A fellow named Nate sent me an email last night asking me to take a look at a message board where a Christ Myther was making some claims that were going unaddressed. I took a look and to be honest, I could only bring myself to skim it. I really cannot, no matter how hard I try, take Christ Mythers seriously. You can complain about it and criticize it all you want, but that’s the way it is. In any event, one of the mythers objections had to do with Paul not laying out the kind of information that we have about Jesus in the Gospels. My response was along the lines of saying that that kind of thinking completely ignores the difference in genre and the difference in each author’s reason for writing. Paul had different concerns than the Gospel writers and his epistles presuppose the historical existence of Jesus. To argue for it would be moot since his Gospel is predicated on it. But Nate wondered why Paul doesn’t refer to the things that Jesus said in order to bolster some of his points. In point of fact, he does at times (1Cor. 11:23-25; Rom. 14:14), but as I said to Nate in my latest email, “Paul’s gospel is Christ crucified and risen, plain and simple. Appealing to various aphorisms of Jesus wouldn’t strengthen his point, especially when Jesus wasn’t really all that original. They both say [a lot of] the same things but it’s because they both appeal to the same Scriptures.” In addition to that I’d add that Paul’s authority doesn’t come from what Jesus said, but rather what God in Christ did. He’s not an apostle because Jesus said ABC about XYZ, but rather because God the Father and Jesus called him to be an apostle. Paul’s authority is rooted in his election as God’s servant, not in sayings attributed to the historical Jesus.
B”H
Well put. It seems that the only thing Paul is guilty of is not writing a Gospel (i.e., Greco-Roman Bios).
By: sethmehorn on October 29, 2009
at 2:58 pm
Seth: Exactly.
By: Nick Norelli on October 29, 2009
at 4:22 pm
Paul’s authority is rooted in his election as God’s servant, not in sayings attributed to the historical Jesus.
It’s that simple.
By: T.C. R on October 29, 2009
at 4:45 pm
Yes! Your right on point here. Christ Mythers have misguided expectations and then make conclusions based on these poor expectations because the content of Paul’s letters do not to meet them. Yet in the process, the completely overlook the purpose behind Paul’s letters!
By: Troy on October 29, 2009
at 5:30 pm
TC: I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it.
Troy: You got it!
By: Nick Norelli on October 29, 2009
at 8:13 pm
Paul saw the risen Christ, and proceeded to be involved in miracles in His name. Take note of this:
Act 1:21-22 NET. Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, (22) beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us — one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us.”
The early idea of an apostle was that of a witness of Christ on earth. Paul’s witness was necessarily different, for we have no evidence he ever saw Jesus before his Ascension. Being a true witness, Paul only testified to that which he knew.
It’s also understandable that since Paul spent so much time among Gentiles, his preaching stressed what they were interested in, based on their culture, rather than the Jewish world Jesus and his disciples inhabited. Early Christian preaching was worldview oriented.
By: Chuck Grantham on October 29, 2009
at 10:38 pm
Chuck: Good point. I toyed with including a sentence or two on the possibility that certain things that Jesus said and did simply weren’t known to Paul because Paul didn’t know Jesus during his earthly ministry, but that’s beside the point in my opinion.
By: Nick Norelli on October 29, 2009
at 11:13 pm
Nick,
I totally agree, but if you don’t mind, can I be a little picky about something? Instead of saying that Paul was called by and the servant of the Father as the locus of his authority, it may be better to say he was called by and a servant of Jesus himself. Of course, there is nothing wrong with theologically saying the Father called Paul and Paul was a servant of the Father, but when refers to his own authority it always connected to the Lordship of Jesus. He has authority because Jesus the Messiah, who is the Lord of the world, has called/commissioned him. I know its picky, but I think its a helpful exegetical distinction.
By: Daniel Doleys on October 30, 2009
at 9:59 am
Daniel: I hear you, and I agree, but I had in mind specifically the introductions to Paul’s epistles which follow a similar formula of “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…” But yes, you are correct in that Jesus called him. I’m completely comfortable in saying it as you’ve said it.
I’ve amended the post to say “what God in Christ did” and “God the Father and Jesus…”
By: Nick Norelli on October 30, 2009
at 10:08 am
My wrath is appeased!
By: Daniel Doleys on October 30, 2009
at 10:15 am
In addition to that I’d add that Paul’s authority doesn’t come from what Jesus said, but rather what God in Christ did.
For me, that’s the point that makes the myther argument so hard to categorically dismiss. There is almost nothing in Paul’s epistles that depends upon there having been a first century itinerant preacher who said or did anything prior to his crucifixion. In fact, there isn’t much in any of the first century writings outside the gospels that depends on any of the authors either personally interacting with the historical person named Jesus during his lifetime or knowing anyone who had personally interacted with him during his lifetime.
By: Vinny on October 30, 2009
at 6:02 pm
Vinny: But surely you see how his crucifixion depends on his having lived up until the point when he was killed.
By: Nick Norelli on October 30, 2009
at 7:15 pm
That is an interesting point Nick, but unfortunately Paul does not report being an eyewitness to the crucifixion. Paul’s report is based on an experience of what he understood to be the resurrected Christ. So while witnessing a death by crucifixion might necessarily require that the victim had lived prior to the time of his execution, having a vision doesn’t necessarily require that the thing experienced has any corporeal existence outside the vision itself. The fact that Joseph Smith reports an encounter with Moroni isn’t sufficient to establish the existence of the angel in any sense outside Smith’s own mind.
By: Vinny on October 30, 2009
at 10:41 pm
Nick,
At this point in my studies, I agree with you. I pay the mythers very little mind. They’ve disregarded and eschewed the methods of historical investigation to the point that their argument is no longer against the existence of Jesus Christ but against ancient historical epistemology. But in a way, I can see where Vinny is coming from as well. When I first heard about the Christ-myth four years ago, it came close to destroying my faith. However, now that I have studied ancient history at the college level for the last two years, these doubts have been obliterated by things you and others above note. Paul was not writing a gospel, Paul was addressing hard theological and structural problems in the very first Christian churches. Combine this with the social/historical backdrop of the first century, where such extensive details were not needed or normal, and there is nothing odd about what Paul does not say. Indeed, mythers give VERY little credence to what Paul DOES say (Gal 4:4; Gal 1:18-19; Rom 1:3; 1 Thess 2:15; 1 Cor 15:5-11; Phil 2:6-2:11). The standard for dealing with these passages of course rages from the absurd (Gal 1:19 speaks of a James who was in a group called “the Lord’s brothers”…..yeah) to vain attempts to deny some were original to the letter (1 Thess 2:15). But of course, these stop being debates about Jesus and become debates about ancient historical/textual epistemology. We do need to keep both eyes open on them though, being a myther is almost a pre-requisite for being an online atheist personality, with Carrier’s book coming out, its only gonna get worse. Interestingly, there is somewhat of a parallel here with whats going on in contemporary cosmology. Since things like Kalam are gaining so much ground, atheist cosmologists/philosophers are having to resort to absurd things like the Many Word Hypothesis to explain the anthropic principle. The sad part, a logical side effect of TMWH is absolute absurdity. Where it becomes far more likely that everything we see is an illusion. (See philosopher Nick Bostrom’s work on artificial intelligence or cosmologists Jim Hartle’ work against historical reality) That’s where we’re at then. Christians are defending the legitimacy of ancient historical epistemology and a logical universe vs the atheists who would rather deny all knowledge than admit God and Jesus.
But an unstated assumption in Vinny’s first assertion is that only first century sources are of any value in determining historical information about Jesus. That’s not the case. Within the first 100-150 years of his life there are more sources for Jesus’ life than there are for an impressive amount of characters who’s historicity would never in a million years be seriously questioned. But that aside, only the Gospels and Acts from the first century? Only four biographies and a history after Jesus for 30 years? They’re not enough? Sounds to me like there’s a lot of evidence to fill in the gaps in Paul’s letters. As for Paul, in 1 Cor 15 Paul clearly propounds a physical resurrection of Jesus, and witnesses that came before him. To fault Paul with anachronistic and unrealistic expectations is simply wrong.
Peace brothers
By: Derek on October 31, 2009
at 12:33 am
Thanks for your time and help Nick. I think for me the trouble has been that I don’t have the background knowledge that you and so many of your fellow posters have. I am in the process developing more of a background. So when I hear a myther that brings up points that I have not heard about, it is harder for me to dismiss.
I am still trouble a little that Paul makes no mention of Jesus’ miracles or such. I do agree that Paul does mention some things besides the crucifixion, like the last supper and there is an appeal to live as the Lord lived.
I think so much of my trouble is just the lack of background knowledge and my putting my 21st century expectations onto Paul.
By: Nate on October 31, 2009
at 10:55 am
Vinny: Yes, Paul’s Gospel is rooted in his experience with the risen Christ, but life and death have to precede resurrection for a Jew to talk about some actually having been resurrected. And if we had the kind of evidence for Moroni that we have for Jesus then I’m sure only a Moroni Myther would question his existence.
Derek: Well said.
Nate: I’m confident that as you continue to study you’ll find Christ Mythers harder and harder to take seriously. But let me ask you this: if Paul performs miracles in the name of Christ then would his mentioning the miracles that Jesus performed add anything to the act itself? I don’t think so.
By: Nick Norelli on October 31, 2009
at 1:38 pm
Nick: If we can infer the existence of a historical individual who lived and died from Paul’s experience of the risen Christ, why couldn’t Paul have done so, too? Wouldn’t his experience on the road to Damascus have been more than sufficient to convince him that such an individual had existed without any corroborating evidence whatsoever?
By: Vinny on October 31, 2009
at 10:19 pm
Vinny: Paul’s pre-Christian persecution of the church presupposed the existence of an historical Jesus. It’s not as if he first believed in Jesus on the road to Damascus.
By: Nick Norelli on October 31, 2009
at 10:38 pm
NickPaul’s persecution of the early church presupposes that he rejected its beliefs as false.
By: Vinny on November 1, 2009
at 12:20 am
[...] I’ve never actually thought about this before, but recent discussions about Christ Mythers (here & here) and their arguments concerning Paul brought it to my attention. The more I think [...]
By: The Historical Jesus and Evangelism « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on November 9, 2009
at 4:13 pm