Three Assumptions

[neilgodfrey]

Depending on which side you’re on, confirmation bias could indicate Paul knew nothing of an earthly Jesus or that the Pauline writer was writing to a community which already had social memory of such a person. The latter argument also presumes that the Pauline writer did not think it necessary to repeat excessive details of what his audience already knew.

I'm not particularly interested in the question of whether Paul's Jesus was earthly or celestial. I can see arguments both ways and tend to think that Paul did think of Jesus' crucifixion being "earthly".

We can presume social memory of certain things but that is entirely conjecture. We cannot know.

But there are problems with assuming a social memory of a narrative of Jesus' earthly life among those addressed by Paul.

In fact, Paul does often "repeat" at length details of what he himself said his readers well-knew. He sometimes flatly contradicts what historical Jesus scholars say the historical Jesus did and that must have been part of the "Jesus tradition" Paul supposedly knew. And Paul also said he had no interest in "Christ according to the flesh" so why would he have taught any narrative about an earthly Jesus. Paul boasted that he knew only Christ Crucified -- the one event that created a whole new life and conceptual living space for converts.

[Irish1975]

[Paul] sometimes flatly contradicts what historical Jesus scholars say the historical Jesus did and that must have been part of the "Jesus tradition" Paul supposedly knew.

Curious what passages you are thinking of here.

[neilgodfrey]

[Paul] sometimes flatly contradicts what historical Jesus scholars say the historical Jesus did and that must have been part of the "Jesus tradition" Paul supposedly knew.

Curious what passages you are thinking of here.

Paul rejected Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker -- the very notion was contrary to his gospel (I Cor. 1)

Paul knew nothing of Jesus' prophecy of events leading to his return but taught a message that denied a place for Jesus's prophecies (1 Thess 5, Rom 13)

Paul taught that the Roman rulers were there to do good on behalf of the righteous apparently oblivious to their role in Jesus' crucifixion, as well as Herod's plots to kill Jesus and execution of John the Baptist (Rom. 13)

Paul knew nothing of Judas's betrayal of Jesus (and even appears to think Peter was not part of the twelve) (I Cor 15)

Those come to mind right now.

But the point is that Paul does not provide the evidence we would expect on the conventional model of Christian origins, and simply assuming that we can figure out what Paul was thinking to explain why he does not give us the expected evidence only demonstrates our biases and determination to believe in a model without evidence, to appeal to imaginary reasons why the evidence does not appear.