11) than to imagine that the fullness of time came, Jesus died, and then everybody had to wait another long expanse of time for the death to actually apply to humanity.

An apparently undesigned coincidence involving the life and times of John the baptist:

Imagine that Paul (and other early Christians) really had no particular time in mind for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; as far as they were concerned, he lived and died in the indefinite past, or even in times primeval. Now imagine yourself as Mark the evangelist, taking this general, indefinite timeframe and historicizing it into a specific setting, under Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate in the late twenties or early thirties. Why would you settle on that time? Why not under the Maccabees, or during the exile, or a little after Pompey, or any of a thousand different possibilities?

1. Mark could have reasoned from all the points above that Jesus was an older contemporary of Paul (the apostle knew his brother, thought the end times had begun, called Jesus the firstfruits of the final resurrection, apparently did not conceive of a gap between justification won and justification applied, and said Jesus was sent in the fullness of time).

2. Mark could have been looking for a precedent for Christian baptism. Paul describes the institution of the other great Christian ritual, the eucharist, in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25, but does not in his extant epistles describe the institution of baptism, even though, despite not having been sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1.17), he baptizes anyway (1 Corinthians 1.16!). Mark could have lit upon John the baptist as the perfect rationale for Christian baptism; if the movement began within baptist circles, then Christian baptism stands explained. If not, he would have to seek another source for Christian baptism.

3. Mark could have been looking for a good timeframe for the dominical words in 1 Corinthians 7.10-11, in which the Lord, not Paul, prohibits both partners in a marriage, husband and wife, from divorcing. Mark could have noticed that such a command makes more sense to a gentile readership (like the Corinthians) than to a Jewish audience (virtually necessary if he is going to put these words on the lips of the Jewish Jesus in Galilee), since only men could customarily initiate a divorce in Jewish society. So did Mark have to drop the female half of the command? He did not (Mark 10.11-12). He found the perfect time for such a saying, to wit, not long after Herodias had flouted Jewish custom and initiated the divorce from her husband in order to marry Herod Antipas (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4 §136), who in turn had John the baptist killed for his criticism of their marriage (Mark 6.17-18).

———

We do not really need to know which of these reasons caused Mark to decide on the tenures of Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate as a good time in which to place a previously timeless Jesus. The point is that he had too many good reasons to place him in that timeframe: James the brother of the Lord, the Jewish association of resurrection with the end times, the metaphor of the firstfruits, the difficulty of inserting a gap between justification won and justification applied, the fullness of time, the origin of Christian baptism with John the baptist, and the suitability of both halves of the divorce saying to time of the execution of John the baptist.

All these reasons converge on a time within recent memory for Paul the apostle. Is that a coincidence? Or is that because that is indeed when a man named Jesus lived and had brothers and fulfilled the times and was baptized by John and prohibited women from initiating divorce and died and purportedly rose again? Or is there some other explanation?

Ben.

yalla

Gidday Ben,
I'm surprised that no one one has discussed this with you so I'll fill the void.

I'm currently reading one of of Marcus Borg's books and he makes some interesting points with respect to Paul.
Borg says that Paul was an ecstatic mystic, one who has spiritual experiences outside the realm of normality...."radically different from ordinary everyday conciousness''.
He cites the usual stuff to back this up, the third heaven experience and the knowing JC by revelation not by man, he reckons Paul probably had many such experiences.

A second point that Borg makes is that Paul is a dialectical thinker, frequently using contrasts and oppositions in a metaphoricalical sense.
Such as contrasting life ''in Adam'' [denoting: sin, death, separation from god, the old, according to flesh, the law, slavery..] with life "in Christ", the opposites to the previous [life, with god, newness, birth, according to the spirit, freedom....].

[Note: I'm not saying this refutes your after Adam idea, but it is relevant as a link in a chain of thinking].

Borg notes how Paul has undergone these changes, has experienced this contrast in states of being in his life and dates the transition point as the original inner revelation [actually Borg buys the Acts version of the Damascus version but IMO Paul himself is clearly describing an inner, not external, revelation.]. And he cites various bits of Paul to back up this change, doubtless you are familiar with them.

According to Borg, Paul connects all this change, from "in Adam'' to "in Christ" with baptism, Rom 6.3 and Gal 3.26 for example, where the participants [Paul and others] become clothed/at one/in Christ.
Specifically, and this is what really interested me, through baptism and mystical experiences Paul has undergone the following [and Paul says others can follow the same path]:
- gone to [third] heaven, and presumably back again, ie has ascended and descended.
-has died [to the law]
-has been crucified [Gal 2.20]
-has been buried with christ [Rom 6.4]
- has been reborn "just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father even so we should walk in the newness of life" Rom 6.4...note the 'just as'.
Sounds very familar doesn't it?
Borg: " In short, the way we become "in christ' is by dying and rising with Christ, by participating in the path of death and resurrection- the same path that we saw in the synoptic gospels....", p 250 of "Reading the Bible again For the First Time", via mystic experience, baptism, community experience, following Paul's teachings.

Now to connect the dots.

Paul is claiming he, and others, have died, by crucifixion, ascended to heaven, been buried, resurrected and changed.

Really?
Or metaphorically?

Well I presume we both are opting for metaphor, neither of us would believe that all these things happened to Paul in a literal physical sense?

But Paul insists that the stimulus for all this, for him, was not from man, but from personal internalised revelations/appearances and mystical ecstatic experience[s].
As I interpret Paul.

There is no literal physical normal ordinary stuff going on here.
It is mystical metaphor.

"Just as" his experiences of an alleged Jesus Christ.
Timeless [except that Paul experienced "that" in his lifetime as could the readers of Paul as could, well according to Paul anyway, I.]
Mystical, mysterious, spiritual metaphor.

Not real.

Whaddaya think Ben?

Vorkosigan

The writer of Mark loved Daniel. What timeframe is dictated by Daniel?

But the other reasons are interesting too.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Now I see the problem. Your argument depends on Mark knowing the modern dates. You want to derive Mark's dating from Paul's writings. That means that Mark must have used some internal evidence from Paul to date it. What internal evidence would he have used?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

Hi, Yalla. I can agree with much, indeed probably most, of what you wrote about Pauline mysticism. However, I do not see how it in any way tells against the fact that the chronological indicators, such as they are, appear to dovetail at circa 30. My argument is intended for those who think Paul had a completely mythical or completely timeless Jesus in mind; Borg, as I understand him, thinks Paul had an historical Jesus in mind.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Well, not on Mark knowing the modern dates, per se. The part of the argument that references Mark actually assumes the opposite, that Mark did not have any tradition locating Jesus under Antipas, that he himself made the editorial decision to locate him at that time (though the argument also works if it was somebody before him who made that decision).

If Paul had a timeless, purely mythical Jesus in mind, it should not even be possible to derive the Marcan date from the Pauline texts.

If Paul had a timeless, purely mythical Jesus in mind, there should be no internal evidence for locating Jesus in time.

1. Paul mentions a brother, so Mark decides that Jesus must be roughly contemporary with Paul.

2. Paul thinks both that the end times have begun and that Jesus was the first instance of the key event of the end times, the resurrection, so Mark decides that the resurrection must have been recent enough to include in the timeframe of the end times.

3. Paul calls Jesus the firstfruits of the resurrection, so Mark decides against locating the resurrection of Jesus so far back in time as to risk spoiling the metaphor by separating firstfruits from harvest by an indeterminate span of time.

4. Paul thinks that Jesus died and rose again in order to justify humanity, and also thinks that humanity cannot be justified without hearing about it from a preacher, so Mark decides against reading an indeterminate gap between verses 4 and 5 of 1 Corinthians 15, between the resurrection and the appearances to those who were to go out and preach.

5. Paul says that Jesus was sent in the fullness of time, so Mark decides to locate Jesus recently vis-a-vis Paul so as to avoid the implication that the right time preceded the actual possibility of salvation by nameless centuries (and hence Mark 1.15).

6. Paul is a baptizer (despite claiming he was not sent to baptize), but nowhere in his extant epistles does he discuss the origins of Christian baptism as he does the origins of the Christian eucharist, so Mark decides to locate the origins of the Christian movement in conjunction with that of John the baptist, thus explaining the rite of baptism.

7. Paul, in a passage in which he meticulously discriminates between his own instructions and those of the Lord, claims that the Lord forbade both genders from initiating divorce, so Mark decides to locate Jesus under Antipas so that the recent activities of Herodias would make sense of a Jewish Jesus uttering the double prohibition that would otherwise seem implausible under the usual Jewish custom.

Note that the first five reasons date Jesus relative to Paul, while the last two reasons date him relative to John the baptist and Antipas.

But it seems a little too much to beg all of these dating indicators of Paul if Paul did not know the date himself (if he was mentally locating Jesus in myth or in the mists of history). Any one or two or maybe even three of them might be coincidence, but that all seven should converge on a date in the late twenties or early thirties seems unlikely if Paul had no idea when Jesus lived and died. (IOW, the more help Paul renders Mark in dating Jesus, the more likely it is that Paul himself knew the date of Jesus.)

You have noted, Michael, that historicists generally assume the historicity of Jesus and then use dubious historical criteria to prove what they have assumed. My argument here is the opposite; it assumes mythicism and then follows that assumption to a set of unlikely coincidences:

1. Assume that Paul had no date (at least not a recent one) in mind for Jesus.

2. Follow that assumption to its logical conclusion that Paul should be of little or no help to the later evangelists in dating Jesus.

3. Note that Paul is in fact of great service in dating Jesus, thus invalidating the assumption.

Thanks for your input.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

I don't see any contradiction between the writer of Mark reading Paul to place Jesus in Pilate's time, and Paul having a mythical Jesus in mind. Actually, this sort of deductive thing is exactly how I saw the writer of Mark grabbing John. I've just never thought about it with the other stuff, from the dating point of view. It explains a lot.

That's a potent argument, Ben.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

High praise coming from you; I appreciate it. Thanks.

Ben.

TedM

Very nice job Ben. While myself and others (including you) have been applying this argument to the issues you mention individually, you have nicely shown how many there are, as well as how consistent they are. That IS a strong argument against the idea that Paul's Jesus was from the distant or vague past.

I think the counter argument might be that the factors you present are also consistent with a REVEALING of Jesus recently, coexisting with the adoption of baptism as a Christian rite--perhaps inspired by the real JTB, but that the Jesus still didn't have to be an actual person, and could have been some creation out of the OT and myth, etc.. AND out of very high expectations for a messiah to appear during that time. IOW while your argument is strong against the idea of a Jesus in the vague past, it is not strong against a VAGUE Jesus in the recent past, which is consistent with a created/revealed Jesus.

This arguement would then say that Mark, knowing the fact of a belief in such a recent revelation, decided to historicize Jesus for that time period. I personally think this requires an unusually high degree of creativity for Mark, and requires an unusually high degree of both flexibility and gullibility among the early Christian community, so I favor the idea that the Jesus of early Christianity was more than a creation of inspired minds, and was based on real events that happened to a real person.

ted

Steven Avery

To help understand this scenario. Paul predates Mark ? And Paul was writing about events in what time ?