The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

[GakuseiDon]

I wouldn't, however, say Paul would be a primary source for a human Jesus based on (i) what he says about a human Jesus is less than what I would expect

But if you [non-specific you] discount the Gospel accounts, how do you set your expectations for how much Paul would say? That's the lack of logic I find in Dr Carrier's, Doherty's and others' theories that start with discounting the Gospel accounts. "The details about Jesus in the Gospel accounts were made up. Also, I expect Paul to have mentioned details about Jesus from the Gospel accounts." The logic doesn't work.

, and (ii) he says significantly more about a risen or notionally celestial Jesus.

What are your expectations about how much Paul would be asked about the celestial Jesus, given that Paul apparently claims to be a primary source for the celestial Jesus? Would people have asked Paul how he communicated with Jesus, where Jesus appeared, what he looked like and what he said?

[MrMacSon]

But if you [non-specific you] discount the Gospel accounts, how do you set your expectations for how much Paul would say? That's the lack of logic I find in Dr Carrier's, Doherty's and others' theories that start with discounting the Gospel accounts. "The details about Jesus in the Gospel accounts were made up. Also, I expect Paul to have mentioned details about Jesus from the Gospel accounts." The logic doesn't work.

I don't think one can or should discount the Gospel accounts. One's perceptions of the content of the Pauline corpus, especially the material pertinent to Jesus Christ, is influenced by one's knowledge and perceptions of the Gospel accounts. And by the traditional accounts of their chronology: ie. the Pauline epistles written in the 40s and 50s; and the Gospels written mid-60s onwards.

If one didn't know the content of the Gospels, one wouldn't have any expectations of Jesus being from Nazareth or even from Galilee, birth narratives about him, the Sermon on the Mount, and may other aspects of or about Jesus. With Paul alone, the Pauline accounts of Jesus would perhaps be a bit like the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John's account of John.

What are your expectations about how much Paul would be asked about the celestial Jesus, given that Paul apparently claims to be a primary source for the celestial Jesus? Would people have asked Paul how he communicated with Jesus, where Jesus appeared, what he looked like and what he said?

One can only speculate about your 2nd question, but points Carrier make in the excerpts I quote in the OP are, I think, noteworthy, eg. -

'The same burning desires exhibited by Tacitus [for information about Pliny the Younger's uncle-adoptive father], and eagerly satisfied by Pliny, would have been multiplied a hundredfold in the two decades of Paul’s mission..."

While this point is pertinent -

"This oddity is all the greater given that there were countless moral and doctrinal disputes arising in these congregations (the very reason Paul wrote such long and detailed letters), which must necessarily have rested on many questions ..."

- Carrier immediately goes on to refer to "the actual facts of Jesus’ words, life and death would have addressed, answered or pertained to." And, "Such facts would thus necessarily become points of query, debate and contention." Which may not be pertinent b/c I don't think Paul refer to them much, if he does at all.

But Carrier's point about responses from and to the communities over two decades would seem to be highly significant.

[MrMacSon]

.
"... Lüdemann likewise finds modern excuses for this implausible:

• "The argument that [Paul] could assume his readers’ familiarity with these [facts] because he had already passed them on in his missionary preaching [and therefore never had to mention them] is not convincing"."

[hakeem]

I wouldn't, however, say Paul would be a primary source for a human Jesus based on (i) what he says about a human Jesus is less than what I would expect

But if you [non-specific you] discount the Gospel accounts, how do you set your expectations for how much Paul would say? That's the lack of logic I find in Dr Carrier's, Doherty's and others' theories that start with discounting the Gospel accounts. "The details about Jesus in the Gospel accounts were made up. Also, I expect Paul to have mentioned details about Jesus from the Gospel accounts." The logic doesn't work.

The character called Paul could not have written anything about NT Jesus since he never met him while he was supposedly alive. He was not one of the disciples of NT Jesus. The Pauline Jesus was already dead before the Epistles were written. In addition, all Epistles, in and out the NT, even those that were written by alleged apostles like James, Peter and John mention virtually nothing about NT Jesus.

There are over a hundred Epistles and all of them contain almost nothing about the life of NT Jesus.

What does the Epistle of James contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1 and 2 Peter contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1,2and 3 John contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does the Epistle of Jude contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.

It is extremely clear that all Epistles have virtually nothing about the life of Jesus regardless of the time they were written.

Now, if the supposed Paul or Saul first "saw" NT Jesus when he was blinded by a bright light what could he have written about the life of Jesus?

It is completely illogical to expect that a person who "met" the supposed Jesus after he was dead and while he [Saul/Paul] was blind to write anything at all about his life.

As expected, the supposed Paul, must have or most likely used the Gospels to write about Jesus but falsely claimed to have gotten revelations from him after he was dead and resurrected.

[rgprice]

Paul's miracles show up in Acts.

Yes, Acts of the Apostles have a few things. But outside that, no visions of Jesus are recorded AFAIK. If there was "an age of revelations" where the Risen Jesus is popping up to teach the early church, it didn't make it into the extant texts. I would have thought that there would have been plenty, since they are easy enough to make up, considering 1 Corinthians 15:

5 and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.…

And especially if the above is an interpolation, since it indicates that there were early Christians who wanted to show that others also saw the Risen Jesus. It's a mystery to me regardless of whether there was a historical Jesus or a celestial Jesus.

Its all very simple. Marcion was the first to produce a collection of Paul's letters. Prior to that not many people had heard about Paul or Jesus.

Almost everything in the New Testament is reactionary to Marcion.

The idea that the NT Gospels and other material pre-dates Marcion is all summed up by the tautology put forward by late 2nd and 3rd century apologists -- the anti-Marcionite works were true by virtue of their espousing of monotheism, Marcion's works were false because they claimed there were two Gods, and truth cannot be derived from falsehood, therefore the true works must have been produced before the false works.

That is literally the argument of Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, Origen, etc. The whole basis of the idea that the NT works came before Marcion's is all based on the conjecture of the early apologists. But we can easily see that it isn't really the case. The NT is a reaction to Marcion's New Testament. It appropriates Marcion's, builds on top of it, and inserts humanizing elements in order to make Jesus, "a part of the Creation."

There was no first century Christianity. The apologists had merely constructed a history that they imagined to be true based on assumptions about the NT works. In reading the NT works, they took Acts and the Gospels as legitimate early accounts. They read those as records of the "original" pure form of Christianity in the Age of the Apostles. They claimed then that this pure original Christianity was followed by an Age of Heretics, which they date to roughly 100 to 150. From the Age of Heretics they then claim that the orthodox defenders of the apostles came to the rescue, so save Christianity from the heretics by surfacing, defending and promoting the works of the true "New Testament", which they claim Marcion had butchered and cut out passages and whole works from.

But the whole scenario is nonsense. According to the orthodox claims, essentially the New Testament existed in the first century! Then Marcion took the NT, cut out most of the material, chose the Gospel of Luke for some reason and cut off the first and ending chapters, and revised Paul's letters and put it out as his New Testament. And at the same time, the supposed "real" New Testament nor hardly any of its works are attested to prior to any of this happening. Obviously that's not what happened.

To me, once you understand what happened with Marcionism and the reaction to it, everything really falls into place.

[Bernard Muller]

The reasons why Paul did not provide details about the life of Jesus are:
1) He never had been an eyewitness of human Jesus.
2) The inquisitive Christians of Corinth were previously informed about a wordly description of human Jesus (probably by Peter during his visit to Corinth): http://historical-jesus.info/20.html Were the earliest Christians of Corinth told about Jesus in a worldly manner?
3) That's why Paul could make arguments from Jesus being poor (2 Co 8:9) and a servant/minister to the Jews (Ro 15:8).
4) The testimony of Peter is incorporated in gMark, but most of the time greatly embellished & with fictional elements: http://historical-jesus.info/28.html How did "Mark" handle the known "humble" Jesus testimony conflicting with the later preaching as a divine entity?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Almost everything in the New Testament is reactionary to Marcion.

That's because you make Marcion's corpus THE REFERENCE. However, there is evidence a lot was written before Marcion, including gMark, gLuke and Paul's epistles.
About gMark: http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
About gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
About Paul's epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

The reasons why Paul did not provide details about the life of Jesus are:
1) He never had been an eyewitness of human Jesus.

Your observation is extremely important to remember--the Pauline writer was never an eyewitness to Jesus [if he did live].

So, logically if Jesus did live then stories about him must have preceded the so-called Pauline letters since the writer claimed he persecuted those who preached the same Gospel that he was presently preaching.

Stories of Jesus had already been preached when the Pauline writer was supposedly a persecutor.

Now, if Jesus did live and had apostles then those apostles would have known far more about the so-called Jesus of Nazareth than the Pauline writer who was never an eyewitness and never was an apostle

There were already Pillars of the Church before the Epistles were written, in fact, it is claimed in an Epistle that it was the Pillars of the Church who supposedly granted permission to the Pauline writer to preach to the heathen.

In order for the Pauline writers to appear authoritative they had to falsely claim they had revelation from the resurrected Jesus.

We now know that the Pauline writer was really using a written source, either gLuke, the Memoirs of the Apostles or their sources.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

In order for the Pauline writers to appear authoritative they had to falsely claim they had revelation from the resurrected Jesus.

In order for the Pauline writers Paul to appear authoritative they he had to falsely claim they he had revelation from the resurrected Jesus.

We now know that the Pauline writer was really using a written source, either gLuke, the Memoirs of the Apostles or their sources.

No, we do not know that. Paul made no use of gLuke: he implied the father of human Jesus is a man (descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites, which in the Jewish system, is from the male line) and in most of the common items in the Pauline epistles and Acts, show that Acts considerably embellished Paul's account. Direction: Paul -> Acts. http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

The character called Paul could not have written anything about NT Jesus since he never met him while he was supposedly alive.

Paul could have written more assuredly about Jesus if he had written accounts about him which he said he had got from the disciples, eg. the so-called Pillars, but he didn't so there is no line of 'evidence'.