Paul appears to say that as Saul he persecuted those who followed Jesus. You may also be aware of the >Gabriel's Vision stone<, which dates to the later 1st century BCE and at one point refers to an angelic leader who will die and rise again after three days. This may indicate the existence of a cult within Judaism with similarities to Christianity earlier than the traditional dates, and if that were correct, perhaps protoChristianity itself. It would also make the figure of the historical Jesus more elusive and perhaps more allusive.
I am less than convinced by the
Gabriel Revelation Stone due the strong disagreements among the scholars on what the critical words really say. Also I am not very impressed by the third day reference. I am not out to debate the meaning of the Gabriel Stone, not being all that qualified to do so. Instead I see the origin of the third day concept in Paul.
1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
Paul never said what scriptures he meant, but this is sometimes proposed as the answer.
Hosea 6
1
“Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
2
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.
It may be that Paul was the origin of the third day concept. Or he may have gotten it from Peter or others in Jerusalem. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul presents his evidence, if such it is, of a risen Jesus. If Paul did get the third day idea from Peter or others, it would pint to a real crucifixion. Concerning the resurrection, the end of Mark is very ambiguous. But that is a topic for another day.
My reading supports dating Paul's letters to the 50s. But the fact and date of the Crucifixion depend on the existence of a real Jesus. I think there's no clincher either way to that question. And whether there was a real Jesus or not, the earliest we meet Jesus in history is with Paul's letters, and Paul never met Jesus and has no clue about the earthly biography of Jesus ─ that he was a Jew, preached in Jerusalem, instituted the Last Supper (which in fact is a Greek borrowing) and was crucified and buried. Even after visiting 'James the brother of the Lord' and the Jerusalem Christians for a fortnight he has added not one biographical datum to his knowledge.
Paul speaking of the crucifixion as if his readers already know about it suggests that this was something real. Maybe. Paul makes it into something of cosmic importance rather than the embarrassing fact of a messianic spiritual leader getting offed by the Romans. The whole Sin of Adam thing and the very unorthodox mode of sacrifice relative to Judaism and so on sound more than a bit suspicious to anyone not already looking to believe. Why would anyone make up that story? I see Paul as perhaps coming up with a story to turn the facts into something more than they were.
A cynical thought that occurs to me is that maybe Paul did not like the anecdotes and teachings he got from people who knew the living Jesus. Perhaps he found the real Jesus, in the words of Harvey Korman, “too Jewish”.
He also quotes what some scholars think is the earliest Christian document (if Gabriel's Vision is not): the 'kenosis hymn' in Philippians 2:5-11. It is (I read) written in poetic meter, and in verse 8 the phrase 'even death on a cross' appears to be a later gloss, since it breaks the meter. This raises the possibility that the crucifixion is a later part of the story, or that two stories are combined. And in verses 9-10 it says Jesus was not called Jesus ('Yeshua', old 'Yehoshua', the same name as Joshua, meaning 'Yahweh is salvation') until after his death.
This commentary on the Kenosis Hymn has it be a chiasm. If so, it strikes me as a rather modest example of the genre. If it was intended as a chiasm, the meter breaking phrase is the peak and could have been intentionally jarring to call attention to it.
I agree that the name references raise a problem. As the link I gave above discusses, it does not sounds like Paul is the author. The question remains, what might Paul have changed?
There's only one biography of Jesus, that in Mark (about 75 CE). Imagine the wife of Mark's author comes home and finds her husband, pen in hand, staring at a blank sheet of paper. What are you doing? she says. I'm trying to write a biography of Jesus, but no one has any facts about him: I'm going nuts. She kisses him sweetly on the forehead and says, That's easy! Make a list of things that look like messianic prophecies in the Tanakh and have him perform them one after another. Then you can fit in the sayings on your other list! And he smiles widely and goes to get his Tanakh.
Matthew is the real champ of scriptural references. According to
this chart Matthew makes 36 references to scripture (including the LXX) compared to Mark’s 20 and Luke’s 19.
There may be some biographical clues to a real Jesus in there nonetheless. With only one exception, Jesus is sharply antagonistic to his family and to his mother every time she's mentioned (Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26). And it may be that Jesus was of puny build or had some visible disfigurement that would account for Luke 4:22 ('Physician, heal yourself'). Nor would the 'King of the Jews' sign as a piece of mockery work if Jesus had Arnie's build. But perhaps those elements are in the story because Isaiah 53:2 is taken as a prophecy for the messiah to fulfill.
In Mark 6:3 it is people at the synagogue who mention the family of Jesus. No antagonism with his family here.
Mark 15:40 is not about the family of Jesus.
Matthew 10:35 is not about the family of Jesus either. It about a messianic prophecy in Micah 7
In John 2:3 Mary nudges like a Jewish mother.
You missed the best one of all. Mark 4:21 has the family of Jesus think he is crazy.
I have no idea what “Physician, heal yourself” refers to in Luke 4:22. The physical appearance of Jesus does not sound reasonable. Luke was not an eyewitness. He got his information from others as he says in Luke 1. No one else mentions anything about how Jesus looked.
As I said, I think it's a 50-50 chance: there may have been an historical Jesus or there may not have been; none is essential to account for what we know.
I still see a historical Jesus as the best explanation.
