Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[spin]

Adam,

I'm sure a conservative will just argue that:
A) The "Mark" of Acts 15:37-40 wrote the gospel attributed to "Mark."
B) That after this split "Mark" was "rehabilitated" while acting as an "interpreter" for Peter in Rome.
C) Paul worked with gentiles, while Peter worked with Judeans.
C) ALL early Christians were in FULL harmony with one another, thus there MUST be a unified message behind Paul and G of Mark.

MUST be!

DCH

Yes, DCH, I can understand your mind is having difficulty with the logic of accommodation here, but it is the same logic as used to fit Paul & his narrative indications into the evolving apostolic tradition which led to the production of Acts. Paul went from someone chosen in the womb (Gal 1:15) to being an abortion (1 Cor 15:8)—though translators are wont to use the word "abortion", preferring to fudge it with "untimely born". Such a delight, that mini-gish gallop of 1 Cor 15:3-11, raising the twelve apostles and putting Paul in his place. Paul gives no indication that the messianists of Jerusalem he visited were early Christians, but Acts makes sure that it is reality. Fitting the former indications into the later understanding of reality. If the explanation works it must be true, so Paul's Cephas is later tradition's Peter, hence the interpolation in Gal 2:7b-8, which talks of two gospels in contrast to Paul's unique gospel. That's how it must have been. And between Paul and Acts, the tradition mill churned out the gospels in dribs and drabs—they must have been a busy little hive, those itinerant preacher bees, cross-pollenating the Jesus communities—, first in Rome with the production of Mark, then the layers of revisionism as the tradition developed. Yes, full harmony with one another!

[MrMacSon]

... so Paul's Cephas is later tradition's Peter, hence the interpolation in Gal 2:7b-8, which talks of two gospels in contrast to Paul's unique gospel. That's how it must have been. And between Paul and Acts, the tradition mill churned out the gospels in dribs and drabs—they must have been a busy little hive, those itinerant preacher bees, cross-pollenating the Jesus communities, first in Rome with the production of Mark, then the layers of revisionism as the tradition developed. Yes, full harmony with one another!

Yep, likely they were all riffing off each other (and maybe all in the 2nd century)

[neilgodfrey]

Paul gives no indication that the messianists of Jerusalem he visited were early Christians, . . . .

I'd be interested to read of your thinking behind the above statement. Care to elaborate or point us to where it is discussed?

[spin]

Paul gives no indication that the messianists of Jerusalem he visited were early Christians, . . . .

I'd be interested to read of your thinking behind the above statement. Care to elaborate or point us to where it is discussed?

I'm working from my reading of Galatians 1-2.

1:1, he wasn't an apostle sent by or from men, but through divine mandate
1:6-9, his gospel was the only one
1:11-12, his gospel isn't of human origin or received from men, but from a revelation
1:13 he persecuted the "assembly of God", though we don't know the significance of the phrase
1:18-19, he stayed with Cephas 15 days, but nothing about beliefs, and he met James the brother of the Lord
1:22 mentions "assemblies in Judea in the messiah", though we don't know the significance of the phrase
2:2 Paul had a private meeting where he presented his one true gospel to the Jerusalem leaders, the upshot isn't stated
2:3 The leaders didn't push for Titus' circumcision, as though Paul suspected the possibility
2:4 the freedom Paul's Galatians had in Christ Jesus was problematic to the "false brothers"
2:6 Paul shows no respect for the leaders
(2:7b-8 is an interpolation about Peter and his gospel to the circumcised, though there is only one gospel)
2:9 The leaders "recognized Paul's grace", shook his hand & sent him off, but who knows if they were glad to see the back of him

No trace of Jesus from the Jerusalem community. Were they Jesus believers or adherents to a faith similar to that indicated in Acts 18:24ff concerning Apollos who knew only the baptism of John, which suggests messianic expectation for the one who comes after John?

Paul got his gospel from a revelation, not from men. He wasn't taught it. He wasn't sent by anyone. He has no attachment to or respect for the Jerusalem leaders.

The only material to suggest Jesus was known before Paul are two interpolations, one based on the Lucan last supper in 1 Cor 11:23-27 and the appearance passage in 1 Cor 15:3-11, which, for example, doesn't know Paul was chosen by God in the womb (Gal 1:15) & has Paul refer to himself as an abortion. (Which was it?)

Can anyone see the religious views of the Jerusalem group in Paul's letters? We've been conditioned to read Paul through the lens of Acts, which cannot be justified as there is no way to validate Acts' version of Paul's narrative and it doesn't sit well with Paul's own indications.

[Peter Kirby]

The only material to suggest Jesus was known before Paul are two interpolations, one based on the Lucan last supper in 1 Cor 11:23-27

What is the evidence for interpolation here?

[spin]

The only material to suggest Jesus was known before Paul are two interpolations, one based on the Lucan last supper in 1 Cor 11:23-27

What is the evidence for interpolation here?

23b-25 is derived from Luke which is derived from Mark. But I've argued here years ago that it's interpolated.

One of the more interesting indicators is the way the passage interrupts Paul's discource about Corinthian misbehaviour at the communal meal, causing a much later scribe to insert του κυριου "of the Lord" at the end of v.29 trying to make sense of the discourse and failing, because of the confusion caused by 23-27. This later interpolation tries to make the body that of Jesus, whereas Paul was instructing his Corinthians to each examine their body before entering Paul's meal.

Here's the earlier post which gives more substance.

[schillingklaus]

Luke's account is by no means derived from Mark's, as Markan priorists try to force us to believe, but from an older skeletal account with no bread breaking included and with only an eschatological cup (as opposed to the cup of the covenant). Only the interpolation of 1 Cor 11 : 23-26 forced the gospel authors to include the bread breaking.

[spin]

Luke's account is by no means derived from Mark's, as Markan priorists try to force us to believe, but from an older skeletal account with no bread breaking included and with only an eschatological cup (as opposed to the cup of the covenant). Only the interpolation of 1 Cor 11 : 23-26 forced the gospel authors to include the bread breaking.

Then perhaps you could comment on the table about 3/4 way through the linked post above.