Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:46 pm
But GD you're sidestepping my interest in the OP. There is something strange going on. Is it outright 'mythicism'? Probably not. But you're only looking at things through a limited perspective. Paul seems to be the one introducing the idea of 'Jesus' to his contemporaries. It's unusual.
Actually my comments were about looking at things more broadly: that is, the implications about things NOT talked about.
More narrowly then about the OP: I don't think something strange is going on. In the OP, rgprice writes:
Paul comes into Jerusalem. He's preaching about Jesus. He gets apprehended, but not because he's preaching about Jesus per se, but about resurrection. He's taken to the Sanhedrin, where he talks about resurrection. The Sadducees attack him on the point of promoting belief in resurrection, and the Pharisees come to his defense. At no point is Jesus even brought up!
But he seems to be operating under the view that early Christians should have been trying to promote the later
Gospel Jesus. It's clear throughout Acts what the point of contention is, and it is about the idea that
the prophets wrote that the coming Christ had to suffer:
Acts 1
[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs
Acts 3:
[17] And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
[18] But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
Acts.17
[1] Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
[2] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
[3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
[4] And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
[5] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy
Acts 26
[22] Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
[23] That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
[24] And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
[25] But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
[26] For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
[27] King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
[28] Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
The point of the trial was to show that the prophets wrote that Christ should suffer and be raised from the dead. It wasn't to show that Jesus was a nice guy with good sayings, or that he could perform miracles, or anything like that. Perhaps you might argue that that is what they should have talked about during the trial, but it's clear what the author of Acts thought was important: Paul was claiming that the scriptures said that the Christ must suffer (Paul "reasoned with them out of scriptures" for "three sabbath days" that "Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead") and resurrect.
So it's not that Paul is introducing them to the idea of Jesus, it's that Paul is reasoning from scriptures the idea that the prophets said the coming Christ had to suffer and die.