And many investigators, I believe, just make matters worse. The extended, complex, and tortuous interpretations of a certain, unnamed 'man come to mind here. Jeez, what a mess.
I believe if we cut through the dross and look to what most critical investigators see as the earliest extant writings of believers in the Christ, we may find a few of those kernels of truth --- in the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark. Sure, they’ve been stepped on to some extent, but that doesn’t impeach their usefulness.
Starting with Mark -- with a little help from the earlier Paul for such concepts as the resurrection on the third day, the ritual meal, and more --- one finds a tale constructed from the Jewish scriptures. The reliance of Mark on the scriptures for the core of his story, in a modified cut-and-paste fashion, has been so widely discussed and characterized by so many investigators that no further need be said here.
If Mark’s primary source consisted of the Jewish scriptures, could the earlier Paul and his predecessors have had anything more?
Paul tells his readers very clearly in a passage that many unfortunately dismiss as too simplistic and too easy ---
This passage states very clearly that the death and the resurrection of the Christ were, "according to the scriptures" (Greek kata, according to). Meaning, I believe, as first discovered in the Jewish scriptures. The passage does not say these events were in fulfillment of the scriptures. A different Greek word entirely (pleroo) is found in the New Testament to designate fulfillment of the scriptures.“That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried
And that he is raised on the third day, according to the scriptures …” (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)
The Greek pleroo is found many times in the New Testament. Here are just a few examples, among many more, where this Greek word is used to designate fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures; Matthew 26:54, Mark 14:49, Luke 4:21, John 13:18, Acts 1:16, and James 2:23.
Another Pauline passage also supports the origin of the belief in the Christ by means of allegorical midrash, by means of fresh readings and interpretations of the Jewish scriptures --- the misplaced, last doxology of Romans --- Romans 16:25-27 ---
This Pauline passage states very clearly that the Christ was discovered and made known through the Jewish scriptures."But having the power to strengthen you according to my gospel And the proclamation of Jesus Christ according to revelation of the mystery kept secret in times eternal But now having been made known through the prophetic scriptures according to command of the eternal God Leading to obedience of faith unto all the nations having been made known the only wise God through Jesus Christ To whom be the glory into the ages. Amen."
Of course this represents a doctrinal dilemma for the Christian church. Most bibles resolve the dilemma by choosing a different arrangement of the phrases in their translation from the Greek. Most bibles say that the mystery of Jesus was revealed, period. And then, through the prophetic scriptures is made known unto all the nations. I believe the Greek does not support that translation.
I believe the translation I present above is the correct presentation of the extant Greek --- and a kernel of truth that is purposely obscured by apologetic translators.
I certainly recognize many mythicists reject an historical Paul, and I’ve studied (and rejected) those arguments. I think all too many throw out the baby (an historical Paul) with the bathwater (an historical Jesus) --- thereby missing the best evidence for Christian origins.
robert j.