evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistles

[Bernard Muller]

In favor of an ultra minimalist & non-Christian historicist position on Jesus (from a revised posting of mine on Richard Carrier's blog):
“In Paul’s epistles & ‘Hebrews’, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham (Galatians l3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), Jesse (Romans 15:12) & David (Ro1:3) and also requiring a woman in order to “come” under the Law (Galatians 4:4). “The one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) “humbled himself” (Philippians 2:8) in a world of “flesh & blood”, as one of them (Hebrews 2:14a,17a), among sinners, some opposing him (Hebrews 12:3). There he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses talking about salvation (Hebrews 2:3). This Jesus, at some time in the past a minister to the Jews (Romans 15:8) and an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), had a brother called James (Galatians 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Galatians 1:19,2:9) and Josephus knew about (Ant. 20).
Let’s add to that Jesus was poor (2 Corinthians 8:9) and was crucified. What is the best location for that: earth or that celestial place below the moon?
Furthermore, Jesus is described to have brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19). Paul also mentioned Jesus was handed down at night (1 Corinthians 11:23) prior to the crucifixion, alluding it took place in “Zion” (Romans 9:31-33, 15:26-27)."

Of course, on all these points (and they are quite a few), mythicists have come up with arguments against a natural reading.
But let me say I found those arguments very indirect, remote, weak, greatly biased, far-fetched and sometimes rather silly.

From my blog, three arguments in Paul's epistles for the existence of a man called Jesus (in Greek) as the man credited later to have started Christianity.
1) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p20.htm
2) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p28.htm
3) http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p30.htm

From 2 Corinthians, Paul indicated his Christians had been exposed in the past to a Jesus told in a worldly manner (not spiritual but mundane & temporal):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm

Paul suggested the crucifixion was on earth (Zion):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm

In 2 Corinthians, Paul wrote Jesus was poor, in poverty. Where would that be?
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p24.htm

I got more, but that will be it for now.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

In favor of an ultra minimalist & non-Christian historicist position on Jesus (from a revised posting of mine on Richard Carrier's blog):
“In Paul’s epistles & ‘Hebrews’, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham (Galatians l3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), Jesse (Romans 15:12) & David (Ro1:3) and also requiring a woman in order to “come” under the Law (Galatians 4:4). “The one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) “humbled himself” (Philippians 2:8) in a world of “flesh & blood”, as one of them (Hebrews 2:14a,17a), among sinners, some opposing him (Hebrews 12:3). There he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses talking about salvation (Hebrews 2:3). This Jesus, at some time in the past a minister to the Jews (Romans 15:8) and an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), had a brother called James (Galatians 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Galatians 1:19,2:9) and Josephus knew about (Ant. 20).
Let’s add to that Jesus was poor (2 Corinthians 8:9) and was crucified. What is the best location for that: earth or that celestial place below the moon?
Furthermore, Jesus is described to have brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19). Paul also mentioned Jesus was handed down at night (1 Corinthians 11:23) prior to the crucifixion, alluding it took place in “Zion” (Romans 9:31-33, 15:26-27)."

Beside the common misunderstanding of Gal 1:19 (which certainly does not say that James was the brother of Jesus), you are outlining Paul's ontology, which in itself says nothing about the historicity of Jesus. This ontology reflects the necessity of Paul's savior to be a suitable sacrifice to take the place of those who have fallen short of the law, ie he has to be (human, naturally, flesh and blood) a Jew (as it is the Jews who are under the law), so he has to be a descendant of Abraham; he has to be born of a woman, etc. If he were not a sacrifice suitable for Paul, with all these characteristics, then Paul's theology wouldn't fly. There is nothing historical in this line of argument. The ontological details regarding Moses are not that different, so does that mean Moses existed? Tobias? Esther? and a slew of other figures.... Paul says he never met Jesus and claims to have got his information (his and the only "gospel") from revelation, but that doesn't stop vain speculation that others must have told him about Jesus.

Of course, on all these points (and they are quite a few), mythicists have come up with arguments against a natural reading.
But let me say I found those arguments very indirect, remote, weak, greatly biased, far-fetched and sometimes rather silly.

I'm not a mythicist, Bernard.

[Bernard Muller]

Hello, Spin
You know I do not agree about James the brother of God, which you have been defending for Gal 1:19.
I wish you read my blog entry for the rest of your discussion on Galatians, where I tried to show that in order to conclude a long and important argument, the past existence of Jesus had to be already fully accepted and never doubted by Paul's audience.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p20.htm
Read also my other blog post where Paul said the Corinthians had been exposed to a mundane and temporal Jesus (that Paul wished they would forget about):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm
If Paul had invented a human Jesus, he would have been subjected to a barrage of questions, of which we do not see any trace in his epistles.
Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hello, Spin
You know I do not agree about James the brother of God, which you have been defending for Gal 1:19.

All I said to you is that the text certainly doesn't say what you wrongly claim it to.

I wish you read my blog entry for the rest of your discussion on Galatians, where I tried to show that in order to conclude a long and important argument, the past existence of Jesus had to be already fully accepted and never doubted by Paul's audience.

I've already read your stuff, Bernard.

http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p20.htm
Read also my other blog post where Paul said the Corinthians had been exposed to a mundane and temporal Jesus (that Paul wished they would forget about):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm
If Paul had invented a human Jesus, he would have been subjected to a barrage of questions, of which we do not see any trace in his epistles.

I don't see that this last statement has any substance to it at all. And I'm not sure you even understand what I've proposed. The usage of the word "invent" suggests a behavior from Paul that I certainly do not support.

Paul's letters are mainly to people who have already accepted his religion, so your conjectures about what he should be writing about don't seem to reflect such an audience.

It seems to me that you are not dealing with historicity, but the transformation of Paul's beliefs into facts. Whether Paul believes Jesus was a Jew who was crucified or not sheds no light on the historicity of Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

It seems to me that you are not dealing with historicity, but the transformation of Paul's beliefs into facts. Whether Paul believes Jesus was a Jew who was crucified or not sheds no light on the historicity of Jesus.

Spin, I find your position rather puzzling. Do you care to explain it?
Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

Beliefs can be considered evidence worthy of consideration, when one takes into account the details of the belief. For example, if Paul believed Jesus had been crucified just one year prior to his conversion, wouldn't that count for something? Wouldn't that be worth a whole lot more than if Paul believed Jesus had crucified at some distant point in the past?

I recall that Ben Smith (and maybe later, Don G) had determined that Paul did place Jesus as having come relatively recently, but I no longer recall the specifics. Perhaps if I go through the 4000 posts recently downloaded I could find it, but at the moment I think I'll pass. Maybe someone else here can shed some more light on the specifics of WHEN Paul thought Jesus had lived.

[dewitness]

Beliefs can be considered evidence worthy of consideration, when one takes into account the details of the belief. For example, if Paul believed Jesus had been crucified just one year prior to his conversion, wouldn't that count for something? Wouldn't that be worth a whole lot more than if Paul believed Jesus had crucified at some distant point in the past?

So, what year must we assume Jesus was crucified? According to Irenaeus Jesus was crucified at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius and all the Canonised Gospels which claim Jesus was crucified under Pilate in the time of Tiberius are forgeries.

May I also remind you that the Pauline Corpus is a compilation of forgeries or false attribution and was unknown by Churches up to at least the mid 2nd century.

[spin]

It seems to me that you are not dealing with historicity, but the transformation of Paul's beliefs into facts. Whether Paul believes Jesus was a Jew who was crucified or not sheds no light on the historicity of Jesus.

Spin, I find your position rather puzzling. Do you care to explain it?

In Galatians Paul talks about his revelation. God showed him Jesus (1:15-16). Paul says his gospel is not of human origin (1:11-12). There is only one gospel (1:6-7). It is the one he received from god regarding Jesus, ie via the revelation. Whatever you make of this event (dream, meditation, psychotic break, drug artifact, eureka moment), the result is that Paul now had a series of beliefs about a savior that was his version of the Jewish messiah, which he probably developed and concretized in his sojourn in Arabia.

(A possible scenario here is that Paul had a number of conflicts that needed resolution, involving the fact that god seemed to be punishing the Jews, that the messianism of the time didn't seem to fit reality, that people were condemned under the law of god, that god would not make people suffer without a way out and that way out tied the threads together and provided a messiah that was a savior, who would, as a substitute sacrifice for those who were condemned by the law, resolve the theological tensions implicit in Paul's nascent religious thought.)

Jesus, it would seem from Paul's thought, necessarily existed. Paul never met Jesus, except in the revelation, but Jesus had to be Jewish (just as the representative of the Jews in Dan 7 had to be like a son of man, when the other nations were represented by ferocious animals). If he is not under the law then his death would have no use. Hence he was a son of Abraham, born of a woman... and all those things that you believe you can for some odd reason wave a magic wand over and turn into historical evidence.

Paul did not invent Jesus. He had no intention of creating anything, faking a religion. He was looking for answers and found them. Religious thought is fruitful that way. Jesus may be seen as the product of Paul's musing. Then again, he may have heard in passing of Jesus. I don't see anything to support it and the revelation suggests to the contrary. However, the people he was in contact with in Jerusalem didn't seem interested in his revelation. They were probably curious about the change in Paul's behavior and his professed messianism. He had no respect for them (2:6). They were interested in torah praxis, doing the law, and showed no sign of awareness that the gospel Jesus had no time for the law, for Jewish ritual practice, or cultic purity. It's as though the Jerusalemites knew nothing about Jesus. (This might be difficult to understand, if 1 Cor 15:3-11 were genuine.) The people from Jerusalem sent apostles that went to Galatia, apostles that Paul repudiated (1:6-9, 2:4). Paul in their eyes would have left the reservation. By not doing his obligations under the law, he would not have been seen as a credent Jew, which would have been the first thing that interested them. He wasn't one of them, so they shook hands and said goodbye. It's not strange then that Paul would say to the Galatians, "Am I seeking human approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of christ" (1:10). Paul offers the choice to his Galatians: stick with him and salvation through christ or take your chances under the law with those sent from Jerusalem.

[TedM]

In Galatians Paul talks about his revelation. God showed him Jesus (1:15-16). Paul says his gospel is not of human origin (1:11-12). There is only one gospel (1:6-7). It is the one he received from god regarding Jesus

So much has been written about this. What it doesn't mean is that Paul knew nothing of a human Jesus prior to this revelation, nor does it mean that there were not other gospel messages about that same Jesus. Clearly the latter is implied when Paul writes in Corin about those that 'preach another Jesus', meaning another gospel about the same Jesus. This, in conjunction with the context of Galations implies that this same Jesus was important, and so to the Jewish Church in Jerusalem.

Then again, he may have heard in passing of Jesus. I don't see anything to support it

How about Paul's claims to persecuting the Church of God, and that later Churches "in Christ" were hearing about Paul having the same faith? How do you so easily dismiss those statements as a group of "Messianists" that knew nothing of this Jesus? How about Acts, which says he persecuted the Christians? I see you address 1 Cor 15, so I won't mention it.

The people from Jerusalem sent apostles that went to Galatia, apostles that Paul repudiated (1:6-9, 2:4). Paul in their eyes would have left the reservation. By not doing his obligations under the law, he would not have been seen as a credent Jew,

What you seem to be doing is minimizing Jesus' role with the 'people from Jerusalem'. Why are you doing that? What basis do you have for thinking that they had little concern or interest in the same human Jesus that Paul's faith was based on, that they had no interest in talk about crucifixion and resurrection? .. if that's what you believe was the case. This is the part of your position that I think is very questionable. I just don't buy the idea that Paul would make such a big deal about salvation through faith and not law, and not say a word about their not even believing in the same Jesus and his resurrection in the first place if that were the case. That's a glaring silence that I would not expect from Paul.

I don't have time for a long discussion, but would like to know your thoughts on this, at least, as previously when I asked you seemed to dance around the questions.

[spin]

I don't have time for a long discussion, but would like to know your thoughts on this, at least, as previously when I asked you seemed to dance around the questions.

I have dealt with all of these issues at length on the previous forum. You are commenting on an explanation I gave to Bernard, but seem to want me to have rehearsed all of the FRDB discussions on the subject. I have already pointed out that Paul gives no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalemites knew anything about Jesus, that they may have been messianists of the ilk of John, Jews in an association expecting the messiah, their assemblies (it's wrong to call them churches) are not related to Jesus, Paul never uses the name Jesus regarding them in Galatians. Throughout Galatians he specifically contrasts his Jesus-centered religion with the law-observant religion, as evinced with James and his influence over Cephas. All been said before, all forgotten in your post.