Toto

When early Christians wanted to learn more about Jesus, they consulted the Hebrew Scriptures, or perhaps a local prophetess who would channel his spirit.

aa5874

And that seems to be the case. Justin Martyr used assumed prophecies as the actual history of his Jesus.

Justin Martyr argued that Jesus did live because the prophets said he would live.

But, the Pauline writers were most innovative. They attempted to learn about the life of Jesus after he was supposed to be dead.

And, they did eventually see him and they did learn a thing or two from the resurrected dead if we assume Jesus was a real man who was actually RAISED from the dead..

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's the kind of thing I am looking for. Which passages do you have in mind that suggest that this was done in order to learn more about Jesus?

GakuseiDon

That's the kind of thing I am looking for: something that suggests that they didn't know and did care (and so rued the lack of historical details), or something that suggests they knew more than what they used.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, writings about Jesus' early life could fall into that category, though if you know any specific passages that would be useful.

Toto

Among many other hints, there is

Luke 22:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ[b] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

***

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. ...

Note that Jesus needed to give some special mind-opening instruction before they could actually read the Hebrew Scriptures.

Prophets who channeled the Spirit are referred to indirectly. I don't have the time now to track down all the references - see R Parvus' discussion of Philumena as a source for the gospel of John.

spamandham

You're asking a question that is directly related to whether or not Jesus is a historical contemporary of Paul, while turning a blind eye to the natural implications. But ok.

Is it reasonable that Paul would write so little about a human Jesus if he knew more details? As a minimum, I think it is completely reasonable to expect that Paul would have quoted Jesus in regard to moral imperatives in the places where he instead quotes the Jewish scriptures. Instead, we find "not I but the lord" only one time, and even then, it's a parenthetical in direct opposition to what the nonparenthetical says.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Surely the parenthetical is a later addition that not only expresses Paul's lack of knowledge of any moral teachings of Jesus, but also proves that the redactor wanted to attribute moral teachings to Jesus and yet this is the best he could muster.

Regardless of HJ or MJ inklings, the simplest explanation is that Paul simply didn't know much of anything about a human Jesus.

So to your point, does Paul express regret or concern that such knowledge has been lost? To my knowledge, I can't recall Paul ever expressing such a sentiment.

Ok, so Paul doesn't know any such details and doesn't seem to express that any such details even exist, and Paul has been a Christian for what, 20 years at the time he writes? He has also had at least a few direct encounters with the Jerusalem church and Cephas. In a ~20 year period as head of the gentile mission and after having multiple known encounters with the Jerusalem church, Paul nonetheless knows next to nothing about a human Jesus and also does not express that the information has been lost or that anyone else knows more details, and many of the few tidbits within Paul that tie Jesus down to earth occur within passages that at least a few scholars consider to be later interpolations.

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that no-one knew much of anything about a human Jesus at the time Paul wrote? How is that possible if Jesus is a contemporary of Paul?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I am.

Yes, not really on topic of my OP, but fair point.

Not just Paul, but anyone in the first couple of centuries.

Yes, good points and good questions, but not really what I'm after I'm afraid, which is: (1) Did anyone complain about lack of recollection about Jesus? (2) Any passages hinting at greater knowledge of Jesus?

Toto

No and no.

Early Christians showed no curiosity about Jesus. We never hear of early Christians learning about Jesus and converting - Melito of Sardis studied the Hebrew Scriptures. Justin Martyr studied philosophy, which led him to convert. Papias is reported to have sought out the sayings of the disciples, but not of Jesus: When Christians wanted more details about Jesus, they seem to have felt free to make them up.

arnoldo

R.A. Burridge, in his book entitled, What are the Gospels? A comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, compares the gospels with several other near contemporary biographies. Burridge uses the term "down-market" to label the gospels however concludes they are not unlike other biographies of the time.