Re: Did Paul consider himself the only one to see Jesus?
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:27 am
@Bernard
Regarding C, I agree its an interpolation, but not necessarily "late". Its from before the Gospels. The purpose of the interpolation is to divest Paul of his special status. That's why it is noted that Paul is last in the list. That's why it says 500 brothers saw him. The point of the interpolation, the way I read it, is precisely to counter Paul's claim that he's the only one who has had a personal revelation of Jesus Christ. "Oh Paul says Jesus was reveled to him? Guess what Jesus has been revealed to all of us, he's not special!" If I were to guess, I'd wager that 1 Cor 15 was added after the First Jewish-Roman War, but before 100 CE.
I don't follow D.
E) Mark's "messianic secret" is that Jesus is Paul.
F) "Jesus' disciples and James couldn't have been those who lead the Church at its very beginning." Well, yeah, but I'd say the biggest evidence of this is what Paul says in Romans and some of his other letters, which is that in many places congregations worshiping Jesus already existed before Paul ever got there. But Paul's letters indicate that no one from Jerusalem proselytized to the Gentiles, so how were these other congregations established? How is it that, by the 50s CE, when Paul supposedly wrote Romans, there is already an organized congregation of Jesus worshipers in Rome for Paul to write to? There is no indication that anyone from Jerusalem had gone to Rome to start the congregation.
Are we to expect that somehow word got from Jerusalem to Rome that some wandering Jewish vagrant named Jesus was executed, and a bunch of people, apparently Gentiles by Paul's letter, decided to form a cult worshiping the guy? That makes no sense at all, not least of which some Jewish guy being executed in Jerusalem would have been commonplace.
G) Yeah, the epistle of James is actually a pretty big deal. It's one of the major pieces of evidence against historicity. The fact that its a forgery, and yet the person falsely taking the name of James said nothing about being a brother of Jesus clearly shows that the idea that James was a brother of Jesus didn't exist at this time. The point of taking James' name was to appropriate authority. Not to fully appropriate as much authority as you can in the process of forgery would be absurd. The only reason not to say that you are Jesus' brother is because that concept doesn't exist yet.
H) I wouldn't put too much stock in Hegesippus, but I agree that prior to Paul I think what existed was a cult that worshiped an unrevealed Jesus. I think this is most evidence in traditions about John. Who was John "the Baptist"? "The Baptist" label is an erroneous invention of Mark's, where he's just associating some real unknown real early Christian John with an unrelated well-known John. But the real John most likely was someone who was preaching the future coming of Jesus, or possibly not even Jesus, just a coming of the Messiah. And this John most likely had some congregants and worshipers and may have started a congregation in Ephesus. So, prior to Paul, these people were worshiping some heavenly Messiah who was purely a figure derived from scriptures. This was some suffering servant type heavenly figure and again his name may not have even been identified as Jesus, who knows. Paul then, had his "revelations" and claimed that the messiah of this group had been reveled to him personally. Paul now claimed to have seen the suffering servant himself! James was likely a worshiper of this Johannine Christ. It was a group worshiping a heavenly suffering servant derived from scripture.
I) I'm not sure exactly what Paul added. I think the main thing Paul added was claims of personal revelation.
Regarding C, I agree its an interpolation, but not necessarily "late". Its from before the Gospels. The purpose of the interpolation is to divest Paul of his special status. That's why it is noted that Paul is last in the list. That's why it says 500 brothers saw him. The point of the interpolation, the way I read it, is precisely to counter Paul's claim that he's the only one who has had a personal revelation of Jesus Christ. "Oh Paul says Jesus was reveled to him? Guess what Jesus has been revealed to all of us, he's not special!" If I were to guess, I'd wager that 1 Cor 15 was added after the First Jewish-Roman War, but before 100 CE.
I don't follow D.
E) Mark's "messianic secret" is that Jesus is Paul.
F) "Jesus' disciples and James couldn't have been those who lead the Church at its very beginning." Well, yeah, but I'd say the biggest evidence of this is what Paul says in Romans and some of his other letters, which is that in many places congregations worshiping Jesus already existed before Paul ever got there. But Paul's letters indicate that no one from Jerusalem proselytized to the Gentiles, so how were these other congregations established? How is it that, by the 50s CE, when Paul supposedly wrote Romans, there is already an organized congregation of Jesus worshipers in Rome for Paul to write to? There is no indication that anyone from Jerusalem had gone to Rome to start the congregation.
Are we to expect that somehow word got from Jerusalem to Rome that some wandering Jewish vagrant named Jesus was executed, and a bunch of people, apparently Gentiles by Paul's letter, decided to form a cult worshiping the guy? That makes no sense at all, not least of which some Jewish guy being executed in Jerusalem would have been commonplace.
G) Yeah, the epistle of James is actually a pretty big deal. It's one of the major pieces of evidence against historicity. The fact that its a forgery, and yet the person falsely taking the name of James said nothing about being a brother of Jesus clearly shows that the idea that James was a brother of Jesus didn't exist at this time. The point of taking James' name was to appropriate authority. Not to fully appropriate as much authority as you can in the process of forgery would be absurd. The only reason not to say that you are Jesus' brother is because that concept doesn't exist yet.
H) I wouldn't put too much stock in Hegesippus, but I agree that prior to Paul I think what existed was a cult that worshiped an unrevealed Jesus. I think this is most evidence in traditions about John. Who was John "the Baptist"? "The Baptist" label is an erroneous invention of Mark's, where he's just associating some real unknown real early Christian John with an unrelated well-known John. But the real John most likely was someone who was preaching the future coming of Jesus, or possibly not even Jesus, just a coming of the Messiah. And this John most likely had some congregants and worshipers and may have started a congregation in Ephesus. So, prior to Paul, these people were worshiping some heavenly Messiah who was purely a figure derived from scriptures. This was some suffering servant type heavenly figure and again his name may not have even been identified as Jesus, who knows. Paul then, had his "revelations" and claimed that the messiah of this group had been reveled to him personally. Paul now claimed to have seen the suffering servant himself! James was likely a worshiper of this Johannine Christ. It was a group worshiping a heavenly suffering servant derived from scripture.
I) I'm not sure exactly what Paul added. I think the main thing Paul added was claims of personal revelation.