Did Paul Invent Christ?

[w00t]

I don't think we would have heard about Jesus if Paul hadn't been such an inveterate writer!

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not making judgements about it's historical validity.

You're making judgments about it being regarded by its writer as a "history" in the sense of how we think about history. The example from JW is appropriate as the JW's believe these events actually took place (and are now history). Yes, Paul is writing about things he thinks actually occurred - they occurred at the very least as revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. But the word "history" as it implicates the intervention of Jesus in the flow of temporal events past (and implicates the historical Jesus of orthodoxy), is at least an equally inappropriate way to discuss Paul's writings.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're making judgments about it being regarded by its writer as a "history" in the sense of how we think about history. The example from JW is appropriate as the JW's believe these events actually took place (and are now history). Yes, Paul is writing about things he thinks actually occurred - they occurred at the very least as revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. But the word "history" as it implicates the intervention of Jesus in the flow of temporal events past (and implicates the historical Jesus of orthodoxy), is at least an equally inappropriate way to discuss Paul's writings.

I agree... it is problematic to discuss an ancient author in modern terms. My point in using the term "history" is used only to convey the concept that for the mind of Paul, Christ was a real person who lived, died, and resurrected to a new life in time (eg., in history).

Whether or not Jesus actually lived (a historical question in the modern sense) or resurrected (which is inherently not a plausible historical question) is altogether a different question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's another text that I'm thinking about:

A real birth is essential to understanding Paul's teachings about Christ.

Philippians 2.4-11

4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[doppelganger]

A real birth is essential to understanding Paul's teachings about Christ.

Philippians 2.4-11

4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This doesn't necessarily mean the birth of Jesus as a human being walking the Earth contemporaneously with Paul as an historical entity though, or in the literal sense we are conditioned to read it. This could still be an event revealed to Paul and early Christians through the Hebrew scriptures.

Interestingly, the highlighted passage uses the phrase "born in the likeness of men" and being "found in human form." That's for another discussion though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This doesn't necessarily mean the birth of Jesus as a human being walking the Earth contemporaneously with Paul as an historical entity though, or in the literal sense we are conditioned to read it. This could still be an event revealed to Paul and early Christians through the Hebrew scriptures.

Interestingly, the highlighted passage uses the phrase "born in the likeness of men" and being "found in human form." That's for another discussion though.

There's simply no other way to read this than a Jesus who existed as a person in time. How Paul knew this is a secondary question.

 

[doppelganger]

There's simply no other way to read this than a Jesus who existed as a person in time. How Paul knew this is a secondary question.

Sure there is. In the story revealed to Paul, Christ took up the appearance of man even though he was equal to God. Kal-el was born to Jor-el on the planet Krytonite. Does that mean Superman is a person who existed in time?

 

[sojourner]

Sure there is. In the story revealed to Paul, Christ took up the appearance of man even though he was equal to God. Kal-el was born to Jor-el on the planet Krytonite. Does that mean Superman is a person who existed in time?

This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?

People don't suffer in prison and martyr themselves for Superman...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure there is. In the story revealed to Paul, Christ took up the appearance of man even though he was equal to God. Kal-el was born to Jor-el on the planet Krytonite. Does that mean Superman is a person who existed in time?

Paul isn't writing a comic book, dopp.

 

[doppelganger]

Paul isn't writing a comic book, dopp.

He is writing about a hero story, AE. There are lots of them, with gods becoming men, dying and resurrecting (sometimes even on the third day :yes. Is every one of these hero stories of the ancient world literally an historical account? Were some of them writing "comic books" while others weren't? Which ones are the "comic books" and which ones aren't? How do you know the difference?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?

People don't suffer in prison and martyr themselves for Superman...

Yes, but they will riot in the streets when their religious figure is blasphemed in a comic.

There is some perceived interaction between fiction and reality. Nevertheless, if Paul's epistles were a modern comic strip, perhaps we could interpret them the same.

A better analogy would have been a line from an ancient play, but Paul's epistles are not poetry, play, or any other work which interacts with truth in a highly creative and artistic sort of way. Paul is theologizing, which is a work of creativity, but his theologizing is not done in such a way that his metaphysics are seperate from his physics. The two interact seamlessly, and to seperate them is fraudulent.

 

[sojourner]

He is writing about a hero story, AE. There are lots of them, with gods becoming men, dying and resurrecting (sometimes even on the third day :yes. Is every one of these hero stories of the ancient world literally an historical account? Were some of them writing "comic books" while others weren't? Which ones are the "comic books" and which ones aren't? How do you know the difference?

See post #28.

 

[doppelganger]

This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?

For the reasons discussed above, it isn't appropriate to analyze ancient writings through the modern dichotomy of "literal v. mythological."

People don't suffer in prison and martyr themselves for Superman...

People suffer in prison and "martyr themselves" (now that's a strange phrase) inspired by many hero stories ("Uncle Sam", "for Queen and Country", for Muhammad, for Chairman Mao). If someone got it into their head to take Superman literally, they would do the same.

 

[doppelganger]

See post #28.

See post #33.

Your disdain for others' mythology is very telling.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He is writing about a hero story, AE. There are lots of them, with gods becoming men, dying and resurrecting (sometimes even on the third day :yes. Is every one of these hero stories of the ancient world literally an historical account? Were some of them writing "comic books" while others weren't? Which ones are the "comic books" and which ones aren't? How do you know the difference?

I agree, though the Gospels fit more precisely into the hero literature. Paul's epistles don't fit the schema.

I'm not detecting that you are appreciating the difference I have been emphasizing in Paul's self-conception and our re-construction of his writings. That is, for Paul, his Jesus lived and resurrected in hisory. This does not mean that we can use his epistles as historical proof that Jesus lived and resurrected in history.

And yes, in my reading I have found that many hero myths were intended to be taken literally. It depends on what kind of literature we're talking about. The ancients found great historical truths in poetry and plays and there is some disagreement in how they were interpreted. In this case, since we're dealing with an epistle and not a play or other creative work, I think it's better to take it literally. Paul's application of past mythological events (like the death and ressurrection of Christ) seems to fit in the common practice of other ancients literally interpreting Greek mythology and poetry.

I can find a few examples from philosophers and other writers. Pausanius' description of Greece comes to mind, as well as Plutarch's Table Talk, where ethics are discussed in light of epistemological arguments. The epistemological arguments come from literal or non-literal interpretations of poets and lines from plays... the different interpretations yield different ethics.

That would make a good article I think.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

People suffer in prison and "martyr themselves" (now that's a strange phrase)

It's a literal reading of ancient texts. Martyrdom is a voluntary submission to death.

 

[doppelganger]

That would make a good article I think.

I think it would make a very interesting article.

 

[doppelganger]

It's a literal reading of ancient texts. Martyrdom is a voluntary submission to death.

I thought it meant "witness," onto which was grafted the idea that some who refused to retract their witness for their faith were tortured or killed. If you think about the "martyring" as subjecting someone to torture or death for their witness, it seems like someone else is "doing the martyring".

 

[sojourner]

If someone got it into their head to take Superman literally, they would do the same.

That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Paul didn't take the Greek mythos seriously, or he would have used it. What he did take literally was the one for which he chose to die -- the one about Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought it meant "witness," onto which was grafted the idea that some who refused to retract their witness for their faith were tortured or killed. If you think about the "martyring" as subjecting someone to torture or death for their witness, it seems like someone else is "doing the martyring".

Actually, I think that the early Christians expressed martyrdom as submission, using the literal term "martyr themselves." I'll recheck it.

You're correct regarding the etymology of the word, but etymology cannot be used to reconstruct meaning in particular contexts (eg., mixing the meaning "witness" with other subjects who kill) because words are often used independently of their etymology.