Couldn't Paul have simply believed Jesus was human?

[TedM]

Assuming that Paul's 7 epistles at least were written by him, it seems to me that one alternative that doesn't get much play - maybe it isn't sexy - but that I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

I can only think of 1 Cor 15, and the 2 'brothers' passages as being the primary support for placing Jesus in time just prior to Paul, as is the orthodox view. If those can be reasonably explained by other means (interpolation, interpretation, etc.), then really what is left in Paul's writings that places Jesus in Paul's time? The semi-strong arguments from silence re Paul's lack of knowledge of Jesus' recent ministry on earth as a healer and teacher all still apply.

[Giuseppe]

When I read books written by Catholic apologists about the case Medjugorje, I observe that they talk really about the 'Madonna' as about a real entity who had walked really (!) in the little town of Medjugorje in the recent past, even if possessing a spiritual ''body'' and proving sometimes as her only heartly ''sufference'' the knowledge of the sins of the human race. This is especially the case when the celestial entity has to send oral news personally. While when the celestial entity has only to make the ''seers'' share a specific experience (visions of Hell, Paradise, etc), the context is the Hell, Paradise, etc, but surely NOT this earth.

If the analogy with Medjugorje may be useful, then the celestial Jesus was active both in heaven and on earth, according to the different content of the various Christian hallucinations. Only when the apostle x hallucinated himself in the Third Heaven, he saw also Jesus in Heaven, obviously.

[TedM]

If the analogy with Medjugorje may be useful, then the celestial Jesus was active both in heaven and on earth, according to the different content of the various Christian hallucinations. Only when the apostle x hallucinated himself in the Third Heaven, he saw also Jesus in Heaven, obviously.

We have very little with regard to what was 'seen' by the early Christians, as in hallucinations/visions, from Paul.

But there is a TON of information in the OT and writings regarding the expected Messiah's coming that could be used to conclude that the Messiah had come, had paid the price for the sins of mankind, wasn't recognized for who he was, and would be returning to judge all mankind and usher in the kingdom of God. And that Gentiles would be included in that offer of salvation too.

Isaiah 53 alone practically covers all of that. Look at it and read the tenses. It's past tense, mostly - grew, had, was despised, etc... Sure, it may have been referring to God 'Servant' the nation of Israel, or to some noble person among the captives in Babylonia. Sure, it may have been applied to a FUTURE messiah. But, also it may have been applied to a Messiah that some - like Paul - believed had ALREADY come prior to his generation but whose act of salvation was only recognized by Paul and other of his generation - 'revealed' by the Spirit:

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

[maryhelena]

Assuming that Paul's 7 epistles at least were written by him, it seems to me that one alternative that doesn't get much play - maybe it isn't sexy - but that I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

Toledot Yeshu and the time of Alexander Jannaeus..... ?

I can only think of 1 Cor 15, and the 2 'brothers' passages as being the primary support for placing Jesus in time just prior to Paul, as is the orthodox view. If those can be reasonably explained by other means (interpolation, interpretation, etc.), then really what is left in Paul's writings that places Jesus in Paul's time? The semi-strong arguments from silence re Paul's lack of knowledge of Jesus' recent ministry on earth as a healer and teacher all still apply.

[MrMacSon]

Assuming that Paul's seven epistles at least were written by him, it seems to me that one alternative that doesn't get much play - maybe it isn't sexy - but that I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT, and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

I can only think of 1 Cor 15, and the 2 'brothers' passages, as being the primary support for placing Jesus in time just prior to Paul, as is the orthodox view. If those can be reasonably explained by other means (interpolation, interpretation, etc.), then really what is left in Paul's writings that places Jesus in Paul's time? The semi-strong arguments from silence re Paul's lack of knowledge of Jesus' recent ministry on earth as a healer and teacher all still apply.

I wonder if Paul actually wrote after Bar Kochba or, if there was not a real Paul, as per Robert M Price's position in his The Amazing Colossal Apostle (Dec, 2012), the narratives were probably developed in conjunction with the Marcionite community -

...Price suggests that Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion of Pontos, Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and [an] iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. [Price claims that Paul's] letters were actually written and edited by other people, including Marcion, and an early Church Father, Polycarp of Smyrna ...


"Some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, never even mentioned Paul in their extensive writings, so it is debatable whether or not Christians in Justin’s day had heard of Paul ...


"In the final analysis, according to Price, the canonical writings are not only infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp, as many scholars would acknowledge, but are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives ..."


http://signaturebooks.com/new-testament ... y-existed/


"The story of Paul in the Book of Acts is not evident in Paul’s epistles. Acts contains fanciful “miracle-mongering” motifs, including a resurrected Jesus who walks through walls and people who can make earthquakes happen through prayer. In fact, only in the Book of Acts do we have twelve apostles. Paul’s letters mention more apostles, some of them female. In the early Christian church, there were other sources of information about Paul which were, for a time, canonical, including Acts of Paul and Acts of Paul and Thecla ..."

.

[Peter Kirby]

TedM -

I just want to say that I appreciate your fair-handed approach to the subject and your obvious curiosity and critical-mindedness.

Assuming that Paul's 7 epistles at least were written by him, it seems to me that one alternative that doesn't get much play - maybe it isn't sexy - but that I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

I can only think of 1 Cor 15, and the 2 'brothers' passages as being the primary support for placing Jesus in time just prior to Paul, as is the orthodox view. If those can be reasonably explained by other means (interpolation, interpretation, etc.), then really what is left in Paul's writings that places Jesus in Paul's time? The semi-strong arguments from silence re Paul's lack of knowledge of Jesus' recent ministry on earth as a healer and teacher all still apply.

There's nothing to stop 1 Cor 15 from being an interpolation, of course, but W. L. Craig did develop an interesting argument against it.

Craig contends that "1 Corinthians 15:1 wouldn't make sense if verses 3-11 were an interpolation: Paul would not be 'making known to you the gospel that [he] preached to [them]'," i.e., without the formula set forth in verses 3-5.

"Moreover, the first person plural pronouns in verses 12-15 (like 'our preaching is in vain' and 'we are found to be misrepresenting Christ') refers back to the apostles in verses 9-11, so that if we say these verses are an interpolation, these pronouns would have no antecedents."

"Moreover," Craig observes, "when Paul says 'Christ is preached as raised from the dead' [verse 12], that refers back to verse 11, 'so we preached and so you believed.' Dr. Price might say 'No, it refers back to v. 1, where Paul says, 'I preached to you the gospel.' But here's where English translations can be misleading. In Greek this is a totally different verb than the verb in verse 12. Verse 12 matches the verb in verse 11, and that is the gospel Paul refers to in verse 12."

Price has replied to it (the quotations lifted from here too):

http://infidels.org/library/modern/robe ... craig.html

The 1 Cor 15 passage may have been in Marcionite texts of Paul, given the references to it by Epiphanius and Tertullian.

In general, this theory is of course the old position of G. A. Wells, who was fairly conservative regarding interpolations (accepting Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15 as authentic, I think).

There is an Ockham-esque objection that this hypothesis is more complex than the alternatives, since the existence of Jews who believed in intermediary divine-like figures is already necessitated by the non-Christian record (e.g. Philo). As such, having the tradition of a Jesus-type figure located in time once is simpler than having him located in two different times, or first indistinctly and then distinctly, successively, and it should probably be preferred in the absence of any sufficient evidence for distinct understandings regarding the situation of Jesus in time in the evolution of the Jesus concept... the idea here being that the ahistorical / divine traditions lie behind the Jesus concept, in any case.

[Ben C. Smith]

TedM -

I just want to say that I appreciate your fair-handed approach to the subject and your obvious curiosity and critical-mindedness.

Assuming that Paul's 7 epistles at least were written by him, it seems to me that one alternative that doesn't get much play - maybe it isn't sexy - but that I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

I can only think of 1 Cor 15, and the 2 'brothers' passages as being the primary support for placing Jesus in time just prior to Paul, as is the orthodox view. If those can be reasonably explained by other means (interpolation, interpretation, etc.), then really what is left in Paul's writings that places Jesus in Paul's time? The semi-strong arguments from silence re Paul's lack of knowledge of Jesus' recent ministry on earth as a healer and teacher all still apply.

There's nothing to stop 1 Cor 15 from being an interpolation, of course, but W. L. Craig did develop an interesting argument against it.

Craig contends that "1 Corinthians 15:1 wouldn't make sense if verses 3-11 were an interpolation: Paul would not be 'making known to you the gospel that [he] preached to [them]'," i.e., without the formula set forth in verses 3-5.

"Moreover, the first person plural pronouns in verses 12-15 (like 'our preaching is in vain' and 'we are found to be misrepresenting Christ') refers back to the apostles in verses 9-11, so that if we say these verses are an interpolation, these pronouns would have no antecedents."

"Moreover," Craig observes, "when Paul says 'Christ is preached as raised from the dead' [verse 12], that refers back to verse 11, 'so we preached and so you believed.' Dr. Price might say 'No, it refers back to v. 1, where Paul says, 'I preached to you the gospel.' But here's where English translations can be misleading. In Greek this is a totally different verb than the verb in verse 12. Verse 12 matches the verb in verse 11, and that is the gospel Paul refers to in verse 12."

Interestingly, the first and third of these objections have no force against the specific reconstruction I currently support:

There is a case to be made that verses 1-11 read as follows in the Marcionite text:

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain — 3b that Christ died, 4a that he was buried, 4b and that he was raised on the third day. 11b So we preach, and so you believed.

The second objection is still there, but spin has mounted a cogent argument (by way of counterexample) against it:

This "we" objection thingy has been dealt with before. It is nothing new. It is just the sort of rearguard hopefulness we see here in this thread. When Paul talks of "we" in a preaching context in Corinthians, he is referring—as he does in 9:4-6—to himself and Barnabas (and/or whoever accompanies him, eg Titus in Gal 2:1), having started off in the singular in 9:1-3.

9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

In general, this theory is of course the old position of G. A. Wells, who was fairly conservative regarding interpolations (accepting Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15 as authentic, I think).

There is an Ockham-esque objection that this hypothesis is more complex than the alternatives, since the existence of Jews who believed in intermediary divine-like figures is already necessitated by the non-Christian record (e.g. Philo). As such, having the tradition of a Jesus-type figure located in time once is simpler than having him located in two different times, or first indistinctly and then distinctly, successively, and it should probably be preferred in the absence of any sufficient evidence for distinct understandings regarding the situation of Jesus in time in the evolution of the Jesus concept... the idea here being that the ahistorical / divine traditions lie behind the Jesus concept, in any case.

Would you count any of the options gathered on my thread about alternate times and places for the crucifixion as "sufficient evidence for distinct understandings regarding the situation of Jesus in time in the evolution of the Jesus concept"?

Do you think, regardless, that locating Jesus in time and place "first indistinctly and then distinctly" is as susceptible to the considerations that his location "in two different times" would be? Progressive revelation may come into play, gradually making clear what was once fuzzy.

[Bernard Muller]

I think Price responded adequately to Craig's comments, showing they have no value against the hypothesis that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation.
However, I have no reason to think that the 'de' (which can mean "and" or "but) at verse 15:12 is also an interpolation. It is rather a link used extensively to introduce verses 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 17.
My reasons for claiming 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

I don't think someone like Craig has to prove anything; he just has to put up a fight that is at least as good as the one for interpolation. There's definitely no presumption in favor of an interpolation hypothesis. Most of the arguments from Price are fairly 'soft' themselves. Perhaps the most interesting one is the absence of the appearance to 500 or to James in the canonical gospels.

I'm interested in this interpolation hypothesis, but we shouldn't all just jump on the same bandwagons...

Would you count any of the options gathered on my thread about alternate times and places for the crucifixion as "sufficient evidence for distinct understandings regarding the situation of Jesus in time in the evolution of the Jesus concept"?

Possibly...

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.

Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

In two medieval Latin fragments discussed by John Chapman in 1907, Jesus is said to have been born in 9 AD, baptized in 46 AD, and slain in 58 AD.

Epiphanius has a confused account of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says was in "the twentieth year of Agrippa called the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archaelaus". The 20th year of Agrippa I is about 60 CE. (Anacephalaeosis VII §78 9.6f)

According to the Epistula Apostolorum, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus. (So before 6 CE?)

I believe the modern equivalent here is the disagreement over whether Jesus died in 28, 30, or 33, based on modern encyclopedic knowledge of things like Josephus' text and the exact calendrical math. I think they're attempting to date the Gospel Jesus, crucified under Pilate, and getting different results, which is not quite the same kettle of fish.

The Talmud has also been taken to refer to Jesus in a chronological context about 100 years before the usual time frame. I have Tractate Sotah for this claim so far: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html. But it does not mention the crucifixion; are there other parts of the Talmud that concur with Sotah? Any that mention the crucifixion?

Also, the medieval Toledoth Yeshu speaks of the entire life and death of Jesus as having occurred during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

This does seem different, but does it go back to Christian sources ... let alone those contemporary with our earlier extant ones that are specific enough?

Revelation 11.8

http://peterkirby.com/revelation118.html

And He shall enter into the (first) temple, and there shall the Lord be treated with outrage, and He shall be lifted up upon a tree. And the veil of the temple shall be rent, and the Spirit of God shall pass on to the Gentiles as fire poured forth. And He shall ascend from Hades and shall pass from earth into heaven. And I know how lowly He shall be upon earth, and how glorious in heaven.

The Johannine influence here ("for when He appeared as God in the flesh to deliver them they believed Him not," "Lamb of God," etc.) suggests that the author is telescoping the ministry of Jesus from the incident in the temple (John 2) to his crucifixion "lifted up" on a tree (John 3:14, 8:28, 12:12). [I have not checked the Greek of TBenjamin or John.]

I don't want to shoot down these things as if they are not interesting, because they're interesting ... but they may fall short of sufficient evidence of the kind we want. The kind we want would most likely involve an interpretation of Paul, Didache, 1 Clement, Barnabas, 1 Peter, Hebrews, or something else that made the positive case.

Do you think, regardless, that locating Jesus in time and place "first indistinctly and then distinctly" is as susceptible to the considerations that his location "in two different times" would be? Progressive revelation may come into play, gradually making clear what was once fuzzy.

I think we could make an argument that there was a pre-Christian concept of a vaguely-positioned figure on earth, which would bring this back to parity between the hypotheses. So I wouldn't want to put a lot of emphasis on this argument.

Overall, it's hard to say. It's hard to say what Paul's christology was ... arguments over the original text often go back and forth according to the overall theory of the (ad hoc) text critic regarding the opinions of Paul. Some other Christian documents backing up the interpretation should do some heavy lifting, I think, of connecting the dots in the overall development of ideas.

Note that 1 Clement also has a "1 Cor 15 class" problem:

1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1 Clement 42:3 also tends to connect the cause of the resurrection of Jesus to the consequence of the full assurance of the apostles, while 1 Clement 42:1-2 is also suggestive of a relatively close chronological link between sending Christ and sending the apostles.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't think someone like Craig has to prove anything; he just has to put up a fight that is at least as good as the one for interpolation. There's definitely no presumption in favor of an interpolation hypothesis. Most of the arguments from Price are fairly 'soft' themselves. Perhaps the most interesting one is the absence of the appearance to 500 or to James in the canonical gospels.

I'm interested in this interpolation hypothesis, but we shouldn't all just jump on the same bandwagons...

Agreed. All arguments for an interpolation here are bound to be soft, so to speak, though of course some will be stronger than others. There is something to be said, I think, for the combination of various observations, as well. The combination which strikes me the hardest in favor of interpolation is as follows:

1. The list of appearances to the apostles is superfluous to the argument. It is not referenced again in the chapter, nor does any later statement seem to rely upon its testimony. Instead, arguments are mounted from analogies in nature and such.
2. The references to the Marcionite passage in Tertullian and Epiphanius retain enough of it to answer the most pointed objections to the hypothesis of interpolation (as I mentioned above with regard to Craig's arguments) while omitting the appearances to the apostles, already noted as superfluous. Thus, the apparently attested Marcionite text (mainly the creed involving the death and resurrection), minus the text unattested for Marcion (mainly the appearances themselves), happens to hit a sweet spot of sorts, avoiding most objections on the one side while explaining why the appearances play no further part in the chapter on the other.
3. The presence of the appearance list itself is a nearly perfect antidote to certain Marcionite views concerning the relationship of Paul to the other apostles.
4. This passage has Paul apparently claiming to have received the gospel from other humans, while the Paul of Galatians claims that his gospel derives from no human.

Nothing is certain here, obviously, and I can think of pretty good individual responses to at least two of these points. What I have trouble doing is avoiding the force of all four observations at once.