Does a minimal Paul prove a historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Does a minimal Paul prove a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:22 am

For "minimal Paul" I mean pauline epistles without 1 Cor 2:6-11 and without the Hymn to Philippians. Assuming these passages as later Gnostic fabrications. See for a better description of this view the Parvus's recent posts on Vridar. https://vridar.org/2019/03/06/revising- ... ty-part-3/




So the fool Catholic apologist Giuseppe Ricciotti in his “Life of Jesus Christ”:
But even so thinned, this figure of Jesus always has against himself – as the Couchoud pointed out – the testimony of St. Paul, who not even twenty years after Jesus’ death makes this man a divine being, author of human redemption, of universal grace, of the Eucharist and the Christian mysteries of salvation; therefore, either the figure of Jesus outlined by Loisy is false, or the testimony of St. Paul is false. The Loisy has chosen, of course, the second alternative.

In the past he had admitted the substantial authenticity of the letters of St. Paul, assigning them to the period between the years 50 and 61; but now, in order to escape the aforementioned objection, he retains this assignment only in name, whereas in reality he abandons it, since by breaking down the individual letters into a great number of fragments he still attributes only a small part to St. Paul, and on the contrary he declares interpolated the most ample and above all more imposing fragments for his theory, attributing them to a “mystical gnosis” of the end of the I century. After long hesitations, also the annoying step in which St. Paul attributes to Jesus the institution of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11) is declared false and interpolated.

(page 219-220, my emphasis)

So Arthur Drews does the same point:

Either the Pauline Epistles are genuine, and in that case Jesus is not an historical personality; or he is an historical personality, and in that case the Pauline Epistles are not genuine, but written at a much later period.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wi ... /Section_3


Note that Ricciotti is 100% a pure apologist. He WANTS that a never-interpolated Paul has to raise a lot of contradictions with the historical Jesus (precisely the kind of contradictions seen today by Doherty, for example, and that Roger Parvus himself would see IF he considers genuine any portion of the epistles, in primis 1 Cor 2:6-11), so he can conclude that the historical Jesus is the same Catholic Christ.

Something as:
1) Jesus existed.
2) it is impossible for Paul talk about a cosmic Christ etc after so short time.
3) therefore: Jesus is really a historical and a divine being. Catholicism is true.

Clearly the Ricciotti's argument is a good example of hypocrisy. He uses mythicist arguments as "evidence" of the truth of the Christian religion.

I ask: really does a minimal Paul prove a historical Jesus?

Is not the silence about a historical Jesus in Paul so strong even under the hypothesis of a Paul strongly interpolated?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does a minimal Paul prove a historical Jesus?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:39 pm

For "minimal Paul" I mean pauline epistles without 1 Cor 2:6-11 and without the Hymn to Philippians. Assuming these passages as later Gnostic fabrications
I do not see why 1 Cor 2:6-11 can be assumed not genuine. That passage (from a letter combined with two others to form the canonical 1 Corinthians) was written when Paul was not able to explain many things in his embryonic Christianity (but he will later). Furthermore I do not see anything Gnostic in the hymn in Philippians.
Assumptions, assumptions again.
See http://historical-jesus.info/co1a.html

I do not think there is a conflict about a minimal human earthly crucified Jesus (the real Jesus who existed) and a divine heavenly pre/post existent Jesus (as Son of God, etc.), the product the divination of that Jesus by the like of Paul.
That quick divination was caused by the political & religious immediate contexts, biased interpretation of bits of the OT texts, then claims of visions & revelations of/from heavenly entities (Jesus, the Holy Spirit), and the desire to be successful by any means in getting and keeping converts by the first apostles (in the Spirit"), like Paul and his competition from others.
The minimal (true) Jesus story:
Here is my understanding (after years of study) on who was the one called "historical Jesus". All of that "in a few words" with links for details and justifications from my website:
How an accidental healer, who was also a poor uneducated Jew, got to be crucified as "king of the Jews".
http://historical-jesus.info/46.html
And how a common mortal (a "son of man"), who talked about "the good news" of the coming Kingdom, who died as "king of the Jews", caused a religion to be born: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html
After long hesitations, also the annoying step in which St. Paul attributes to Jesus the institution of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11) is declared false and interpolated.
I agree: Here are my reasons; http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html then "find" on Addition B. And there are more of these interpolations in the Corinthians epistles, which I took the trouble to explain why, with multiple points.
See http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html & http://historical-jesus.info/co2a.html, then "find" on Addition.
Either the Pauline Epistles are genuine, and in that case Jesus is not an historical personality; or he is an historical personality, and in that case the Pauline Epistles are not genuine, but written at a much later period.
The real Jesus was not much of a historical personality. So the first option is the correct one (even when all the considered genuine Pauline epistles have been interpolated).
Something as:
1) Jesus existed.
2) it is impossible for Paul talk about a cosmic Christ etc after so short time.
3) therefore: Jesus is really a historical and a divine being. Catholicism is true
I don't agree with point 2. As I explained before, because of (political & religious immediate contexts, biased interpretation of bits of the OT texts, then claims of visions & revelations of/from heavenly entities (Jesus, the Holy Spirit), and, for Paul & his competitors, the desire to be successful by any means in getting and keeping converts), it was very possible for Paul to talk about that cosmic Christ (some 25 years after the crucifixion). Later, the gospels made the earthly Jesus more like that heavenly quasi-God as preached by Paul.
Of course I object with point 3. And Catholicism took centuries to evolve in its present form.
I ask: really does a minimal Paul prove a historical Jesus?
A minimal Jesus is realistic and believable. That goes a long way into proving the historical Jesus ("historical": as somebody who existed, not to be confused with "historic" (in his times)).
Furthermore, with 1 Cor 2:6-11 and the hymn both omitted, we still have (Jesus as): "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion".
Is not the silence about a historical Jesus in Paul so strong even under the hypothesis of a Paul strongly interpolated?
Paul was not silent about an earthly human Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply