GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:05 am
But if you [non-specific you] discount the Gospel accounts,
how do you set your expectations for how much Paul would say? That's the lack of logic I find in Dr Carrier's, Doherty's and others' theories that start with discounting the Gospel accounts. "The details about Jesus in the Gospel accounts were made up. Also, I expect Paul to have mentioned details about Jesus from the Gospel accounts." The logic doesn't work.
I don't think one can or should discount the Gospel accounts. One's perceptions of the content of the Pauline corpus, especially the material pertinent to Jesus Christ,
is influenced by one's knowledge and perceptions of the Gospel accounts. And by the traditional accounts of their chronology: ie. the Pauline epistles written in the 40s and 50s; and the Gospels written mid-60s onwards.
If one didn't know the content of the Gospels, one wouldn't have any expectations of Jesus being from Nazareth or even from Galilee, birth narratives about him, the Sermon on the Mount, and may other aspects of or about Jesus. With Paul alone, the Pauline accounts of Jesus would perhaps be a bit like the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John's account of John.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:05 am
What are your expectations about how much Paul would be asked about the celestial Jesus, given that Paul apparently claims to be a primary source for the celestial Jesus? Would people have asked Paul how he communicated with Jesus, where Jesus appeared, what he looked like and what he said?
One can only speculate about your 2nd question, but points Carrier make in the excerpts I quote in the OP are, I think, noteworthy, eg. -
'The same burning desires exhibited by Tacitus [for information about Pliny the Younger's uncle-adoptive father], and eagerly satisfied by Pliny, would have been multiplied a hundredfold in the two decades of Paul’s mission..."
While this point is pertinent -
"This oddity is all the greater given that there were countless moral and doctrinal disputes arising in these congregations (the very reason Paul wrote such long and detailed letters), which must necessarily have rested on many questions ..."
- Carrier immediately goes on to refer to "the actual facts of Jesus’ words, life and death would have addressed, answered or pertained to." And, "Such facts would thus necessarily become points of query, debate and contention." Which may not be pertinent b/c I don't think Paul refer to them much, if he does at all.
But Carrier's point about responses from and to the communities over two decades would seem to be highly significant.