Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

A widely recognized contradiction in Paul’s story is demonstrated by these citations from 1 Corinthians and Galatians. These two letters share several common themes regardless of the very different issues addressed, and I think they were written in close order and time ---

For I delivered to you first of all what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures … raised on the third day according to the Scriptures … appeared to Cephas … to the Twelve … to 500 … to James … to all the apostles. And last of all he appeared to me also, as the ektroma, for I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:3-9)


For I make known to you, brothers, the gospel having been preached by me, that it is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

Sure, Paul claimed that his revelation came from god, not man, but his story still had holes. Paul claimed to have persecuted the faith before his revelation (Galatians ch. 1) --- how could he persecute a faith before learning about it? Yes, Paul created a conundrum for himself, but no such system is perfect. And Paul, in his hubris, tried to have it both ways.

I think Paul fabricated his predecessors in the faith, and fabricated the perception of a wider spiritual movement that was beginning to take place in far-away Judea with a leadership group in Jerusalem. Paul needed to invent this perception of established credibility for his Gentile audiences, he needed a tangible connection with the inheritance of Israel.

Picture this fictional scenario with Paul approaching a potential Gentile convert in a public square in one of the larger cities around the fringe of the Aegean Sea --- where every day one encountered a plethora promoting spiritual gifts including foppish Phrygian priests, astrologers, cynic-philosophers, faith-healers, magicians, pneumatics, charismatics, diviners, and readers of animal entrails ----

Paul: Have you heard about the new revelation of the son of the great god of the Jews? Anyone can be a son of the ancient philosopher Abraham and can be full participants with the great god of the Jews --- you don’t even have to get circumcised.

Greek Guy: Oh? Where did you hear about that?

Paul: I discovered it myself.

Greek Guy: Good bye.

Paul needed his story about a wider spiritual movement taking place in far-away Judea, or he would have had a very tough time finding Gentile converts willing to devote their lives to a new spiritual system based solely on Paul’s own charms and a pile of scrolls.

So why did Paul claim independence on top of this self-imposed dependence? I’m not a psychologist, but Paul’s hubris, arrogance and thirst for authority are consistent features in his letters to his congregations. Paul just couldn’t deny himself the credit --- it wasn’t in him.

I think Paul teased the story of his Jesus Christ from the Jewish scriptures on his own. And I think Paul was being honest with his claim, “the gospel having been preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11-12)

Paul’s “revelation of Jesus Christ” was his discovery of passages in the LXX susceptible to his own creative interpretations. Previously hidden mysteries.

As for Paul’s proud independence, a number of supporting citations could be used. I’ll offer one that to me is among the more interesting.

I’ve previously made a case on this forum that the competition in 2 Corinthians, the “super-apostles”, were Jewish missionaries working the Diaspora circuit. Professionals that worked a few mentions of the Jesus Christ figure, for the benefit of Paul’s Corinthians, into their standard presentation on the mysteries of Moses. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=785

I think Paul’s response about these “super apostles” here shows that Paul knew darn-well these men were not missionaries of Jesus Christ --- because there were no other missionaries of Jesus Christ other than Paul and his own small circle of junior-partners.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Cor 11:13-15)

Ouch, Satan even. Paul is pretty confident here. I think rightly so.

robert j

There is a very simple solution to all of this, and it is the orthodox view:

1. Paul received the message of Jesus' death and resurrection from people.

2. Paul's gospel of redemption for Gentiles was given to him from God and not man.

There is no need to accuse Paul of fabricating the existence of people in the 'churches of Judea' that received the historical account of Jesus prior to when Paul received it. Those people who believed the resurrection message had the same faith that Paul had - ie that Jesus had been resurrected. But it was Paul's message of salvation to the Gentiles that was his 'Gospel' that he had received 'from no man'.

TedM wrote:There is a very simple solution to all of this, and it is the orthodox view:

1. Paul received the message of Jesus' death and resurrection from people.

2. Paul's gospel of redemption for Gentiles was given to him from God and not man.

There is no need to accuse Paul of fabricating the existence of people in the 'churches of Judea' that received the historical account of Jesus prior to when Paul received it. Those people who believed the resurrection message had the same faith that Paul had - ie that Jesus had been resurrected. But it was Paul's message of salvation to the Gentiles that was his 'Gospel' that he had received 'from no man'.

Recently, in another thread, you wrote ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2709

TedM wrote: I would argue may be the MOST logical conclusion of all is that Paul's Jesus was a construct from the OT and perhaps other more recent apocalyptic writings and thought, and that Paul believed Jesus had lived and walked the earth sometime in the distant past.

You wouldn't be accusing me of having inconsistent views would you?

Actually I don't see a problem. I didn't say that Paul himself constructed a Jesus from the OT, just that he may have believed in such a Jesus. And the 'historical account of Jesus' doesn't have to mean ACTUAL history - it could mean a constructed historical Jesus who lived in the past. It is possible that the Judea believers before Paul constructed a Jesus Savior from passages such as the Suffering Servant, and that Paul took that and added on the idea that Gentiles too were part of the Salvation plan. This could have been in response to concerns that this Savior had not yet come to usher in Judgement Day - the delay was so that Gentiles too could be converted.

robert j wrote:
... Paul claimed to have persecuted the faith before his revelation (Galatians ch. 1) --- how could he persecute a faith before learning about it? ...Paul, in his hubris, tried to have it both ways.

Good point/s.

robert j wrote: I think Paul fabricated his predecessors in the faith, and fabricated the perception of a wider spiritual movement that was beginning to take place in far-away Judea with a leadership group in Jerusalem. Paul needed to invent this perception of established credibility for his Gentile audiences, he needed a tangible connection with the inheritance of Israel.

Picture this fictional scenario with Paul approaching a potential Gentile convert in a public square in one of the larger cities around the fringe of the Aegean Sea --- where every day one encountered a plethora promoting spiritual gifts including foppish Phrygian priests, astrologers, cynic-philosophers, faith-healers, magicians, pneumatics, charismatics, diviners, and readers of animal entrails ----

• Paul: Have you heard about the new revelation of the son of the great god of the Jews? Anyone can be a son of the ancient philosopher Abraham and can be full participants with the great god of the Jews --- you don’t even have to get circumcised.
  
  Greek Guy: Oh? Where did you hear about that?
  
  Paul: I discovered it myself.
  
  ...

Paul needed his story about a wider spiritual movement taking place in far-away Judea, or he would have had a very tough time finding Gentile converts willing to devote their lives to a new spiritual system based solely on Paul’s own charms and a pile of scrolls.

TedM wrote:It is possible that the Judea believers before Paul constructed a Jesus Savior from passages such as the Suffering Servant, and that Paul took that and added on the idea that Gentiles too were part of the Salvation plan.

I wouldn’t deny that the solution you suggest here is possible.

But I prefer the solution that Paul fabricated these stories. No need to account for the lack of evidence, beyond Paul's own words, for the assemblies of Christ in Judea. And no need to account for the paucity of evidence for Paul’s Pillars beyond the author of gMark using Paul’s characters as the main supporting players in his tale, thereby, in general terms, forming the roles for these characters that many still cling to today.

robert j wrote:

TedM wrote:It is possible that the Judea believers before Paul constructed a Jesus Savior from passages such as the Suffering Servant, and that Paul took that and added on the idea that Gentiles too were part of the Salvation plan.

I wouldn’t deny that the solution you suggest here is possible.

But I think the most straightforward solution is that Paul fabricated these stories. No need to account for the lack of evidence, beyond Paul's own words, for the assemblies of Christ in Judea.

What need is there to account for this lack of evidence in the first place? The most straightforward cause for the lack of evidence for nearly anything from antiquity is the simple fact that the vast majority of antiquity is lost to us. This is not a positive argument for Paul having told the truth about his religious forbears: he may be lying, and his words ought to be evaluated critically. But lack of evidence is not really an argument against it, either. Most potential evidence from antiquity is gone forever; therefore, if evidence for this is gone, too, then there is nothing amiss.

robert j wrote:

TedM wrote:It is possible that the Judea believers before Paul constructed a Jesus Savior from passages such as the Suffering Servant, and that Paul took that and added on the idea that Gentiles too were part of the Salvation plan.

I wouldn’t deny that the solution you suggest here is possible.

But I prefer the solution that Paul fabricated these stories. No need to account for the lack of evidence, beyond Paul's own words, for the assemblies of Christ in Judea. And no need to account for the paucity of evidence for Paul’s Pillars beyond the author of gMark using Paul’s characters as the main supporting players in his tale, thereby, in general terms, forming the roles for these characters that many still cling to today.

I just don't view Paul negatively. I think he was a noble man. As such I don't even suspect he was making up pillars or churches before him in Judea. And, I agree with Ben that lack of evidence isn't strange. I'm not sure how you deal with the evidence for James as the first leader. Seems strong to me. Who would be behind making up the non-Paul evidence for James, and why? Too many chains of lies just break, it seems to me.

robert j wrote:

For I make known to you, brothers, the gospel having been preached by me, that it is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

Sure, Paul claimed that his revelation came from god, not man, but his story still had holes.

Not his 'revelation' but his 'gospel'. I agree with TedM that that is the solution.

Paul talks of various 'gospel' messages floating around in his time. If you look at Gal 2:

• But on the contrary, when they [the Jerusalem group] saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter...

Paul received the gospel message for the Gentiles by revelation. He had previously persecuted the church in Judea, suggesting the information he had learned was not directly related to the gospel message for the Gentiles that he received later. So no contradiction AFAICS.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

robert j wrote:

TedM wrote:It is possible that the Judea believers before Paul constructed a Jesus Savior from passages such as the Suffering Servant, and that Paul took that and added on the idea that Gentiles too were part of the Salvation plan.

I wouldn’t deny that the solution you suggest here is possible.

But I think the most straightforward solution is that Paul fabricated these stories. No need to account for the lack of evidence, beyond Paul's own words, for the assemblies of Christ in Judea.

What need is there to account for this lack of evidence in the first place? The most straightforward cause for the lack of evidence for nearly anything from antiquity is the simple fact that the vast majority of antiquity is lost to us. ... But lack of evidence is not really an argument against it, either. Most potential evidence from antiquity is gone forever; therefore, if evidence for this is gone, too, then there is nothing amiss.

Certainly valuable observations --- lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. Lack of evidence is just one data point among others.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ... he [Paul] may be lying, and his words ought to be evaluated critically.

In my OP, it was Paul's words that I evaluated, along with the situation in which I think he likely found himself. He obviously is not going to admit to his congregations in his letters that he fabricated his very important back-stories. So, I readily admit that my observations and conclusions are subject to very different opinions. But it's a solution that belongs on the table.