Did Paul know anything about the historical Jesus?

[Oberon]

My answer is no.

IMHO, Paul barely has an understanding of an historical Jesus.

Finally, someone who disagrees who knows what they are talking about. So how would you respond to Dunn, Dodd, Bauckham, Aune, etc, who argue that the time spent with Peter referred to in Galations was his receiving the Jesus tradition, and the other points in what I quoted (and in the scholarship you have probably read on Paul and his aquaintence with Jesus) which indicate Paul's likely knowledge of far more than he talks about in his letters?

 

[Oberon]

Ok, argument for argument's sake. Does that make you feel superior?

Not at all. For all I know, you are a better, smarter, more capable person than I. However, from a long study in this matter, I know more than you do. That's all there is to it. It doesn't make me superior, or smarter, or better, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Michigan Atheist]

Not at all. For all I know, you are a better, smarter, more capable person than I. However, from a long study in this matter, I know more than you do. That's all there is to it. It doesn't make me superior, or smarter, or better, in any way, shape, or form.

No, my friend, you ASSUME you know more, because you have a ONE sided approach to your defense and anyone who disputes you without using YOUR method of argument, is wrong. Not all of us want to spend time pulling up a lot of useless materials to prove a point that noone is going to read anyway. The fact of the matter is you approach this from the angle of a Biblical Scholar, and for many of us that simply doesn't hold weight, mainly because historically biblical scholars have used their scholarly works to PROVE the existence of Jesus, and his divinity; and thus giving very little weight to anyone who writes against their work. Proof in point is your own statement on a post about a German Scholar and a man with a BS in Psychology, as if they couldn't possibly have as much insight into the subject as you do. IF that is he case, then Paul, and all of the writers of the gospels are NOT reliable, because certainly they did not have such credentials.

But I will give you this, it DOES make you more humble, for sure.:clap

 

[Oberon]

No, my friend, you ASSUME you know more, because you have a ONE sided approach to your defense and anyone who disputes you without using YOUR method of argument, is wrong.

That depends. My method of argument is to use my knowledge of the primary sources (in their original languages) and secondary sources written by experts with relevant degrees. If you contest this method, than I'd love to hear an alternative. Perhaps you suggest reading people who have no relevant expertise?

Not all of us want to spend time pulling up a lot of useless materials to prove a point that noone is going to read anyway.

Not sure what you mean. I cite scholarship, i.e. books or journals written by those with relevant degrees and reviewed by other experts prior to publishing. If that is "useless" than what is useful? Hitchens?

 

[Michigan Atheist]

That depends. My method of argument is to use my knowledge of the primary sources (in their original languages) and secondary sources written by experts with relevant degrees. If you contest this method, than I'd love to hear an alternative. Perhaps you suggest reading people who have no relevant expertise?



Not sure what you mean. I cite scholarship, i.e. books or journals written by those with relevant degrees and reviewed by other experts prior to publishing. If that is "useless" than what is useful? Hitchens?

At least Hitchens makes a logical argument, using humor and my guess is you will never be at his academic nor intellectual level. And as for the useless citing of these scholarly works, do you really expect the average person who is on a forum, any forum, to seriously go out and read the dry writings of academics, so your point will be taken. That is why they are useless, they serve no real purpose, except perhaps if you are presenting them to peers, yourself. You see, I do hold a PhD, but I do not hold it OVER people, I do not laud my academic works or achievements in order to impress anyone. I speak my opinions on a forum on religon, MINE, not some obscure biblical scholar that no one has the least bit of interest in. Perhaps, you would do well here to try and convince us of YOUR own feelings about Paul, Jesus, and such, instead of what is written in your scholastic works.

What I really suggest is that YOU try thinking for yourself, and stop relying on the works of everyone else, that you just keep piling higher and higher, as if your argument will be won by aquiring the most posts on the subject. IF this were a true Biblical Scholars forum, I'm sure you would be impressive, but here you have to do more than bully folks with your vast knowledge of dry works of scholars.

But again, I'm sure you are right.... :clap

 

[Oberon]

At least Hitchens makes a logical argument, using humor and my guess is you will never be at his academic nor intellectual level.

Only you aren't acquainted with the scholarship with which to make a judgment.

What I really suggest is that YOU try thinking for yourself, and stop relying on the works of everyone else,

Fair enough. I suggest actually reading the works of those who have spent years reading the original hebrew, aramaic, latin, and greek sources, not to mention thousands upon thousands of pages of technical scholarship on the subject, and giving less credence to those with no such expertise. That way, you might actually be able to judge.

 

[Michigan Atheist]

Only you aren't acquainted with the scholarship with which to make a judgment.



Fair enough. I suggest actually reading the works of those who have spent years reading the original hebrew, aramaic, latin, and greek sources, not to mention thousands upon thousands of pages of technical scholarship on the subject, and giving less credence to those with no such expertise. That way, you might actually be able to judge.

Actually, on a forum about religion, I can judge quite well. I judge that there is NO god, that Jesus was not a historical figure, that Paul was a maniac and probably a homosexual who had a LOT of issues. The bible is NOT a reliable historical text, no matter how much YOU want it to be, and NOTHING you or your so called scholars, and we all know that MOST if not ALL of the original texts of the NT, probably written in Sumarian, have LONG been gone. You are reading texts that were translated time and again, by scribes, HUMAN scribes, not copy machines, who surely had their own ideas of how certain passages would sound better with a tweak here and there. Ciao

 

[Michigan Atheist]

Besides, my friend, I am NOT the one who needs to be convinced of the validity of the bible. I am an Atheist, NOT a Mostly Agnostic, as you claim to be. I am not looking for validation, I have mine, I KNOW what I believe and don't believe, therefore, there is NO need to read anything written by men who's job it is to convince me of the historicity of Jesus or the bible. Thanks anyway.

 

[Oberon]

Actually, on a forum about religion, I can judge quite well.

Regardless of where you are, judging without the relevant background knowledge isn't a good idea.

I judge that there is NO god, that Jesus was not a historical figure, that Paul was a maniac and probably a homosexual who had a LOT of issues.

That is certainly within your rights. I would suggest, however, that before you make any such judgments you acquaint yourself with those who have spent many years researching the primary and secondary texts.

ALL of the original texts of the NT, probably written in Sumarian,

What?

You are reading texts that were translated time and again, by scribes,

Copied, actually. Not translated. Do you have any idea how late many of the classical texts (e.g. those by Caesar, Tacitus, Euripides, Juvenal, etc) date from? Generally the middle ages. NT textual critics are lucky in that they have so many early texts with which to work, compared to classicists or other ancient historians.

HUMAN scribes, not copy machines, who surely had their own ideas of how certain passages would sound better with a tweak here and there. Ciao

Absolutely correct. Which is why we have a well-developed system of textual critical scholarship, used by non-christians in completely different areas of study to reconstruct the original texts.

 

[Quagmire]

Trying to read this thread has been like trying to watch a documentary when there's a bunch of kids with serious behavioral disorders sitting right behind you.

 

[Oberon]

Trying to read this thread has been like trying to watch a documentary when there's a bunch of kids with serious behavioral disorders sitting right behind you.

*Throws popcorn at guy sitting in front of him.*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Finally, someone who disagrees who knows what they are talking about. So how would you respond to Dunn, Dodd, Bauckham, Aune, etc, who argue that the time spent with Peter referred to in Galations was his receiving the Jesus tradition, and the other points in what I quoted (and in the scholarship you have probably read on Paul and his aquaintence with Jesus) which indicate Paul's likely knowledge of far more than he talks about in his letters?

I'm very sorry that I was too concise in my first post.

And for the time being I'll have to answer from memory... it seems to me that most Pauline scholars (at least I feel that way after reading a lot) think that Paul's understanding of Jesus is almost exclusively the resurrected Lord (as opposed to the historical Jesus).

Now if Paul did visit with Peter and receive some teachings of Jesus - which is evidenced by at least two things that I recall: Paul's teaching on divorce and Paul's recounting of the Last Supper. There may be one or two more, but I see Paul focusing more on developing his theology than the historical Jesus. And, if Peter did give Paul some traditions, that doesn't mean that the historical Jesus is accurately represented - so while Paul has some traditions, he may not "know of the historical Jesus" because either the tradition is imprecise or he misinterprets it.

 

[fallingblood]

I think I have to agree with Michigan Atheist. Oberon, your knowledge and research makes no difference here. My opinion, even if it is based on ignorance is really what matters. If I believe that Jesus was an alien, hey, it's historical enough.

I think that's basically what the opposition so far really has had to say. The scholarly work doesn't matter because it's obviously biased. I mean, when they claim that Jesus was a fully human being, who wasn't the son of god, was never born of a virgin, didn't do the wonderful miracles as described in the Bible, he was never resurrected, etc., that makes them biased. Because they still believe a historical Jesus existed even though they disagree with what Christianity teaches about him.

*Sarcasm*

 

[Oberon]

I'm very sorry that I was too concise in my first post.

No problem at all, and once again I would like to say publicly I really appreciate your contributions here.

And for the time being I'll have to answer from memory... it seems to me that most Pauline scholars (at least I feel that way after reading a lot) think that Paul's understanding of Jesus is almost exclusively the resurrected Lord (as opposed to the historical Jesus).

Now if Paul did visit with Peter and receive some teachings of Jesus - which is evidenced by at least two things that I recall: Paul's teaching on divorce and Paul's recounting of the Last Supper. There may be one or two more, but I see Paul focusing more on developing his theology than the historical Jesus. And, if Peter did give Paul some traditions, that doesn't mean that the historical Jesus is accurately represented - so while Paul has some traditions, he may not "know of the historical Jesus" because either the tradition is imprecise or he misinterprets it.

There are a couple of things I think are important to note here. First, Paul didn't know the living Jesus, and began his career by persecuting the church. So he had every reason to downplay the importance of the historical Jesus, and to discuss the resurrected Jesus alone. Second, Paul was writing letters. As the source I quoted in the OP notes, it may well be that Paul simply assumed those who read his letters were already familiar with the Jesus tradition. Third, Paul uses the term paradidomi which is often used in a technical sense to refer to the "handing over" of oral tradition when he talked about receiving the tradition (1 cor 11:2, 23). Fourth, what did Paul did discuss when spending so long a time discussing in detail things with Peter, if not the Jesus tradition? Finally (for now) Paul is aware of the last supper and crucifixion stories of Jesus, is aware of his teaching on divorce, and has every reason to downplay the earthly Jesus. Given the quoted sections of the OP as well as the above, is it not more likely that Paul knew more of the earthly Jesus than he told than that he knew little to nothing of the historical Jesus at all?

 

[Oberon]

If I believe that Jesus was an alien, hey, it's historical enough.

I give up. That's true. And if you ignore all the evidence, then all the evidence supports you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No problem at all, and once again I would like to say publicly I really appreciate your contributions here.

It's my pleasure.

There are a couple of things I think are important to note here.

1) First, Paul didn't know the living Jesus, and began his career by persecuting the church. So he had every reason to downplay the importance of the historical Jesus, and to discuss the resurrected Jesus alone.

2) Second, Paul was writing letters. As the source I quoted in the OP notes, it may well be that Paul simply assumed those who read his letters were already familiar with the Jesus tradition.

3) Third, Paul uses the term paradidomi which is often used in a technical sense to refer to the "handing over" of oral tradition when he talked about receiving the tradition (1 cor 11:2, 23).

4) Fourth, what is it likely Paul did discuss when spending so long a time discussing in detail things with Peter? Finally (for now) Paul is aware of the last supper and crucifixion stories of Jesus, is aware of his teaching on divorce, and has every reason to downplay the earthly Jesus. Given the quoted sections of the OP as well as the above, is it not more likely that Paul knew more of the earthly Jesus than he told than that he knew little to nothing of the historical Jesus at all?

For the sake of clarity, I've numbered the issues again with cardinal numbers.

1) I'm not convinced that Paul's past would deter him from talking about the historical Jesus. He persecuted a church that believed in a resurrected Jesus.

2) Yeah, I get the letters thing. But this does not mean that Paul would not refer to the historical Jesus in these letters. In fact, it is in his letters that we see a glimpse of the historical Jesus.

3) Yes, I've seen studies on "handing down." And here I lean back on the value of the tradition for pointing to the actual historical Jesus. I know that you recognize that they aren't the same thing...

4) I think that Peter and Paul were discussing how to incorporate Jews and Gentiles into one faith.

As for your last comment - we can't measure what we don't have. We can come up with a theoretical historical Jesus, weighing the value of various arguments, and then compare that to Paul's understanding // possible references to the historical Jesus.

He could know more or less, that's perfectly reasonable. But this is not like a philosophical system that can be compacted down into a paragraph or a few sentences. In this case, a few words can reveal that a person knows much more than they are saying.

You need a mature philosophical system to come to this conclusion -- and we're talking here about the infancy of a religion.

 

[Oberon]

Let’s examine two possibilities, and the evidence for each. One the one hand, there is the possibility that Paul knew nothing or next to nothing about the historical Jesus. Supporting this possibility is the almost complete lack in Paul’s letters of any details of the Jesus tradition recorded in the gospels. Paul says little to nothing about the earthly Jesus.

Another possibility is that Paul knew a great deal about Jesus, but either expected his readers/hearers to be acquainted with the Jesus tradition already, or he just didn’t care, or he felt that talking about the earthly Jesus (whom he didn’t follow) would undermine his fragile apostleship, or some combination. I’d like to go into the evidence for this possibility in some detail.

1. Prima facie evidence.

We may note first of all that Paul was in a pretty ideal place to know a great deal about Jesus. Jesus was a contemporary of his, and he is the only Christian write we can say for sure was around for a pretty long period of time while Jesus was (some estimates put their birth around the same years). We also know that he cared a great deal (and took the time to learn) about what his fellow “Jews” and “Christians” and even “pagans” were preaching and teaching. After all, he spent a few years prior to converting (which probably happened only a few years after Jesus was crucified) persecuting the earliest Christians, and it is not unlikely he took the time to find out at least a bit about Jesus and who he was and what his followers were preaching even then, and perhaps even while Jesus was living. We don’t know, but given his active nature and the fact that he did care, both before and after converting, what other groups’ traditions were (even if it was only to persecute/revile them), it seems unlikely that he didn’t find out a fair amount of the Jesus tradition even before converting. Once he converted, again he is the only early Christian author whom no one disputes in terms of his centrality in the earliest stage of Christianity. Personally, I have no problem taking the author of Luke/Acts at his or her word when s/he uses the first person, nor do I find it unbelievable that an actual living “beloved” disciple of Jesus stands behind the text (i.e. it was by a disciple of him), but while I am far from being alone here, there are plenty of those who disagree. Paul, however, was in the thick of it. He knew Jesus’ brother. He knew Peter. He knew James. He was an incredibly active person in the earliest stages of the Christian community which was part of a wider oral culture. We know that the earliest Christians spent a great deal of time telling the stories of Jesus. And we know that within a very surprisingly short period of time these were written down. It seems highly unlikely that Paul, in the thick of it, a guy wanting to know what’s going on, who knew the eyewitnesses, in an oral culture, someone how almost completely avoided learning anything about Jesus despite the many oral traditions circulating.

2. Evidence of the tradition in Paul

As noted earlier, there is a remarkable (if Paul knew more than he wrote) lack of correlating information in Paul with the Jesus tradition. Yet there are some interesting parallels. For example, there is the “Last supper” recorded in 1 Cor. 11:23-26, which is found within the gospel tradition (esp. Lk. 22.19-20). That Paul received this orally (and in a fixed manner) is given not only by the fact that it is so similar to parts of the lukan version but also because of the technical words parelabon and paredoka. These both have a long tradition within oral Jewish culture as technical terms for the giving and receiving of specifically oral teachings, in both Greek and Hebrew (corresponding to מסר/maser
and קבּל/qibbel). On this see especially M.S. Jaffe (2001) Torah in the Mouth: Writing, and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BE-400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press). The same terms are also found within early Christian texts, both in the gospels, other epistles (not just Paul’s), Didache, etc. Gerhardsson’s analysis of both Christian oral transmission and rabbinic oral transmission is instructive here because (and we will see more evidence for this later) it suggests (as does the fixed form of this particular tradition) that someone official instructed Paul, making him memorize a “fixed” oral text, not at all uncommon even outside Judaism in the ancient world.

While this may be the only time Paul demonstrates so aptly that he was instructed with a fixed formula of the Jesus tradition, he does either allude or explicitly cite others. He mentions Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Paul also mentions the instruction of Jesus in 1 Cor. 9:14, but does not tell us anything about it (i.e. the exact formula that was passed on). He merely gives the content. Then there is 1 Thess. 5.1-4 which is found in Q (Lk. 12:39/Mt. 24:43). Paul does not recite the whole parable, but he states quite interestingly in 5.2 that ἡ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται/”the day of the Lord comes in this way as a thief in the night.” The parable isn’t there, the content is (the return of Jesus). Also of note is the comparison to a thief which is also in Q. Also interesting is Paul’s take on food laws, where he again cites Jesus as his source (and we know from Paul’s teachings on divorce that he distinguishes his own teachings from those handed down from Jesus). In Rom. 14:14 Paul states ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ/”that there is nothing unclean by itself” which is strikingly similar to the Jesus tradition in Mark and Luke (7.15 and 11.41, respectively).

These are only a few examples, and there are only a couple more. But we should keep in mind a few things: we don’t have all of Paul’s letters, we don’t have all the Jesus tradition that was circulating in the early Christian decades, and we know that Paul liked to concentrate on the risen Jesus and distance himself from the earthly man he likely never knew and certainly didn’t follow. What is striking is that Paul was clearly aware of some of Jesus’ teachings, and was clearly instructed in them (rather than just having heard them). Which brings me to my next point.

1. Paul and Kephas.

There are a number of important analyses of Paul and Kephas’ time together referred to in Galatians. Paul went up and spent 2 weeks with just Peter. The verb used to describe their conversation type, historesai, is interesting (see e.g. Kilpatrick, G. D. (1959). HISTORESAI KEPHAN in N.T. Studies in memory of T. W. Watson and Bauernfeind, O. (1956). “Die Begnegnung zwischen Paulus und Kephas Gal 1.18-20 Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 47). It is not simply a verb of conversation, or getting to know someone, but means “to get information from.” In other words, Paul spent 14 days with the head of the Jerusalem church, the head of Jesus’ disciples, learning from him. Now, Paul doesn’t talk about what he learned, or note why he went, but this is very likely due not only to the strained relationship between the two but also because Paul is trying to get credit as a legitimate apostle and he was vying for authority with Peter. Nonetheless, he mentions this extended learning session. As C. H. Dodd said, “they could hardly have been talking about the weather.” What information did Paul need from Peter that would take fourteen days to get? Clear instruction from the head disciple on the Jesus tradition.

I’ll wrap it up for now and allow time for rebuttal. Here’s what we’ve got so far. First, there is good reason to think that Paul knew the Jesus tradition simply because he spent a lot of time out and about talking to people and learning what was going on, and that he had several reasons not to talk about the tradition in his letters. However, we’ve also seen that Paul did recite or allude to or paraphrase some parts of the Jesus tradition we find in the gospels, even in Q. From the words he uses, and the fixed aspect of one part of the tradition he cites, we can see he was instructed. And, finally, we know that Paul spent an awful long time being instructed by the head disciple/apostle Peter. It seems unreasonable to conclude anything other than that Paul knew a whole lot more about the historical Jesus than he discussed.

 

[Oberon]

1) I'm not convinced that Paul's past would deter him from talking about the historical Jesus. He persecuted a church that believed in a resurrected Jesus.

2) Yeah, I get the letters thing. But this does not mean that Paul would not refer to the historical Jesus in these letters. In fact, it is in his letters that we see a glimpse of the historical Jesus.

3) Yes, I've seen studies on "handing down." And here I lean back on the value of the tradition for pointing to the actual historical Jesus. I know that you recognize that they aren't the same thing...

4) I think that Peter and Paul were discussing how to incorporate Jews and Gentiles into one faith.

1) It's not just the persecution part which stops him, or makes him wary of talking to much about the earthly Jesus. Paul clearly had some trouble being recognized as a legitimate apostle. He had to contend with "pillars" who actually knew Jesus. And we know from many important studies which examine talking about the eyewitnesses and the importance (not just in the early christian circles but also in the greco-roman and jewish world) in teaching disciple/master communities of eyewitness testimony. Even the Greek and Roman historians preferred it. Paul didn't have this. He never followed Jesus and didn't have direct access to his teaching, while Peter and others did, and this seems to have been a sore point. Mentioning Jesus' teachings over and over while his competitors actually were there to hear them might have been something he didn't care to do.

2) That's true. And occasionally he does refer to him, if only in passing. But again he didn't follow the earthly Jesus. And to Paul, the risen Lord mattered over all else. In the OP, the author I cited notes that while Paul certainly knew more than he let on (according to the author), he didn't care much for the earthly Jesus, in comparison with the risen Jesus.

3) That's true, the tradition and the historical Jesus aren't the same thing. The point simply is that Paul was instructed in the tradition.

4) But they didn't "converse." The verb implies a one-way instruction. See my post above.

As for your last comment - we can't measure what we don't have.

That's true. What Paul knew is lost to us except for a few (very important) letters. As you say, he may know more or less. However, as I argued in greater depth in my post immediately prior, I think it is much more likely he knew more. This doesn't get us anywhere in attempting to construct a historical Jesus, but it can aid in giving us a better understanding of early church dynamics.

 

[Caladan]

Thanks for another interesting thread on the subject Oberon.

Recall what we already know from the chronology of Saul’s religious career. He was a persecutor of the Yeshua-faith. Whatever else that may have entailed, he certainly was in position to learn a lot about Yeshua. .

That's a great case and I'd be interested in more sources that deal with it.

 

[dogsgod]

The speculation mills are spinning in order to avoid the obvious.