Amaleq13

Didymus,

I continue to be interested in what you believe are the indications that the crucifixion of Jesus was "exceptionally brutal" and "extraordinary".

DaBuster

But what about Paul’s confrontation with Peter at Antioch, or his problems with the "super-apostles" in Corinth? Don't these qualify as instances of apostolic competition in the Diaspora?

Vivisector

Possibly tangential, but ... I've been re-reading Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels and refamiliarizing myself with the material in Ehrman's Lost Scriptures. From some, if not many, of the Gnostics' writing, you could say the same thing about the Gnostics - they often seem to have no knowledge of, or interest in, many biographical details regarding Jesus. Not only that, but they seem to attach a still different significance to Jesus's death and resurrection. It raises the question, to me, that perhaps Paul wasn't so different from other people/groups in the sense of what, about Jesus, was important to him and what wasn't.

Just a(nother) thought.

Cheers,

V.

DramaQ

The notion that Paul's silence is his way of dealing with the Apostle's advantage is the OP.

I personally don't agree with it.

You, on the other hand, seem to be proposing an elaborate alternative solution that requires a speculative "minor Jesus" figure who naturally has little recorded history.

I see no reason to invent this "little known" Jesus either. It's much easier to explain the lack of history by a lack of history. ie there IS NO history.

DQ

Didymus

There was competition, alright, but the witness question seems to be one of chronological order, not of eyewitness vs. revealee.

There is no hint of "eyewitness vs. revealee" in Paul's adversarial relationship with Peter. Nor do we have any evidence that Jesus' earthly companions and eyewitnesses were out there in the hustings, pitting their first-hand witness against Paul's claims of visions.

Didymus

Didymus

I'm workin' on it. I recall material to that effect, but not being a very good scholar, I lost track of it. I'll let you know when I find it.

Not to say that history isn't important for its own sake, but would it make a difference?

I don't think it's essential to the hypothesis. Other factors could have led to the dreams and visions. The important thing is that Jesus' crucifixion was seen "on the ground" as a fulfillment of messianic expectations. Once that's established, it's a matter of assembling/imagining the details and finding scriptural support. Or vice versa.

Didymus

Didymus

Seems a lot harder to me, because then you have to explain how a crucified god/man named Jesus came to be invented from whole cloth and/or extrapolated from ancient writings. And how others were convinced of the existence of such a god/man. Now that is speculative.

Didymus

DramaQ

I have to explain it? Why, because I don't acccept your possible explanation?

Seems to me lots of stories are made up out of whole cloth. Or quilited together from a variety of rags. What exactly makes that so hard to believe?

As opposed to convincing others that you alone are relaying god's own words?

What is? I didn't offer any speculation about how the cult evolved. I only pointed out that a lack of historical references is easily explained by a lack of history. That's not speculating about anything.

DQ

Amaleq13

OK

I'm just interested in support for the claim that the crucifixion of Jesus was somehow unique or exceptional.

Didymus

Competition, yes, but with Jesus' former companions? There's no indication of that. What's missing is any clue that those "super-apostles" claimed that their testimony reflected eyewitness knowledge. Paul says only that they were better orators.

Didymus