Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I tend to side with Ehrman - Paul thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel who had become incarnate as a human here on Earth...

to robert j,

I think there are extended passages in the Corinthian correspondence related to the fleshy aspect of Paul’s Jesus.

For examples of Paul’s emphasis on the body of Christ --- on the flesh of Christ --- one might refer to 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, 10:16, 11:24, and 11:27-29 (among others). But some among the Corinthians apparently had problems with this emphasis.

I think your verses are far from convincing about Paul defending his mysterious made up earthly human Jesus. More so because 1 Cor 11:27-28 is part of an interpolation and in 29 "Lord" in "Lord's body" is more likely an interpolation because not showing in the most reliable MSS.

The issue may be reflected in 1 Corinthians 12:3, where it seems some of the congregations said Jesus was “anathema”. Perhaps some among the Corinthians did not accept Paul’s emphasis on the body and flesh of Jesus and were making a metaphysical argument here on the nature of the body after death. This would be consistent with a general belief apparently held by some Greeks --- derived from Orphism to Middle-Platonism --- that the body was a prison of sorts, and only upon death was the spirit within released.

I do not see a case for a made up human Jesus in 1 Corinthians 12:3:
RSV "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit."

But certainly In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, Paul made impassioned arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, for Jesus’ resurrection as a model for all believers in the end, and for the nature of the resurrected body. Paul’s apparent earlier emphasis on the concept of a bodily resurrection led to Paul working hard to gently walk-back his bodily resurrection by framing it in spiritual terms that he hoped the congregation might accept in 1 Corinthians 15:35 through 15:58.

I don't think Paul had a concept of physical bodily resurrection, just resurrection in a spiritual body. Where would this physical bodily resurrection show? Again, I can see speculative thinking on your part.

Apparently the issue wasn’t adequately resolved, and Paul, in his desperation in 2 Corinthians to maintain some semblance of authority, threw in the towel ---

Therefore from now, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have regarded Christ according to flesh, yet now we regard Him thus no longer. (2 Corinthians 5:16)

But I see it differently: the Corinthians had been told before about Jesus from a human point of view (and not necessarily from Paul) but Paul wanted his Christians to think about Jesus as the heavenly Savior.
In other words, this verse does not prove or disprove anything about a made up human & earthly Jesus.

Because there are so many ways the James tradition may have found its way into the relatively late Josephus, I just don’t find it convincing.

As for Paul, the focus of my arguments in this thread, I acknowledge that reasonable arguments about James have been made for both sides of the issue.

Josephus was a young adult during James latest years. Both were living in the same city. The death of James caused several significant events in Jerusalem: involvement of the Sanhedrin in a trial, appeal to the new governor on his way to Palestine and removal of a high priest. A lot of talk would go on in Jerusalem, including info sharing about James, and concerning one of his brother. Josephus could not have miss that, if he did not know yet about James, as the brother of Jesus called Christ.

But Paul referred to all fellow believers as “brothers”; and Paul may have singled out James in Galatians 1:19 because Paul characterized his James as the leader of the movement (Galatians 2:2, 2:9, and especially 2:12). For me, these render the arguments inadequate to tip the scales towards an early 1st C. human Jesus with a biological brother named James.

"brother" is not the same as "brother of the Lord" and Paul never called the pillars or other members of the church of Jerusalem "brothers" or "brothers". It is rather very unlikely that Paul would have honored James with the title of "brother of the Lord", when Paul was not getting his gospel from them and when that James (or rather his men) were responsible for putting him in a precarious position resulting into cutting him out of the Church of Antioch.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to robert j,

But I see it differently...

Quelle surprise

Regarding 1 Cor. 4:6 ("that in us you may learn, not beyond what has been written"), I've never noticed this verse before, and my initial thought is that it seems like an odd thing for Paul to say if he is referring to the OT. And as I look into commentaries on it, everyone seems to be citing Hanges, including Sampley, who writes:

That the types of issues addressed by Paul [in 1 Corinthians], such as those mentioned above, along with his attempts at conflict management throughout the letter bear similarities with association by-laws begs the question whether such formal statutes existed for the Corinthian Christ adherents. James Hanges has argued that this is the case, based on a reading of 1 Cor. 4:6, in which Paul draws to a conclusion his attempt to reconcile the various Corinthian factions ... The Greek clause translated by the NRSV as "nothing beyond what is written" is difficult to interpret as it is not at all clear to what it is referring. Hanges argues that the phrase, along with the use of technical terms ... for the handing down of tradition, indicates that the Corinthians have a set of written by-laws that govern their conduct, much like other associations. Paul invokes them here and elsewhere to drive home his points about the conduct of the group members.

Overall, the characteristics of the Corinthian Christ group bear striking similarities to characteristics of associations, so much so that it is difficult to maintain a position that Christ groups are sui generis in the Roman world.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RQ77D ... ES&f=false

John2 wrote:Regarding 1 Cor. 4:6 ("that in us you may learn, not beyond what has been written"), I've never noticed this verse before, and my initial thought is that it seems like an odd thing for Paul to say if he is referring to the OT. And as I look into commentaries on it, everyone seems to be citing Hanges, including Sampley, who writes:

That the types of issues addressed by Paul [in 1 Corinthians], such as those mentioned above, along with his attempts at conflict management throughout the letter bear similarities with association by-laws begs the question whether such formal statutes existed for the Corinthian Christ adherents. James Hanges has argued that this is the case, based on a reading of 1 Cor. 4:6, in which Paul draws to a conclusion his attempt to reconcile the various Corinthian factions ... The Greek clause translated by the NRSV as "nothing beyond what is written" is difficult to interpret as it is not at all clear to what it is referring. Hanges argues that the phrase, along with the use of technical terms ... for the handing down of tradition, indicates that the Corinthians have a set of written by-laws that govern their conduct, much like other associations. Paul invokes them here and elsewhere to drive home his points about the conduct of the group members.

Overall, the characteristics of the Corinthian Christ group bear striking similarities to characteristics of associations, so much so that it is difficult to maintain a position that Christ groups are sui generis in the Roman world.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RQ77D ... ES&f=false

No offense John2 (recognizing you are only citing an author), but that just sounds silly to me.


Every time Paul uses that form of the verb (about 30 times), he is referring to the scriptures.

[γέγραπται --- it is written/has been written --- the verb in the perfect, indicative, middle or passive, 3rd person, singular]

Robert J,

This is all new to me and I'm just thinking out loud as I see where things go.

Paul goes "beyond what has been written" in the OT (i.e., "be fruitful and multiply") in 1 Cor. 7:25-26 by recommending abstinence:

"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is."

And in 1 Thessalonians he mentions instructions about how to live that suggest the existence of instructions and writings (using other forms of the same word in 1 Cor. 4:6) that were made "by the authority of Jesus" (rather than the OT) and dealt with social matters similar to the ones he discusses in 1 Corinthians (like sexual immorality).

1 Thess. 4:1-2: "As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus."

1 Thess. 4:9: "Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other."

1 Thess. 5:1-2: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

But assuming that Paul means the OT in 1 Cor. 4:6, does it not seem odd that he says, "I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us," given his stance regarding the Torah?

Gal. 2:15-16: "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."

Gal. 3:2-5: "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? ... So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?"

2 Cor. 3:6: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

John2 wrote:But assuming that Paul means the OT in 1 Cor. 4:6, does it not seem odd that he says, "I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us," given his stance regarding the Torah?

Paul used the scriptures to set aside the law. For Paul’s argument --- for his “logic” on the issue (if one can call it that) --- see Galatians 3:6 – 3:26.

Which is precisely the difference between a crucifixion meant in the primordial past, and a crucifixon meant in the recent past (apart the possible Roman character of it if put in the recent past AND on earth) ?

I think that the difference is about the cause of the moviment.

Under a primordial crucifixion, what launched the moviment was the enthusiasm of the revelation only: something happened in the remote past (not important per se), is been revealed now and only that is what galvanized Paul and co.

Under a recent crucifixion, what launched the moviment was the enthusiasm for the crucifixion himself + his revelation in the present time. The apostles ''saw'' really the sufferings of the Christ on the cross. They were galvanized by this ''fact''. The crucifixion was not only revealed to them (via scriptures or news by the Risen Christ): they ''saw'' it, too.

It seems, in my eyes, that in the second case we have more psychological motivations to trigger the movement. And the details of the crucifixion (for example, how Jesus was seen by demons, how he was crucified, etc) could be the matter of mysteries only for insiders.

Robert J wrote:

Paul used the scriptures to set aside the law. For Paul’s argument --- for his “logic” on the issue (if one can call it that) --- see Galatians 3:6 – 3:26.

But Gal. 3 -and Paul's entire gospel, really- seems to be the ultimate example of going "beyond what has been written" if he is referring to the OT in 1 Cor. 4:6, since he effectively interpreted the Torah out of existence and promoted "a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

Yet he says he applied "these things" to himself in 1 Cor. 4:6, and perhaps this refers to his allegorical interpretations of the OT as per Gal. 3, but Ascough (and not Sampley, as I had mentioned above) points out in the above link (pg. 83) that these things "are like the associations not only in their experience of dissention but also in the desire of some to make their dispute 'public' as a means to gain more honor than their opponent. Paul's prohibition of such action echoes that of the association regulations" (e.g., "Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other"), and that "Another area of concern for Paul [in the following chapters 5-7] focuses on sexual purity and the preservation of marriage bonds ... In the by-laws of a domestic association from Philadelphia in Lydia, Asia Minor, such concern with sexual purity and an affirmation of marital relations is likewise articulated."