TedM

It isn't knowledge of Jesus that I'm talking about. It is Paul's gospel. That is what was 'revealed' to him: That Gentiles could be saved. That's how Paul came to believe in Jesus as the messiah--he had insight into the GRAND PICTURE of salvation, and Jesus' resurrection is what made that possible. So, Paul certainly could have had knowledge of Jesus' life AND honestly claimed revelation of his gospel--since that was supportable (in his mind) by the OT scriptures. There is no need to conclude that Paul was being dishonest here.

ted

Ben C Smith

That is the point of the thread, yes.

I think they probably would have mentioned details. But that is not the only argument. Read Galatians 1-2 again with this question in mind: Does the writer of these chapters sound like he is extremely interested in what the pillars of Jerusalem have to say, the exact content of their message, and the details thereof?

I am sure that Paul did receive some details. High on my list of things he probably received are 1 Corinthians 7.10-11 (the divorce saying); 9.14 (the mission saying); 11.23-25 (the supper tradition); 15.3-8 (the resurrection appearances); and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 (the apocalyptic scenario). I know that many here prefer to shovel these items off into the category of things received by direct revelation, and that is a live possibility, but in this case it begs the question to do so, since they might also be things that Paul received from the Jerusalem people, especially as they have little inherently to do with the gentile mission.

I am sure he probably got details again.

How much, BTW, would you know about a topic if all you had spent on it was a few weeks at most over the last fourteen years?

And does Paul sound like the kind of fellow who would use the details that he received on a regular basis just because he received them? Or does he sound more like he is trying to forge his own path?

Your statement once he communicated with them implies that he did indeed, as of the writing of Galatians, communicate with them. How do you know that?

Ben.

gstafleu

That is the "not interested" argument, not the "he didn't know" argument. It runs into the usual trump-card problems.

If I were visiting the place where the philosophy that determines my view of myself and the universe was formed? As much as I could possibly get away with, and that would without the slightest doubt involve as many details about the founder of the movement as I could pry loose from people who had known him, or somehow knew a lot about him.
No doubt, he is an own-pather. By the same token though, he sounds smart enough not to throw away trump cards.
I don't, but if he had no contact with them, then they don't seem to bear on the issue?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

No, it is the he did not know because he was not interested argument.

I think Paul thought his own gentile commission trumped almost anything.

This rings hollow. Even at my most devoted I have never really, really ached to see the holy land or any other place associated with the uprising of Christianity. I think you have to assume that Paul would be interested in the ministry of Jesus (had he known it) in order to argue from it.

Paul tells us straight out that he had as few dealings with such people as possible and was determined to know only Christ crucified, yet somehow you think he would have sought out the details of ministry at all costs. Why?

He had no trump cards to throw away when it came to the earthly ministry. If the earthly ministry were the trump card you are making it out to be, Paul would be at an immediate and irrevocable disadvantage; it was too late to know Jesus in the flesh.

Better to concentrate on the cards he did hold, in this case a personal vision and commission from the risen Lord.

Yes, they do. Paul is again emphasizing how little contact he has had with those who were apostles and Christians before him.

Ben.

Gamera

No, I discussed this in detail. There are two alternatives to how the apostles mentioned by Paul as coming before him became apostles (i.e, recieved the gospel that they preached):

1. Paul thought these prior apostles were appointed by prior apostles (that are inexplicably unmentioned).

2. Paul thought these prior apostles were were direct witnesses to Jesus' life.

The second is more plausible for the reasons I spelled out. Namely, Paul distinguishes his apostlehood from the other "prior" apostles. The prior apostles also experienced a vision of risen Christ, so that's not the difference. So what is the difference? If it's #1 you would expect Paul to provide some genealogy of the apostles reaching back to Jesus. But he doesn't. He mentions apostles that are either his generation or one generation before him (as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 15:6 that most of the witnesses of the risen Christ are still alive). That's as far as his reach goes, suggesting that this prior generation of apostles was not appointed. Thus the difference has to be the fact that they not only experienced the risen Christ, but the historical Jesus.

This conclusion is implausible for the reasons cited above.

Gamera

He wasn't exactly silent. As I've pointed out on other threads, from Paul's epistles we learn that (a) Jesus descended from David; (b) he preached peace "to those near and those far;" (c) he "accepted" people (i.e., loved them?); (c) that he committed a crime in the eyes of society; (d) that for that crime he was executed with an historical form of capital punishment, crucifixion; (e) that he was buried for three day; (f) that he rose from the dead and had various encounters with apostles and others, and finally with Paul.

This accords with Acts and the synoptics. I don't think it's a coincidence that it does. It relies on a backstory that his audience knew, because he preached it, and that narrative became the basis of the later synoptics.

The epistles aren't gospels. They are simply two different forms of discourse.

Nor do we know how Paul died. Given Paul's insistence that he is just a messager and that the focus should be on the gospel, not him, this is all very proper and expected.

Needless to say, I disagree that there are 20 silences, and I disagree as to their meaning. As I have suggested elsewhere the silences actually support an historical Jesus, not the other way round.

Gamera

This begs the larger question which I've dealt with here: if the Jerusalem Church knew nothing or little about the Jesus narrative, how did they get their gospel? From Paul's epistles, the only plausible answer is that they got it from the historical Jesus, which distinguishes their apostlehood from his, something he is at pains to point out.

Ben C Smith

Perhaps you ruled this out elsewhere, but what about option 3? Paul thought these prior apostles were direct witnesses of the resurrected Lord.

Ben.

Gamera

But how is that different from his "appointment" as an apostle, which he claims came through the appearance of the risen Christ in a way that seems exactly how the risen Christ appeared to the other apostles. (at least as described in 1 Cor 15).

If they all became apostles the same way (through a vision of the risen Christ), why does Paul suggest that his apostlehood came about in a different, indeed "freakish", miscarried (ektroma)way?

According to 1 Cor 15, part of this appears to relate to his persecution of the church before becoming an apostle. But this seems to be the flipside of his not experiencing the living Jesus. The apostles knew the living Jesus and were his followers. Paul didn't and was his enemy. Then they all had a vision of the risen Christ.

This seems to be the issues that concern Paul in describing the uniqueness of his apostlehood (as opposed to some doctrinal differences).

Finally, doesn't Gal 1:1 suggest that Paul thought he was sent (as an apostle) in a unique way, directly from the risen Jesus (as opposed to say the apostles who were appointed by the living Jesus or by their successors, who neither knew the living Jesus nor witnessed the risen Jesus)?

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Ben C Smith

He tells us. Because at the same time the other apostles were carrying out their commissions Paul was persecuting the church of God.

That may be, but that does not come from this passage itself. It comes from other evidence, right?

This is a good reconstruction (with the proviso that Paul had his vision late), but it is not the only possible reconstruction. One might also reconstruct as follows:

The apostles knew the risen Jesus and were his followers. Paul did not and was his enemy. Then Paul, too, came to know the risen Jesus.

I agree there was no fundamental doctrinal difference; but I insist that the main issue that distinguished the apostlehood of Paul from the apostlehood of those in Christ before him was the commission to the gentiles. That is a difference of emphasis, not of doctrine, since Paul acknowledges that the pillars extended the right hand to him on this matter. IOW, they were not opposed to his gentile mission, though they themselves were not involved in it.

I do not think so. I think what Paul is emphasizing here is what he regularly says in his other epistolary greetings (but without such emphasis), namely that he is an apostle sent by God, not by some church (not by men) like the brethren of 2 Corinthians 8.23 (for example). IOW, he is placing himself in the same category as Cephas and company (apostles directly commissioned by God or Christ), not in a different category.

Ben.