Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:16 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:27 am
It is indeed possible.
But it is not what Isaiah thought that matters, but how Paul interpreted Isaiah.

Agreed, of course, but therein lies a problem. As another member puts it, snidely but accurately, we can't read Paul's mind.

Indeed, we can't read his mind. But he gives us a very good clue to try to do so: his source for Jesus is the OT.
So let's be pragmatic and be satisfied with this information.

First of all, if i believe him, and I have no reason not to, then the life of Jesus is in the scriptures so we don't necessarily need to search for a man who died recently and to invoke an inaccessible hypothetical oral tradition from Jesus’ relatives or disciples.

Secondly, if his main source was the OT, then we must determine which scriptures he uses. And he gives us many clues as well by constantly referring to the prophet Isaiah whom he even names several times.

Thirdly, with point 1 and 2 in mind, we should understand Paul's theology by studying his letters in the light of Isaiah, Paul’s main source.

Of course we will not be able to understand everything this way, but I think we could learn much more this way than by searching a man that really existed few years ago or by invoking an oral tradition that is not invoked by Paul and is therefore not necessary.
Or by reading Paul's Jesus in the light of Mark, which, as we know, do not makes history but merely place Paul's Jesus in a historical context for his agenda.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:24 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:02 pm I like the tomb story, learned something new

It comes from: Hanhart, Karel. The Open Tomb: A New Approach, Mark’s Passover Haggadah ([ca.] 72 C.e.). Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1995.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:37 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:16 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:27 am
It is indeed possible.
But it is not what Isaiah thought that matters, but how Paul interpreted Isaiah.

Agreed, of course, but therein lies a problem. As another member puts it, snidely but accurately, we can't read Paul's mind.

Indeed, we can't read his mind. But he gives us a very good clue to try to do so: his source for Jesus is the OT.
So let's be pragmatic and be satisfied with this information.

First of all, if i believe him, and I have no reason not to, then the life of Jesus is in the scriptures so we don't necessarily need to search for a man who died recently and to invoke an inaccessible hypothetical oral tradition from Jesus’ relatives or disciples.

Secondly, if his main source was the OT, then we must determine which scriptures he uses. And he gives us many clues as well by constantly referring to the prophet Isaiah whom he even names several times.

Thirdly, with point 1 and 2 in mind, we should understand Paul's theology by studying his letters in the light of Isaiah, Paul’s main source.

Of course we will not be able to understand everything this way, but I think we could learn much more this way than by searching a man that really existed few years ago or by invoking an oral tradition that is not invoked by Paul and is therefore not necessary.

Or by reading Paul's Jesus in the light of Mark, which, as we know, do not makes history but merely place Paul's Jesus in a historical context for his agenda.

I think we are in some degree of agreement, e.g. I have little confidence in a reliable "oral tradition." A reasonable interpretation IMO of Paul's many complaints is that people in his time talked about Jesus, but disagreed with one another. So far as I can tell, a factually reliable oral tradition is a modern invention, improvised in hopes of bridging the generation or two that separate the composition of the canonical gospels from the time in which their story is set.

However, it is not so that "his source for Jesus is the OT," not in the sense that Paul's only claimed source is the Jewish scripture. Paul believes he has contacted a supernatural manifestation of Jesus, who must necessarily have communicated some information to Paul, if only to establish his identity. It also seems Paul may have had other supernatural sources (field trips to the Third Heaven, maybe a natal commission directly from God, whatever might have emerged when he spoke in tongues, ...).

Further, however much Paul tried to limit his contacts with Jerusalem, he says he had some. It is difficult to believe that Jesus didn't ever come up during these meetings. Plus, of course, Paul says that he had adversarial contact with the Jesus movement before he converted. Again, it is difficult to assert confidently that acquiring information (accurate or not) about Jesus played no role in Paul's hatred against his fellows. And let's not forget adversarial contacts after Paul converted.

I would also be careful about "searching [for] a man that really existed few years ago." In English and French, to search (for) and chercher have different connotations than simply asking whether or not there was a man who really existed. The question is well posed; I am entitled to seek an answer. We'll see whether I'd have been better off not asking or asking something else instead.

Finally, while it seems to me that Mark knew Paul's letters, I don't see that Mark furthers anybody's agenda to the exclusion of anybody else's. Mark revels in the diversity of reactions to Jesus. That there is a modern constituency for Paul is all well and good, but I see nothing on the page that positions Mark as privileging Paul's views on Jesus over Herod Antipas's.

On the contrary, Mark's dramatization of the psychological sources of Antipas's expressed view is comparable with John's portrayal of Mary's clinical shock in the tomb garden. Some think that Mark and John were Protestants-before-their-time so these passages are merely theological woolery, not to be taken seriously as deliberately crafted studies of realistic human characters whose nightmares have come true. I respectfully dissent.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:46 am
A reasonable interpretation IMO of Paul's many complaints is that people in his time talked about Jesus, but disagreed with one another.

I'm going to be a little off topic, but I was surprised to find that the verse that mentions these disagreements (Galatians 3) is actually mistranslated and actually mentions that the Galatians learned of Jesus' death through the scriptures.
This favors once again the scriptures over the oral tradition and thus the mythicist over the historicist thesis.

So far as I can tell, a factually reliable oral tradition is a modern invention, improvised in hopes of bridging the generation or two that separate the composition of the canonical gospels from the time in which their story is set.

I agree.

However, it is not so that "his source for Jesus is the OT," not in the sense that Paul's only claimed source is the Jewish scripture. Paul believes he has contacted a supernatural manifestation of Jesus, who must necessarily have communicated some information to Paul, if only to establish his identity.

I may be too incredulous, but I give as much credits to these collective visions (the apostles's and the 500 visions) as I do to the visions of Rael or the visions of the Mormons.
I know that these visions of Paul are considered like evidences by Christian theologians, but I don't see why I should give credence to facts that are miraculously revealed from a man who died and rose to heaven.

Since there are good reasons to doubt these visions, I prefer not to use them to study the historicity of the character. But you will notice that they sometimes corroborate with what Paul tells us he found in the scriptures. For example 1 Cor 15:3 may refer to a revelation but in accordance with the scriptures. Are these dubious revelations really important after all ?
It does not give us much extra informations outside the scriptures except perhaps what theologians call "the last supper" since they read Paul in the light of the gospels. And even with regard to the last supper, some scholars assume that again, this event is an echo of Isaiah 53.

Further, however much Paul tried to limit his contacts with Jerusalem, he says he had some. It is difficult to believe that Jesus didn't ever come up during these meetings. Plus, of course, Paul says that he had adversarial contact with the Jesus movement before he converted. Again, it is difficult to assert confidently that acquiring information (accurate or not) about Jesus played no role in Paul's hatred against his fellows. And let's not forget adversarial contacts after Paul converted

I agree that Paul must have discussed about Jesus with the apostles. Maybe even long before his supposed revelation.
If παρέλαβον in 1 Cor 15:3 refers to the apostles and not a revelation of Jesus, it may supports this idea even if the scriptures are still related : "according to the Scriptures"

But the fact that Paul persecuted or had theological disagreements with these christians do not favor the historicist view, nor does it favor a supposed oral tradition that goes back to a historical figure.

Paul could well have rejected this bizarre sect which claimed to have found the key to the book of Isaiah, namely that the Messiah had already come and that he had sacrificed himself for mankind while waiting to come back for the last judgment which all the Jews were waiting for. By opportunism or because he would have been finally convinced, he could very well have converted despite the fact that he had rejected the sect at the beginning. As for doctrinal disagreements, they can be linked to a different interpretation of the book of Isaiah.

So if Paul relies in some sort on an oral tradition, even though he says the opposite in Galatians, there is nothing in his letters that allows us to establish that it concerns a person that some Christians knew personally.

I would also be careful about "searching [for] a man that really existed few years ago." In English and French, to search (for) and chercher have different connotations than simply asking whether or not there was a man who really existed. The question is well posed; I am entitled to seek an answer. We'll see whether I'd have been better off not asking or asking something else instead.

Yes, I misspoke.
It was about questioning the existence of Jesus, not about searching his sepulcre or some traces of him in Galilee

Finally, while it seems to me that Mark knew Paul's letters, I don't see that Mark furthers anybody's agenda to the exclusion of anybody else's. Mark revels in the diversity of reactions to Jesus.

I am not sure I understood your last point about Mark. But the fact that Mark was a Pauline gospel and that one of his purposes was to promote Paul's message is easily demonstrated since he places Paul's teachings in the mouth of Jesus, thus having the effect of having Jesus validate Paul's doctrines. It is therefore a pro-Pauline gospel.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:59 am I'm going to be a little off topic, but I was surprised to find that the verse that mentions these disagreements (Galatians 3) is actually mistranslated and actually mentions that the Galatians learned of Jesus' death through the scriptures.

I am not following who mistranslated which verse in Galatians chapter 3.

I may be too incredulous, but I give as much credits to these collective visions (the apostles's and the 500 visions) as I do to the visions of Rael or the visions of the Mormons.

But the issue was whether those visions were among Paul's sources, not whether you or I believe them.

Since there are good reasons to doubt these visions, I prefer not to use them to study the historicity of the character. But you will notice that they sometimes corroborate with what Paul tells us he found in the scriptures.

If Paul thought he had information from independent sources which agreed with each other, then that would explain why he passed the information along with apparent confidence.

It does not give us much extra informations outside the scriptures except perhaps what theologians call "the last supper" since they read Paul in the light of the gospels. And even with regard to the last supper, some scholars assume that again, this event is an echo of Isaiah 53.

In order for two sources to agree about a datum, neither can be the sole source for that datum. Paul may have "found" in the scriptures what the visions, signs, and wonders primed him to look for in the scriptures. We really don't know that much about the visions or Paul's mystical practices to reconstruct his process, IMO.

But the fact that Paul persecuted or had theological disagreements with these christians do not favor the historicist view, nor does it favor a supposed oral tradition that goes back to a historical figure.

No, but the issue is whether the scriptures are Paul's sole source of "information" about whatever Jesus was believed to be by those in the faith before him. And of course those pioneers may have been mining the scriptures, too. But we were trying to figure out what Paul did, or says he did.

So if Paul relies in some sort on an oral tradition, even though he says the opposite in Galatians, there is nothing in his letters that allows us to establish that it concerns a person that some Christians knew personally.

Agreed.

I am not sure I understood your last point about Mark. But the fact that Mark was a Pauline gospel and that one of his purposes was to promote Paul's message is easily demonstrated since he places Paul's teachings in the mouth of Jesus, thus having the effect of having Jesus validate Paul's doctrines. It is therefore a pro-Pauline gospel.

Mark very likely read Paul and that reading is some part of the explanation why Mark thought it worthwhile to write about Jesus and other contemporaries of Paul (some real, others possibly entirely fictive). It would appear that Mark also used elements found in Paul's letters for "prompts" to develop incidents in the gospel. I do not see any basis for extraordinary confidence, however, that Mark was moved to exalt Paul's positions over competing viewpoints within a Jesus movement. IMO as always.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:17 pm I am not following who mistranslated which verse in Galatians chapter 3.

Galates 3:1 : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/j ... .2016.2968

But the issue was whether those visions were among Paul's sources, not whether you or I believe them.

Yes but even if these dubious visions were authentic, they confirm or allude to what he found in the scriptures. So i guess that in either case, we can do without it.

If Paul thought he had information from independent sources which agreed with each other, then that would explain why he passed the information along with apparent confidence

Yes, that's what he says in Galatians. But it still doesn't allow us to trace it back to a historical person. I can be wrong, but the first Mormons all had the same doctrine concerning Moroni isn't it ?

In order for two sources to agree about a datum, neither can be the sole source for that datum. Paul may have "found" in the scriptures what the visions, signs, and wonders primed him to look for in the scriptures. We really don't know that much about the visions or Paul's mystical practices to reconstruct his process, IMO.

Yes. What we see in any case is that his visions coincide all the time with what he finds in the scriptures or allude to the scriptures. Even when he claims to be relaying a speech by Jesus (the last supper), the speech alludes to Isaiah 53.
Is this really a coincidence ?

I still hope that we will both agree, given the circumstances (a dead and resurrected man in heaven who speaks directly to a few chosen ones who use a prophetic book as if it were a historical book about their hero and a guidebook for their apostolic mission) that these are dubious visions.

But it is interesting to note that Paul's letters are so unreliable for defending Jesus's historicity that we must consider Paul's magical visions as sources of information about this same character.

No, but the issue is whether the scriptures are Paul's sole source of "information" about whatever Jesus was believed to be by those in the faith before him. And of course those pioneers may have been mining the scriptures, too. But we were trying to figure out what Paul did, or says he did.

That's what I think yes (Romans 15:25-26 ).

Mark very likely read Paul and that reading is some part of the explanation why Mark thought it worthwhile to write about Jesus and other contemporaries of Paul (some real, others possibly entirely fictive). It would appear that Mark also used elements found in Paul's letters for "prompts" to develop incidents in the gospel. I do not see any basis for extraordinary confidence, however, that Mark was moved to exalt Paul's positions over competing viewpoints within a Jesus movement. IMO as always.

The examples are far too numerous and concern typically Pauline doctrines which are in opposition to those of Peter if we look at the Antioch incident (food prohibitions, meals with pagans) and also the Sabbath. If not to validate Paul's doctrines by placing them in Jesus' mouth, I don't see why Mark presents a Jesus who constantly uses Paul's teachings or presents Peter as a moron who doesn't understand anything.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:53 pm Galates 3:1 : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/j ... .2016.2968

Thank you for the verse and abstract. I agree that that verse has a diverse translation history. It may refer to a devotional practice rather than an information gathering. The tension between the two main verbs of the verse suggests to some an apotropaic interpretation.

I personally have no problem with Paul referring to some presentation he preached to the group about his discoveries in the Jewish scriptures, but I can't eliminate other interpretations.

Yes, that's what he says in Galatians. But it still doesn't allow us to trace it back to a historical person.

Right. We're still working through the lesser included problem of what Paul thought about Jesus and what Paul's sources were for holding that belief.

I can be wrong, but the first Mormons all had the same doctrine concerning Moroni isn't it ?

The LDS case is interesting because we have so much documentation. Among the limitations of LDS as an analog of early Chrsitianity is that LDS is obviously aware of late Christianity (the King James Version is canonical in LDS, and a distinctive view of Jesus is important to them).

Moroni shares a place of residence with Paul's Jesus (heaven), and was formerly a human being, which is a widespread interpretation of Paul's Jesus. Moroni is distinctive in that his teachings to Smith included the location of archeological remains now "lost" (that is, "golden plates" which Smith found, "translated," and reburied) but whose existence was supposedly witnessed by several people from whom Smith obtained sworn statements.

It is Gospel Jesus rather than Paul's Jesus that gives "physical evidence" of his reality (in Luke and John, submitting to physical examination, eating or preparing a meal, ...). I am not sure, then, how far the analogy takes us in trying to recapture Paul's views and his use of sources.

Yes. What we see in any case is that his visions coincide all the time with what he finds in the scriptures or allude to the scriptures. Even when he claims to be relaying a speech by Jesus (the last supper), the speech alludes to Isaiah 53.
Is this really a coincidence ?

No, I don't think it's a coincidence. What I think is that Paul's teaching on the institution benefits from more than one source.

I still hope that we will both agree, given the circumstances (a dead and resurrected man in heaven who speaks directly to a few chosen ones who use a prophetic book as if it were a historical book about their hero and a guidebook for their apostolic mission) that these are dubious visions.

Yes. We share that same overall picture, we're just hashing out the details.

But it is interesting to note that Paul's letters are so unreliable for defending Jesus's historicity that we must consider Paul's magical visions as sources of information about this same character.

Agreed.

The examples are far too numerous and concern typically Pauline doctrines which are in opposition to those of Peter if we look at the Antioch incident (food prohibitions, meals with pagans) and also the Sabbath. If not to validate Paul's doctrines by placing them in Jesus' mouth, I don't see why Mark presents a Jesus who constantly uses Paul's teachings or presents Peter as a moron who doesn't understand anything.

There's a lot there to unpack, starting with we have only Paul's view of what Peter believed, and then only about a narrow range of issues. One reading of Paul is that Peter taught it both ways in Antioch: sharing table with Gentiles until the James Gang showed up, and thereafter sharing table only with Jews. Which was Peter's view on the narrow issue of table fellowship, even assuming that Paul has told us enough to attempt to answer?

All that, and Paul describes himself as all things to all men - the very "hypocrisy" he attributes to Peter. (Which, of course, is Jung 101: Paul would be emotionally upset by projecting shameful aspects of himself onto Peter).

As for Mark himself being anti-Peter: tough break, then, that Mark created in Peter one of the most enduring and sympathetic supporting characters in world literature.

This is something that would ultimately make a good thread in itself. I don't think it gets us closer to resolving Jesus's historical status, however. Mark's Peter may have a different relationship to Paul's Peter than Mark's Jesus has to Paul's Jesus.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:42 am The LDS case is interesting because we have so much documentation. Among the limitations of LDS as an analog of early Chrsitianity is that LDS is obviously aware of late Christianity (the King James Version is canonical in LDS, and a distinctive view of Jesus is important to them).

Moroni shares a place of residence with Paul's Jesus (heaven), and was formerly a human being, which is a widespread interpretation of Paul's Jesus. Moroni is distinctive in that his teachings to Smith included the location of archeological remains now "lost" (that is, "golden plates" which Smith found, "translated," and reburied) but whose existence was supposedly witnessed by several people from whom Smith obtained sworn statements.

It is Gospel Jesus rather than Paul's Jesus that gives "physical evidence" of his reality (in Luke and John, submitting to physical examination, eating or preparing a meal, ...). I am not sure, then, how far the analogy takes us in trying to recapture Paul's views and his use of sources.

I did not want to make a full comparison between Paul's Jesus and Moroni but simply to say that it is quite possible that the first Christians agreed with each other on certain doctrinal points, even if they were fanciful.

For example:

we have discovered the secret of the book Isaiah: the Messiah has already come, he sacrificed himself to save us, now he is in heaven and we must announce the good news to the whole world.

What I think is that Paul's teaching on the institution benefits from more than one source.

Yes if we give credence to the vision that he would have miraculously received from Jesus in heaven and that would have communicated to him his last words before being delivered to death to sacrifice himself. A dialogue that also miraculously echoes Isaiah 53. It's really far-fetched in my opinion, but why not: that's 2 sources.

Or by imagining that he would have received this from the oral tradition, which the text does not say since Paul speaks of a revelation from Jesus : I received from the Lord / παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου

There's a lot there to unpack, starting with we have only Paul's view of what Peter believed, and then only about a narrow range of issues. One reading of Paul is that Peter taught it both ways in Antioch: sharing table with Gentiles until the James Gang showed up, and thereafter sharing table only with Jews. Which was Peter's view on the narrow issue of table fellowship, even assuming that Paul has told us enough to attempt to answer?

All that, and Paul describes himself as all things to all men - the very "hypocrisy" he attributes to Peter. (Which, of course, is Jung 101: Paul would be emotionally upset by projecting shameful aspects of himself onto Peter).

As for Mark himself being anti-Peter: tough break, then, that Mark created in Peter one of the most enduring and sympathetic supporting characters in world literature.

Obviously, according to what Paul says, Peter must have more or less agreed with Paul, but only before the Jews of Jerusalem came on the scene.

We know that Paul came after the other apostles. So we can logically deduce that this was an "innovative" idea or at least a practice that was not done in Jerusalem.

Strangely enough, Mark, who places Jesus in Jewish land, develops the same idea as Paul: food is of little importance and it is appropriate to eat with sinners. A strange coincidence.

I think we can confidently deduce that this does not go back to Jesus, since otherwise the men of James would have seen no problem with Paul and Peter sharing their table with pagans/sinners, like Jesus did.

Moreover Paul never invokes Jesus in the incident of Antioch or even one of the teachings of Jesus on food or on the pagans. This reinforces the idea that the account of Jesus eating with sinners or his argument with the Pharisees over food is certainly an invention of Mark.

But it would not be surprising if it did not go back to Jesus, since it is probably Mark who uses an account of Paul and his teachings to make events and teachings from the life of Jesus. Such examples are legion in Mark. One could dismiss some as less obvious than others, but is it really possible that so many examples between Mark and Paul are purely coincidental given that it is obvious that Mark knew Paul's letters?

And if we accept these points of contact, it would be even more difficult to explain that Mark is not trying to get a message across by using Paul's letters.

I don't think it gets us closer to resolving Jesus's historical status, however.

For sure.

Apart from the detailed exegesis of Pauline texts, I have real problems with the idea that Paul believed in a Jesus crucified on earth maybe centuries ago.

It would seem to require that Paul believed that the death of Jesus had radically changed the basis on which God' people should relate to God, but God had waited generations before revealing to anyone that this change had occurred. If one wishes to argue for such a delay, then IMO the onus is to provide positive evidence. It is not prima-facie the obvious way to read Paul.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 6:16 am Apart from the detailed exegesis of Pauline texts, I have real problems with the idea that Paul believed in a Jesus crucified on earth maybe centuries ago.

It would seem to require that Paul believed that the death of Jesus had radically changed the basis on which God' people should relate to God, but God had waited generations before revealing to anyone that this change had occurred. If one wishes to argue for such a delay, then IMO the onus is to provide positive evidence. It is not prima-facie the obvious way to read Paul.

Andrew Criddle

History is primary not interpretations of NT texts. History details a Roman execution of a King and High Priest of the Jews in 37 bc. All the NT figure of Paul has done is use this historical tragedy as, as it were, an object lesson.
Human, flesh and blood sacrifice has no salvation value. Sacrifice within a spiritual, an intellectual context does have salvation value. Old idea get sacrificed for new better ideas. Basically, the history of 37 bc is being viewed within a philosophical context . Meaning is being interpreted from a historical tragedy.