What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

If Paul feared that even only an allusion to a historical Jesus could threat the his authority on the his followers, then:


...it is more probable that Paul was reacting against mere hearsay about a historical Jesus - hearsay derived from the first Gospels,

...rather than Paul was reacting against Pillars who knew a historical Jesus on earth in the recent past.


Marcion contrasted the hearsay about a blood-and-flesh Jewish Christ by brandishing an entire Gospel where he claimed a docetical Christ.

If Paul didn't the same thing (brandish a Gospel or a Life of Jesus supporting his views) - and he didn't -, then, more probably, he would have contrasted ALL the historicist hearsay per se, not only a particular version of it.

Unless he was not contrasting at all historicist rivals.


COROLLARY:


who argues that Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus, he is really arguing against the authenticity of the epistles.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by outhouse »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:36 am If Paul feared that even only an allusion to a historical Jesus could threat the his authority on the his followers, then:


So what could Paul actually know about a man he never met or heard, and loved far from where the man is said to have lived?

Paul was going against the Aramaic Jews that followed Jesus and they were talking about the real Jesus. Paul had nothing to say, because he didn't know anything.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

outhouse wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:44 pm Paul had nothing to say, because he didn't know anything.
Hence you are clearly conceding me an important point:

you are preferring the Ehrman option "Paul didn't know anything" instead of the Luedemann option "Paul feared the historical Jesus legacy”, because otherwise you are moved to ask yourself, without can answer: why did Marcion react with an entire Gospel of Jesus, while Paul didn't react with mentions of a historical Jesus, against the same enemy (the Judaizers)?

As to Ehrman option "Paul didn't know anything", it is relatively easy to confute it: pointing out the silence about HJ of Hebrews, of Revelation (that is anti-pauline!), of Odes of Solomon, and even of the governor Festus in Acts.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Perhaps not fear, but smarts.

Here's what happens when a debater who alludes to a historical figure he never met goes up against an opponent who knew the figure well:

https://youtu.be/yHtlbZpZUSs

It is questionnable how closely Lloyd Bentsen actually did work with John Kennedy, but they surely knew each other, which was plenty good enough for the win 25 years after Kennedy died.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by lsayre »

It is not even known if there ever was a historical Marcion, let alone that he composed a Gospel. If the four Gospels we have today are derived from a purported Gospel penned by a purported Marcion, and this Marcion began his/her Gospel sometime after collecting (or composing) a handful of letters from "Paul" (another merely purported figure), then why don't the Gospels seem to have much at all in common or in harmony with the letters?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

As people may or may not know (or care) I have my own theory about 'Jesus' - namely that the nomen sacrum IS goes back to an angel being ish who is known from the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. As such Paul could have known about Jesus through the Jewish/Samaritan religion but not necessarily have been present when this angel/Man was alleged to have interacted with human beings a generation earlier. To this end, it has to be acknowledged that there seems to be ample evidence that Paul only knew 'Jesus' through reputation or through a vision. The two are not mutually exclusive. Moreover Paul could have known the appearance of the angel ish as a historical event - undoubtedly connected to the Jubilee of 20/21 CE. To this end, BECAUSE there was a Jubilee and there was a pre-existent expectation of an appearance of the angel/Man in connection with a Jubilee or THE Jubilee in 20/21 CE (perhaps because the following Jubilee was connected with the destruction of Jerusalem i.e. 69/70 CE). You know, it's like the expectation you have when you order Kentucky Fried Chicken on Grubhub and the door bell rings a half an hour later. You might have a busy household, people may be coming and going - but you're expecting your bucket of chicken so you associate the ring of the doorbell with the delivery. Paul could have 'known' or believed in Jesus's appearance in the very same way.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by outhouse »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:01 am Perhaps not fear, but smarts.
Exactly. And when I speak of Paul, I mean his community he was in at the time the epistle was written. They plural would have known better, And just kept combatting their perceived heretical traditions of other diaspora based theology.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: What if Paul feared a minimal allusion to a historical Jesus?

Post by outhouse »

lsayre wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:19 am It is not even known if there ever was a historical Marcion, let alone that he composed a Gospel. If the four Gospels we have today are derived from a purported Gospel penned by a purported Marcion, and this Marcion began his/her Gospel sometime after collecting (or composing) a handful of letters from "Paul" (another merely purported figure), then why don't the Gospels seem to have much at all in common or in harmony with the letters?
Marcions historicity is not disputed with any credibility, the gospels not being late first century creations are not disputed with any credibility.

Pauline text being a community effort in the 50's, is not disputed with any credibility. Academically these 3 concepts all have complete historicity.

So then you ask, why don't the Gospels seem to have much at all in common or in harmony with the letters? Easy, even though I know it was not directed at me. Semi Independent of Pauline textual traditions, when the temple fell their was a different need in proto Christian communities then there was for Pauline communities. Not only did they need to preserve traditions found valuable, but this textual traditions had to combat perceived heretical traditions while proselytizing differently then any proto Christian had ever done before. Not being able to go to Passover to share traditions and proselytize and address perceived heretical Christology, changed the proto Christians landscape forever and a new need for textual traditions became much more valuable then ever before.

The problem here is Giuseppe is under the idea, that if he keeps repeating unanswered questions in large volumes that support his hypothesis, that it actually supports his hypothesis. Fact is, his hypothesis have never been supported or substantiated in any way. And he has had years to do such.

This will sound fallacious but sometimes the truth does. Anyone who has not seen or understand how Herods temple played the leading role in the origin of Christianity before the temple fell, will not be able to discuss the actual origin of Christianity with any credibility.
Post Reply