Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

[Secret Alias]

Sure. Paul meant that so you could reconcile being a Jew and a Christian after converting to Christianity. Because, after all, you are the center of the universe and all things just orbit your splendor.

[John2]

Sure. Paul meant that so you could reconcile being a Jew and a Christian after converting to Christianity. Because, after all, you are the center of the universe and all things just orbit your splendor.

I don't understand what you mean. I have not converted to Christianity or have any interest in doing so. Your ongoing speculations about me remind of those that have been made about Nehemia Gordan's study of Christianity, which he discusses here:

Many of my Jewish brothers and sisters have expressed great concern over the book [The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus]. Some have even speculated that I have secretly converted to Christianity and am leading others into the Christian faith. Some of my Christian friends have joined in this speculation thinking that perhaps there is a “surprise ending” to the book in which I proclaim my faith in Jesus. On the flip side, some Messianics are spreading the false rumor that I allegedly hold secret meetings during my speaking tours in which I try to convince “believers” to abandon their faith. I hate to disappoint the rumormongers but none of these are true. I have not converted to Christianity, nor do I attempt to convince anyone to change their faith. I suppose the reason for these false speculations is that some people have a hard time understanding why a Jew who does not believe in Jesus, would write a book on his teachings unless he has a secret agenda. I thought I explained this rather well in my books, but I guess not everyone reads my books. Or perhaps I am not as eloquent as I like to think. So I am writing this to try and set the record straight.

Let me start with my views on Jesus of Nazareth, or as he was known 2000 years ago, “Yeshua”. Over the past few years I have gained a great respect for his teachings, but I have not embraced the Christian faith, nor have I become a “Messianic Jew.” I clearly state this in all of my presentations in order to avoid any possible confusion ...

So why do I have what one of my sisters (a devout Orthodox Jew) refers to as an “unhealthy interest in Jesus”? It started many years ago, when I came out of Rabbinical Judaism and began researching all of the world’s religions. I was particularly interested in ancient Judaism in all of its forms, and this naturally included the teaching ministry of Yeshua of Nazareth. My interest in this subject is not as unusual as my sister might think. Over the past century, Jewish scholars have increasingly carried out research to uncover the Hebrew background and context of the New Testament. One of the greatest of these scholars was Professor David Flusser, himself an Orthodox Jew, who taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I was trained in the study of ancient Jewish texts at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I earned my Masters Degree in Biblical Studies, and I view my own research on the teachings of Yeshua as part of this scholarly tradition.

To give this research some context, a number of years ago I was privileged to have worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written by an ancient Jewish movement called the Essenes. While I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls contain great value, at no time did I ever become an Essene. Furthermore, as a textual scholar researching the scrolls it was not my role to convince anyone whether or not to believe in Essene Judaism. My role as a scholar was to attempt to understand what these ancient documents meant in their original linguistic, historical, and cultural context. This is how I see my role in exploring the Hebrew background of the New Testament. It is not my role as a textual scholar to lead anyone into the Christian faith. Nor is it my role to lead anyone out of the Christian faith. These are issues of personal faith and belief that are beyond the scope of my research. My role as a textual scholar is to understand what Yeshua taught in the linguistic, historical, and cultural context in which he preached. For those who believe in Yeshua, I would think this should be of great importance. But it should also be important for non-Christians, as Yeshua was indisputably a pivotal figure in world history who profoundly influenced the development of Western civilization.


https://www.nehemiaswall.com/ass-speaks-out

[davidmartin]

Well, maybe not. This is just speculation by someone who has no understanding of the original languages and hasn't studied the texts in anything other than English (namely, me!) so take it for what it's worth; but Paul called Jesus "the seed of David". Paul might have thought that this gave Jesus the authority to come to earth and wield real earthly power as the rightful earthly King of the Jews. Instead, Jesus came as an ordinary person "like a servant". This might include someone like we see in the Gospel of Mark; walking around with large crowds following, performing miracles. But he's someone without any of the real earthly power that Paul thought Jesus could have had if he'd wanted

maybe you're right! Hey, interesting re: "seed of David". That's what the Didache calls him. Maybe a connection there. Although when it comes to Didache it always has a 'slapped arse' feel about it. The communities taking a beating and trying to piece things together
But those descriptions of "like a servant" actually do play down any earthly man, Hebrews wins the award "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission".
I just imagine a guy who did a load of stuff in his life his later followers hearing this and thinking, 'no he didn't what baloney'. This Hebrews makes him sound weak and ineffectual with no balls and did nothing worth even mentioning. The Jesus of the gospels has balls. So i sure believe this playing down the earthly person was a thing, an explanation as an alternative to the lack of historical info being the result of myth making (although if i'm right the accounts that do the playing down are the myth!)

[MrMacSon]

... but Paul called Jesus "the seed of David". Paul might have thought that this gave Jesus the authority to come to earth and wield real earthly power as the rightful earthly King of the Jews.

Sure, but not just Paul would have thought this: the 'seed of David' would have been flagged and highly revered before or contemporaneous to Paul, through Psalm 132:11 -

The LORD has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it: "I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.

and Jeremiah 23:5-6 -

"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

The 'seed of Abraham', was also revered in the Pauline epistles too -following Genesis 13:15-16; 15:13,18- in Galatians 3:16, 29; Romans 9:6-8, etc.

Even Hebrews 2:16 refers to 'the seed of Abraham'.

Instead, Jesus came as an ordinary person "like a servant". This might include someone like we see in the Gospel of Mark; walking around with large crowds following, performing miracles. But he's someone without any of the real earthly power that Paul thought Jesus could have had if he'd wanted.

Meh. In the context of (i) Jesus being portrayed or argued as being celestial, even in part; and (ii) the fact he had to be someone's seed; that's having your cake and eating it, too. It's also a hypostatis/ reification fallacy. And Mark is a different text to Paul. You're using an after-the-fact text to try to argue an a priori, which is also fallacious.

[GakuseiDon]

Instead, Jesus came as an ordinary person "like a servant". This might include someone like we see in the Gospel of Mark; walking around with large crowds following, performing miracles. But he's someone without any of the real earthly power that Paul thought Jesus could have had if he'd wanted.

Meh. In the context of (i) Jesus being portrayed or argued as being celestial, even in part; and (ii) the fact he had to be someone's seed; that's having your cake and eating it, too. It's also a hypostatis/ reification fallacy.

I don't see it. Can you explain please? Which part falls to the reification fallacy?

And Mark is a different text to Paul. You're using an after-the-fact text to try to argue an a priori, which is also fallacious.

I'm speculating from the context of Paul's statements that:
(1) "Jesus was the seed of David according to the flesh" suggests that Paul thought Jesus had the option to come to earth with real earthly authority as an actual king, AND
(2) Jesus in fact came like "a servant", suggesting that Jesus came without real earthly 'kingly' authority.

I'm speculating that Paul is suggesting that Jesus chose to have no earthly authority while on earth when he could have chosen otherwise.

I'm then pointing out that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as having no earthly authority, so that Paul might well have understood Jesus to be like the person portrayed in the Gospel of Mark and still have thought that Jesus came like a "servant".

**Please note that this is in reaction to davidmartin's comment** that the Gospels don't show a Jesus who had "emptied himself/had no reputation" as per Paul. I'm not arguing that Paul knew the Gospel of Mark. I think my position is consistent, but it's not provable. Just some speculation amongst friends!

If you think there are passages that show my speculation is wrong, let me know and I'll be grateful. I'm not mounting an argument for it though. I'm not arguing for a historical Jesus. I'm not arguing against a mythical Jesus.

[davidmartin]

I'm speculating that Paul is suggesting that Jesus chose to have no earthly authority while on earth when he could have chosen otherwise

I see what you're saying. The portrayal of Jesus as not having that Davidic kingly role jibes with the servant metaphor emphasised by Paul
Yes that's a bit hard to deny that it does, i'm not gonna argue with that!
But the 'servant Jesus' essentially has no life, no teachings or any acts worthy of note apart from to be a sacrifice, which contrasting with the gospels which are the extreme opposite case in point John "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" - so how come Paul doesn't mention one of them?

This difference is profound
This is surely what mythicists leverage to argue the gospel Jesus is mythological
On the other hand, it's just as likely the Paul type of Christians simply downplayed the earthly Jesus and his life (and his original followers) imagining it would soon be forgotten in the light of the new gospel message. But it didn't go down like that. The heretical gospels emerged which eventually ended up being accepted. No earthly authority huh? Watch and learn boyos i'm going to whoop some ass in my earthly life and say some stuff, hang onto your hats

[GakuseiDon]

I'm speculating that Paul is suggesting that Jesus chose to have no earthly authority while on earth when he could have chosen otherwise

I see what you're saying. The portrayal of Jesus as not having that Davidic kingly role jibes with the servant metaphor emphasised by Paul
Yes that's a bit hard to deny that it does, i'm not gonna argue with that!
But the 'servant Jesus' essentially has no life, no teachings or any acts worthy of note apart from to be a sacrifice, which contrasting with the gospels which are the extreme opposite case in point John "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" - so how come Paul doesn't mention one of them?

This difference is profound

Oh dear! You risk opening the flood gates! I'll give what I wrote about this in my review of Earl Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" below.

In short: is the difference so profound? Let's say that the early Christians thought that Jesus was a celestial being whom inspired visions and communicated with the Christians. Where are those communications in the letters of Paul? Wouldn't Paul have listed where they happened, what Jesus looked like, what Jesus said at that time?

That's the thing: assume that celestial mythicism wins the day. That doesn't make all the problems in the NT go away. There will still be a whole heap of questions and mysteries in the text. Anyway, I'll let you read the snippet from my review below and see what you think.

On the other hand, it's just as likely the Paul type of Christians simply downplayed the earthly Jesus and his life (and his original followers) imagining it would soon be forgotten in the light of the new gospel message. But it didn't go down like that.

Paul and the earliest Christians arguably thought that the world was coming to an end in his time. The Gospels took off at a time when it was realised that Jesus' return was delayed. Those are two quite different imperatives.

What is clear to me is that, treating the NT epistles as a group, those NT epistles identified by Dr Carrier and Doherty as by 'historicist' writers are, in content, not very different to the others. There are the same vagueness over historical details, not just about Jesus but about anything. The 'historicity' part is usually just one simple vague line about what seems to be a historical person. As rgprice correctly identifies, Acts of the Apostles falls largely into the same pattern of historicist writers. He finds it unexpected, but it really isn't. Unexplainable perhaps, but not unexpected when the full range of texts are evaluated together.

------

The quote below is from my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man". I took down all my reviews on mythicism from my website a few years ago, since I had planned on leaving all discussion behind on the topic. While my plan has obviously failed(!), I don't want to rehash the arguments in my reviews.

You can read Doherty's response to my review here: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/ ... nJNGNM.htm

The silence in Paul is baffling. We would expect that Paul would have included details about an historical Jesus if he had known them. We would expect that his readers would have been eager to hear details about Jesus, what he did and what he taught. But, like the Second Century writers, Paul is frustratingly vague about details. And again, let me emphasize: he is not just vague on details about a historical Jesus, but on historical details about anything.

Doherty does note that Paul appears to refer to a couple of teachings by Jesus, though these were probably from the Risen Christ. He writes:

"The context of Paul's silence on this issue in 1 Corinthians contains the only apparent reference to teachings by Jesus to be found in the entire body of New Testament epistles: 7:10 on the command "from the Lord" prohibiting divorce; and 9:14 in which he declares that the Lord has commanded that preachers of the Gospel should earn their living by such activity. As we saw earlier, a common scholarly view sees these as directives which Paul believes he has received from Christ in heaven, through personal revelation. (Page 65)"

Let's assume for a moment that Doherty is correct, and that early Christians believed in a spiritual Jesus who never came to earth. But if that spiritual Jesus was able to pass on teachings, did he only ever give two commands, with one of them being a prohibition on divorce?

Regardless of whether Jesus was historical or mythical, Paul's Jesus appeared to be able to pass on commands. If the Risen Jesus gave further teachings, why didn't Paul include them? Or if they came by revelation, why not more details about where and when he received them? I suspect that here, like he did for why Tertullian was silent in Ad nationes, Doherty would -- through necessity -- fall back on reasons used by historicists: Paul didn't know any other commands; or is alluding to them without explicitly referring to Jesus; or no other commands were applicable to the topics at hand.

Another example: It's clear that Paul belonged to a group where miracles and prophecies were common-place. Some were prophets, others healers, still others were 'speakers of tongues':

"1Cr 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [diverse] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"

"1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Paul himself even claimed to have performed signs and wonders:

"2 Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

Paul describes none of these signs, wonders or mighty deeds, nor healings, nor prophets and their prophecies. Were not any through the Risen Jesus? Were they not signs that Paul could use to point to the coming End Times?

I think there is a mystery here whichever way you look at it. The Risen Christ was thought to have interacted with people and given teachings, but even when the visions of the Risen Christ are referred to in 1 Cor 15 by Paul (or for those who believe those passages are interpolations: the interpolator), there are no descriptions, no location or time. Replacing a historical Jesus with a heavenly one does not change the strangeness of the silence if Doherty is proposing that the heavenly Jesus interacted with people in visions and prophetic messages. Did Jesus not appear? Did he say nothing beyond two commands? And what of the miracles of healings and prophecies that occurred later? Would not Paul hold them up as examples of the Spirit in action, the power of the Risen Christ himself?

Interestingly, Doherty has moved Paul from being a secondary source about Jesus to being a primary source. As such, we would expect that the Christians would be eager to hear how Paul himself interacted with this heavenly Jesus. As Doherty puts it, though in a different context: “We would expect to find questions about these things put to apostles like Paul, and efforts by Paul to answer them as best he could. (Page 110)”

[davidmartin]

Let's say that the early Christians thought that Jesus was a celestial being whom inspired visions and communicated with the Christians. Where are those communications in the letters of Paul? Wouldn't Paul have listed where they happened, what Jesus looked like, what Jesus said at that time?

ah, well let's see. A purely celestial Jesus does make a lot of sense.
That Paul doesn't mention much about visions i think is explainable by his having "the mind of Christ"
A good example of that is in the Odes, here the author drifts between their own words then switches directly into first person Christ speech then back again. This is free jazz spirituality. It looks like the type of communication here is non-visionary in a literal sense of Jesus appearing next to you. Paul also seems a bit anti-visionary himself, complaining about those who see things in visions (which the Odes also mention including one of paradise!). So those kinds of direct visions would be the exception not the rule?

The ironic thing for Christians today is Jesus is essentially a purely celestial being, that would have been true for Paul as well even if Jesus once walked the earth, he wasn't any more. This focus on the celestial is for sure there in Paul.... it makes arguing for a historical figure difficult that he does this, i think intentionally though

Paul and the earliest Christians arguably thought that the world was coming to an end in his time. The Gospels took off at a time when it was realised that Jesus' return was delayed. Those are two quite different imperatives

hmmm... that's true for Paul. I suspect that was one of his own special ideas. 'End times belief' comes in a lot of flavours, heck even the Gnostics talked about ages changing. It might be safer to say the earliest Christians engaged in various kinds of eschatological speculations with Paul and who knows who else representing the more literal interpretation. Since Paul complains that some were teaching the resurrection has already taken place it doesn't seem like all Christians thought the same thing in this area, and what became the official position obscures the other views
What you say though still holds true, because among the literal crowd they had the problem that an end hadn't come when they thought

Yes there is vagueness in the historical details, however that alone i feel is explainable by introducing some remoteness between the events and the times the gospels (as we have them) got written. There's no indication at all of a continuing tradition of historical Jesus details in the NT accounts. These seem to appear out of nowhere in the Gospels contradicting or complicating what is said (and not said!) elsewhere
I believe this is because the Gospels were originally not produced by the early church or it's forebears at all and these churches had none of their own records or traditions. These accounts all came from their opponents/rivals originally and got reworked at some point
You can see the embarassment in Luke 'many have taken to write gospels before but here is the real one' !
So that would explain a lot of things, without adding any clarity to the historical details themselves (Jesus could still have been/taught just about anything one can imagine or been called something else or been multiple people one of whom was crucified!). Once the gospel sources come from a different origin to the base of early orthodoxy there's just as much speculation possible as with the purely cosmic Jesus

I will say though the lack of historical details in the Shepard of Hermas disturbs me. I had a hunch this may have been influenced by the self-same groups that once 'took a different view' to Paul but it has hardly anything historical there. I can only put that down to Hermas dating to a time when the gospels were still not accepted enough to be quoted and used

2 Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

Paul describes none of these signs, wonders or mighty deeds, nor healings, nor prophets and their prophecies. Were not any through the Risen Jesus? Were they not signs that Paul could use to point to the coming End Times?

Maybe Paul didn't do these personally himself? I don't see him explicitly saying it was him but he might like the reader to think he did or was the cause of them. I guess Paul is not evangelising as such rather preaching to the already converted, he's more defending himself from the charge he isn't a proper apostle here

"1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

He ranks the miracles and wonders beneath even 'teachers' here. Maybe the problem is that his rivals also had a reputation for such things which might take the wind out of any specific claims and he seems to admit that. I don't know. It is a bit crazy. Corinth was a wild place by all accounts and Paul has an extreme personality.

But the only thing that makes sense to me for a historical Jesus is some disconnect or break in the transmission prior to or starting with Paul
This is exactly the argument of those who say Paul completely changed everything from a prior Torah observant Jewish movement i guess, but that's got it's own problems as well, there is something to be said for it though surprised it doesn't have more backers to be honest.

[Aleph One]

I've seen many anachronisms and cultural misunderstandings pointed out in the gospels' trials of jesus (such as the timing of the trial, the type of charges brought against him, the way the trial is carried out, etc.) but do we know if Paul's trial in acts rings truer historically?

[ebion]

I've seen many anachronisms and cultural misunderstandings pointed out in the gospels' trials of jesus (such as the timing of the trial, the type of charges brought against him, the way the trial is carried out, etc.) but do we know if Paul's trial in acts rings truer historically?

John Mauck wrote a book recently called Paul On Trial The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity
that brings out a lot a details in Acts that make it much more credible as a legal brief to a Roman Pagan prosecutor.