GakuseiDon

Do you have a source for that tradition?

No Robots

Here is a direct quotation to spare you the effort of reading a short chapter (typed from pdf, just for your edification):

It is true that Paul does not quote the earthly Jesus very often in his epistles, nor does he discuss such material. But neither are the epistles entirely free of direct quotations from the Jesus tradition. Furthermore, he repeats in his epistles time after time that he already has handed down an authoritative tradition to his congregations.--p.19

rlogan

Spare me, martyr. You could have stated in one sentence what your point is that allegedly demonstrates Pauline writings evince a historical Jesus.

It is true that Paul does not quote the earthly Jesus very often in his epistles, nor does he discuss such material. [/quote]

'Very often"?! When does he EVER quote an earthly Jesus?

Quote:

But neither are the epistles entirely free of direct quotations from the Jesus tradition. Furthermore, he repeats in his epistles time after time that he already has handed down an authoritative tradition to his congregations.--p.19

Well this is pretty nonsensical if it is claimed as evidence for a historical Jesus in Pailine writings. Where's the beef?

Last chance, buddy - can you show me the evidence of a Historical Jesus in the Pauline corpus? So far I have this third party claiming we have Paul handing down some vague "tradition" to his congregations.

No Robots

If you had bothered to read a little bit (pp. 19-22), you would have seen that Gerhardsson cites the following examples of Paul drawing on the tradition:

• 1Cor 7:10 on the prohibition on divorce (from Mt 5:32, 19:9)
• 1Cor 9:14 on gaining a living through preaching (from Mt 10:9-10, Lk 10:7)
• 1Cor 11:23-25 on the Last Supper
• 1Cor 15:3-8 on the main events of Christ's life

Malachi151

But read. Take for example 1 Cor. 15:

Firstly, what he says here he draws from "the Scriptures", so the agreement between Paul and the gospels comes from "the Scriptures", their common point of reference.

Second, and more importantly, he says that he appeared to him "as to one untimely born".

Now, Paul was writing supposedly from about 10-15 years after the supposed death of Jesus, according to the gospels, but Paul never mentions Pilate, and according to this, Paul seems to be saying that Jesus appeared to him in a vision because he was born after his initial appearances.

If Jesus had been a person on earth who was killed in 33, and Paul is writing between 48-63, and if Paul is old by this time, as he seems to be, then Paul should have been alive when Jesus was alive according to the gospels.

Also, Paul seems to indicate that "the twelve" and the apostles are two different groups of people.

S.C.Carlson

The term "untimely born" renders the Greek ἐκτρώματι, which means an "abortion" or "miscarriage" and is often thought to be a reference to the unusual nature of his "call." I'm not aware of any publication that claims it means Paul was born after Jesus was crucified.

Stephen

Clivedurdle

Can we not make religious assumptions here and work out what this is saying?

Is it a statement it is not an ordinary birth, ie a heavenly one?

Why the assumption of untimely, why not different?

spin

Check Job 3:16a in its context for a similar word in use.


spin

Clivedurdle

This is where Job curses the day of his birth. What exactly is Paul trying to say? Is this cross referenced to Job?

Didymus

If there's one thing all the gospel authors - and Paul, implicitly - agree upon, it's the utter injustice of Jesus' execution. I'm simply setting out what I think is a likely explanation for the huge public reaction that extended into the Diaspora, and which still reverberates today.

When we reject the consensus view, I think it's our obligation to propose an alternate hypothesis.

I agree. And, decades later, there was a great deal more speculation on the part of the gospel authors, Mark in particular. Unlike Paul, he took it upon himself to answer questions that had probably been in the air for some time: "What sort of life did the Messiah lead? What was his lineage? What did he preach? What took place that led to his crucifixion?" To answer, he went to the most reliable source he had, Hebrew scripture. Plus, of course, oral traditions and Paul's messianic theology. Of course, he folded in the political concerns of the Jesus cult, notably the friction that had developed between the cultists and traditional Jews, especially Pharisees.

(If it had been generally believed among Christians that the crucifixion etc. had taken place on some sort of intermediary plane, such speculation about the quotidian life of an earthly and human Messiah would have been unwarranted, irrelevant and highly controversial. It would have constituted a tectonic shift in, and challenge to, the Christianity allegedly espoused by Paul and his congregations. But we have no evidence of any such controversy.)

Didymus