The puzzling silence of Paul

[AvisG]

This topic is a favorite of those who argue that Jesus is a mythic figure who never even existed, but I'm NOT approaching it from that angle. However, it's a genuine mystery that causes me to suspect that Jesus' ministry may have been quite different from the biblical portrayal.

The way the NT is organized, it's quite easy to be lulled into thinking that Paul was writing his epistles against the backdrop of the four Gospels. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. Paul wrote long before the Gospels were written and indeed died long before they were written (i.e., he is believed to have died in 62 AD vs. sometime after 70 AD as an early date for Mark, while some of the epistles are much earlier).

Yet Paul scarcely even mentions the historical Jesus. There is no mention of the Virgin Birth, Mary, the teachings and parables, the miracles or anything else that is central to the Gospels. (Paul does, of course, emphasize the Resurrection, but he doesn't mention the empty tomb.) On the other hand, the Resurrection appearance to more than 500, which Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians, is never mentioned in the Gospels - an extremely odd omission that I find as puzzling as Paul's omission of the historical Jesus.

It's believed that the Gospels arose out of eyewitness accounts, a carefully preserved oral tradition, and one or more "sayings" documents such as Q. Hence, the Gospel material was certainly available when Paul was writing, but he never mentions it.

It can be argued that Paul had other concerns, but this isn't really true. He repeatedly addresses hot-button issues in the churches and gives direction on Christian living to which Jesus' parables and teachings would have been directly relevant, yet he never mentions those teachings.

I recently did a study of just how tiny Judea was in Jesus' time. To give an idea, the entire territory of modern Israel, including the disputed territories, is approximately the same size as the Phoenix (Arizona) Metropolitan Area or the state of New Hampshire. The population of Jerusalem in Jesus' time is estimated at 60,000 to 80,000 with Judea estimated at 200,000 to 300,000 (these figures are scholarly estimates and there are estimates that are fantastically higher, but these are mainstream estimates). In any event, Jesus operated in quite a small area with quite a small population.

Does it seem plausible that, in an area of this size, an individual doing the things Jesus is described in the Gospels as having done would not have achieved FAR greater notice during His lifetime? Does it seem plausible that the Gospels would be almost entirely silent regarding the 30 or so years of His existence before He burst on the scene? Does it seem plausible that the Roman and Jewish historical records would barely even take notice of Him?

I see no plausible way to explain these things except to conclude that Jesus' ministry was most likely far more localized and obscure than the Gospels suggest and that it was the Resurrection that caused a certain degree of "mythologizing" to develop around the historical figure He actually had been. This is why I always take the position that Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection and pretty much NOTHING else.

I don't believe that honestly addressing puzzles such as this is in any way heretical or blasphemous or even something God would discourage. Even the question as to whether Jesus existed at all is a perfectly legitimate one; the vast, vast majority of scholars, including secular scholars, believe that He did. On the other hand, I don't believe there is anything particularly pious, faithful or pleasing to God about pretending these puzzles don't exist or trying to explain them away with glib and facile "explanations" that really don't fit the facts.

 

[Dave G.]

I write about things I saw, witnessed etc in 1989, I can write accurately about them now in 2019 at 69 years old when back then I was 39 or even write accurately about things of 1979, 40 years ago when I was 29. I don't have to make the things up, I was a witness to them, walked in that time, really my prime.

The Holy Spirit guided the writers, you need to take it up with Him and stop speculating. As to me, I take the word of God as the word of God. You're casting doubt with personal theories. If you don't trust the word it can't speak to you as intended and work in your life. I hope you can get it settled for your own sake.

Paul's message was a different message, it was to be primarily to the gentiles as stated in scripture and his ministry also to churches of the age. The important thing is the gospel, the miracles are secondary at best. So death burial and resurrection are key, it is key, as is the trinity. Without those two doctrines Christianity is no more. While the other guys walked with Jesus, Paul was walking against Him, before his getting knocked to the dirt on the road to Damascus. His conviction towards Christ didn't happen while Christ was on earth, he was too busy rounding new Christians for trial and slaughter.... And you wonder why his perspective was different ? Paul is controversial, that is to say there are always factions contemplating him. But I trust the Holy Spirit guided Him as well as the others to write the truth.

 

[packermann]

This topic is a favorite of those who argue that Jesus is a mythic figure who never even existed, but I'm NOT approaching it from that angle. However, it's a genuine mystery that causes me to suspect that Jesus' ministry may have been quite different from the biblical portrayal.

The way the NT is organized, it's quite easy to be lulled into thinking that Paul was writing his epistles against the backdrop of the four Gospels. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. Paul wrote long before the Gospels were written and indeed died long before they were written (i.e., he is believed to have died in 62 AD vs. sometime after 70 AD as an early date for Mark, while some of the epistles are much earlier).

Mark would be earlier than that. Most scholars agree that the first gospel was the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a template for their gospels. The Acts of the Apostles is sort of sequel to the Gospel of Luke, and since it does not mention Paul's death, it was probably written before 62 AD. So Mark would have written his gospel in the early 50's.

Yet Paul scarcely even mentions the historical Jesus. There is no mention of the Virgin Birth, Mary, the teachings and parables, the miracles or anything else that is central to the Gospels. (Paul does, of course, emphasize the Resurrection, but he doesn't mention the empty tomb.) On the other hand, the Resurrection appearance to more than 500, which Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians, is never mentioned in the Gospels - an extremely odd omission that I find as puzzling as Paul's omission of the historical Jesus.

Paul taught both in writing and orally. He would stay in one place for a few years and teach his disciples everything he knew about Christ. As he was traveling from place to place, he would here that one of the churches he started was having problems. He would write a letter back to them to deal with that problem.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that Paul's writings was all he taught. He did not the virgin birth, Mary, Jesus' teaching, and His miracles. He would not have written about those things in his letters because these things were not part of the controversies in those churches. He would have covered those things when he was teaching them in person.

 

[AvisG]

Mark would be earlier than that. Most scholars agree that the first gospel was the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a template for their gospels. The Acts of the Apostles is sort of sequel to the Gospel of Luke, and since it does not mention Paul's death, it was probably written before 62 AD. So Mark would have written his gospel in the early 50's.

No way on earth is that true. I am very, VERY well-versed on this subject. The vast majority of reputable scholars place Mark after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. If you are reading scholars who date Mark to the early 50's, you need to get out more because this is, figuratively speaking, the lunatic fringe.

 

[AvisG]

I think it would be a mistake to assume that Paul's writings was all he taught. He did not the virgin birth, Mary, Jesus' teaching, and His miracles. He would have covered those things because these things were not part of the controversies in those churches. He would have covered those things when he was teaching them in person.

And you know this how? What we know of what Paul taught is what we have in the NT - and it pretty much omits the historical Jesus. This is the sort of facile explanation that really doesn't fit the facts that I was talking about in the OP. Atheists might call it a "Paul of the gaps" argument - and in this instance they would be correct.

 

[timewerx]

The way the NT is organized, it's quite easy to be lulled into thinking that Paul was writing his epistles against the backdrop of the four Gospels. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. Paul wrote long before the Gospels were written and indeed died long before they were written (i.e., he is believed to have died in 62 AD vs. sometime after 70 AD as an early date for Mark, while some of the epistles are much earlier).

Would have been nice if the NT is Chronologically arranged. It does change the context a bit.

I see no plausible way to explain these things except to conclude that Jesus' ministry was most likely far more localized and obscure than the Gospels suggest and that it was the Resurrection that caused a certain degree of "mythologizing" to develop around the historical figure He actually had been. This is why I always take the position that Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection and pretty much NOTHING else.

True indeed. Why did Jesus spoke in Parables? Why did He only reveal the meaning to the Disciples? Even Jesus said, the Gospel isn't for everyone (like throwing pearls to pigs)

Are WE also supposed to read these in the Bible??

That we should not persist to anyone who will reject the Gospel but give up immediately... (Matthew 10:14)

And finally the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which (thank goodness!) wasn't written in the Bible! But revealed to the Disciples.

The Bible do suggest the obscure nature of the Gospel... People simply didn't know how to handle it.... Just like throwing pearls to pigs.

Back to your topic. It's also possible Paul didn't know everything the other disciples knew, given the obscurity. The other disciples may not be fully trusting Paul.

Another possibility is the simple fact, Paul's epistles are meant for various Gentile cultures. Just to keep things simple and uncomplicated.... NT does mention this and that Paul also adapted his teachings according to audiences. So it's entirely possible, the epistles was never meant for us, unless you're a 2000 year old living gentile born somewhere in Rome.

I don't believe that honestly addressing puzzles such as this is in any way heretical or blasphemous or even something God would discourage. .

True that! Proverbs 14:15

 

[packermann]

No way on earth is that true. I am very, VERY well-versed on this subject. The vast majority of reputable scholars place Mark after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. If you are reading scholars who date Mark to the early 50's, you need to get out more because this is, figuratively speaking, the lunatic fringe.

I admit that my memory from my seminary days is a little faulty. It may be not have been in the 50's. But I still stand behind my argument that Mark wrote his gospel before 70 A.D.

Since you a very well-versed on this subject, you should be able to present arguments for the later Markan date, instead of just saying that most "reputable scholars" date it after the fall of the temple. Most "reputable scholars" would argue that the feeding of the five-thousand was not miracle at all, just Jesus showing the apostles to share their food. Most "reputable scholars" that the first five books of Moses were not written by Moses at all, but by five writers centuries after the parting of the Red Sea. Actually, most "reputable scholars" believe that the Isaelites did not walk through the Red Sea but the Sea of Reeds, a swamp of two feet of water (not much of a miracle to pass through!).

Most scholars have an anti-supernaturalistic bias, so you must be careful of them. The main argument goes that in Mark 13:2 has Jesus prophesying about the destruction of the Temple and that Mark could not have possibly have known that before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.. This argument assumes that Jesus never really prophesied this; Mark only put these words into our Lord's mouth - Jesus could not have possibly known this before it happened!

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74).
When was the Gospel According to Mark Written?

This position assumes the Jesus was just a man, not God, and since He was not God He could not have know the destruction of the Temple before it happened.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am in the lunatic fringe. I believe that Jesus was and is God in the flesh, and He can know of the future destruction of the Temple because He is God - certainly a lunatic fringe belief among most of today's most reputable scholars.

 

[packermann]

And you know this how? What we know of what Paul taught is what we have in the NT - and it pretty much omits the historical Jesus.

Now you seem to be softening your argument. You were not just saying that what we KNOW of what Paul taught is what we have in the NT. You were saying that what we have in the Pauline letters IS all Paul taught! Are you admitting now that Paul COULD have taught more than what is in his letters?

Or do do still hold that Paul only taught what we know he taught? If you still hold to this then I ask you: And you know this how?

This is the sort of facile explanation that really doesn't fit the facts that I was talking about in the OP. Atheists might call it a "Paul of the gaps" argument - and in this instance they would be correct.

That is a non-sequiter. There is no logical connection between a "Paul of the gaps" and "God of the gaps". The "God of the gaps" argument that atheists use on us believers is that they accuse of throwing God as an explanation when science has not found an answer yet. I am not doing this at all! I am not dealing with a scientific issue, so it cannot be an atheistic gaps argument.

Besides, you seem to be saying that the "God of the gaps" is incorrect. I agree. But it seems strange to me that would use a weak atheistic argument to prove your point.

I am only saying that Paul had more to teach than in his writings. And I can base this on his writing itself!

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Paul himself writes here that there is more to his teachings than what were in his letters. That is why he is commanding his readers to also hold fast to what he has taught them by word of mouth. Now, why would Paul tell his readers to hold fast what he has taught orally if all he taught them were in his writings?

 

[packermann]

Would have been nice if the NT is Chronologically arranged. It does change the context a bit.



True indeed. Why did Jesus spoke in Parables? Why did He only reveal the meaning to the Disciples? Even Jesus said, the Gospel isn't for everyone (like throwing pearls to pigs)

Are WE also supposed to read these in the Bible??

I think He did not fully reveal the truth of God's kingdom at that time so that the people would be dependent on the apostles after He is gone. Imagine if He revealed to the populace what He did to the apostles. The people would not feel that they need to submit to the apostles.

That we should not persist to anyone who will reject the Gospel but give up immediately... (Matthew 10:14)

Not sure that is what our Lord meant. Remember, a handful of disciples, were given the mission to preach the gospel to all nations. They did not have the time to spend much time on those who continue to reject the gospel.

And finally the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which (thank goodness!) wasn't written in the Bible! But revealed to the Disciples.

I am not sure about this. It was not revealed to the general public at that time and only to the disciples. But later they were written down. So now we know them. For instance, in Matthew 13:1-23, Jesus gave the parable of the sower. Later on, Jesus explained that to the general public His mysteries are hidden, but are revealed to the disciples. Then Jesus explain it to His disciples, AND THE DISCIPLE MATTHEW WROTE IT DOWN FOR EVERYONE TO READ! Matthew kind of let the cat out the bag! Now everyone knows the the meaning of the parable of the sower! This means to be that the hiddennes of the parables was only temporay, and that the people would have to rely on the apostles for the meaning of the parables.

The Bible do suggest the obscure nature of the Gospel... People simply didn't know how to handle it.... Just like throwing pearls to pigs.

I think that the swine that we should not cast pearls to are to just any people but people who are enemies of the gospel.

Back to your topic. It's also possible Paul didn't know everything the other disciples knew, given the obscurity. The other disciples may not be fully trusting Paul.

Three years after his conversion, Paul stayed with Peter (Cephas) for 15 days (Galatians 1:18). That is a long time to pick someone's brain.

Also, the Jerusalem Council sent Barnabas and Paul to the churches. This shows that the disciples full trusted them. The disciples in Jerusalem said that they were "men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts of the Apostles

Another possibility is the simple fact, Paul's epistles are meant for various Gentile cultures. Just to keep things simple and uncomplicated.... NT does mention this and that Paul also adapted his teachings according to audiences. So it's entirely possible, the epistles was never meant for us, unless you're a 2000 year old living gentile born somewhere in Rome.



True that! Proverbs 14:15

To a certain extent I can agree, but I have seen this mentality abused by liberals. We must be careful. We must always hold to truth being constant. It is unchanging. God is the source of all truth. And since God is unchanging truth is unchanging. Liberal theologians say that we need to accommodate the gospel message to the needs of modern man. So we must get rid of heaven and hell and preach the social gospel.

I am not accusing you of doing this at all. I am just say that we need to be careful.

 

[AvisG]

I write about things I saw, witnessed etc in 1989, I can write accurately about them now in 2019 at 69 years old when back then I was 39 or even write accurately about things of 1979, 40 years ago when I was 29. I don't have to make the things up, I was a witness to them, walked in that time, really my prime.

Sure, I absolutely agree. I happen to be 69 myself. 1989 seems like yesterday. I was not suggesting that the Gospels are not accurate. As I said, the scholarly consensus is that they arise out of eyewitness reports, a carefully preserved oral tradition, and one or more early collections of Jesus' teachings. Nothing wrong with that. The puzzle is why none of this found its way into Paul's epistles.

The Holy Spirit guided the writers, you need to take it up with Him and stop speculating. As to me, I take the word of God as the word of God. You're casting doubt with personal theories. If you don't trust the word it can't speak to you as intended and work in your life. I hope you can get it settled for your own sake.

Paul's message was a different message, it was to be primarily to the gentiles as stated in scripture and his ministry also to churches of the age. The important thing is the gospel, the miracles are secondary at best. So death burial and resurrection are key, it is key, as is the trinity. Without those two doctrines Christianity is no more. While the other guys walked with Jesus, Paul was walking against Him, before his getting knocked to the dirt on the road to Damascus. His conviction towards Christ didn't happen while Christ was on earth, he was too busy rounding new Christians for trial and slaughter.... And you wonder why his perspective was different ? Paul is controversial, that is to say there are always factions contemplating him. But I trust the Holy Spirit guided Him as well as the others to write the truth.

Fair enough, but I disagree that I need to "stop speculating." The omission of the historical Jesus from Paul's epistles (and elsewhere) is a genuine puzzle that cries out for an explanation. Since we will never know, speculation is all we have. Your explanation, which is entirely reasonable, is likewise your speculation. But to chalk up the puzzle to "it's what the Holy Spirit wanted" isn't an explanation that I regard as satisfactory. It seems to me that I have a different view than you do of what it means for the Bible to be the word of God. So when you say, in effect, "I am satisfied that the omission of the historical Jesus from Paul's epistles is explained by the fact that this is the word of God and that what we have is what the Holy Spirit wanted" - well, I can understand your position, but to me what you are saying comes closer to "avoiding" the puzzle than explaining it.

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Welcome to CF.


FWIW ... the CHURCH existed before the Scriptures. The Apostles traveled around establishing Churches and teaching people all they needed to know to continue in the faith, and checked back in on them periodically later.

The epistles are mostly corrective letters to Churches that existed and had operated for some time.

The Bible wasn't meant to be a complete how-to manual. Seeing how it came about organically and within its historic context makes a lot more sense.

 

[AvisG]

I admit that my memory from my seminary days is a little faulty. It may be not have been in the 50's. But I still stand behind my argument that Mark wrote his gospel before 70 A.D.

Since you a very well-versed on this subject, you should be able to present arguments for the later Markan date, instead of just saying that most "reputable scholars" date it after the fall of the temple. Most "reputable scholars" would argue that the feeding of the five-thousand was not miracle at all, just Jesus showing the apostles to share their food. Most "reputable scholars" that the first five books of Moses were not written by Moses at all, but by five writers centuries after the parting of the Red Sea. Actually, most "reputable scholars" believe that the Isaelites did not walk through the Red Sea but the Sea of Reeds, a swamp of two feet of water (not much of a miracle to pass through!).

Most scholars have an anti-supernaturalistic bias, so you must be careful of them. The main argument goes that in Mark 13:2 has Jesus prophesying about the destruction of the Temple and that Mark could not have possibly have known that before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.. This argument assumes that Jesus never really prophesied this; Mark only put these words into our Lord's mouth - Jesus could not have possibly known this before it happened!

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74).
When was the Gospel According to Mark Written?

This position assumes the Jesus was just a man, not God, and since He was not God He could not have know the destruction of the Temple before it happened.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am in the lunatic fringe. I believe that Jesus was and is God in the flesh, and He can know of the future destruction of the Temple because He is God - certainly a lunatic fringe belief among most of today's most reputable scholars.

The dating of Mark would be far off the topic of the thread. Anyone who wants to explore the scholarship on this issue can easily do so.

I don't think it's fair to say that most Bible scholars have an anti-supernaturalistic bias. When I'm talking about the dating of Mark, I'm talking about very mainstream Christian scholars who have absolutely no anti-supernaturalistic bias.

I would agree that most Bible scholars have an "anti-literalistic" bias because in many instances this is simply the most plausible and reasonable interpretation. Most scholars do agree that Moses did not write the first five books of the OT and so forth. I heard no less a scholar than William Lane Craig, who is about as learned and conservative as they get, say recently that "no" mainstream Bible scholar regards the various stories in Genesis as being literally, historically true.

Mark could easily have been written in, say, 75 AD and yet Jesus could have spoken of the destruction of the temple in, say, 32 AD, 68 years in advance of the event. There is no inherent inconsistency. But the fact remains that the scholarly consensus places the date of Mark at between 70 and 80.

If your Christianity hinges on a very literal understanding of the Bible, that's fine. I'm not arguing with you. I'm certainly not suggesting you are part of the lunatic fringe just because you may think Mark was written in the early 50's. From what you now say, my guess is that if you looked into the subject more deeply, you'd agree on a later date for Mark. No big deal one way or the other.

Sort of as a counterpoint to what you say, you also have to be wary of scholars who are driven by a "literalistic" bias. To preserve Jesus "prophesy," they must date Mark to the earliest possible date regardless of what the best evidence shows (and even though an early date for Mark isn't essential to Jesus' prophesy).

As to the miracles, it seems to me that all but the most liberal scholars accept them. If one believes that God created the entire universe - and ex nihilo at that - I don't know why he or she would have any difficulty with any lesser miracle, from the parting of the Red Sea to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.

 

[Dave G.]

Sure, I absolutely agree. I happen to be 69 myself. 1989 seems like yesterday. I was not suggesting that the Gospels are not accurate. As I said, the scholarly consensus is that they arise out of eyewitness reports, a carefully preserved oral tradition, and one or more early collections of Jesus' teachings. Nothing wrong with that. The puzzle is why none of this found its way into Paul's epistles.



Fair enough, but I disagree that I need to "stop speculating." The omission of the historical Jesus from Paul's epistles (and elsewhere) is a genuine puzzle that cries out for an explanation. Since we will never know, speculation is all we have. Your explanation, which is entirely reasonable, is likewise your speculation. But to chalk up the puzzle to "it's what the Holy Spirit wanted" isn't an explanation that I regard as satisfactory. It seems to me that I have a different view than you do of what it means for the Bible to be the word of God. So when you say, in effect, "I am satisfied that the omission of the historical Jesus from Paul's epistles is explained by the fact that this is the word of God and that what we have is what the Holy Spirit wanted" - well, I can understand your position, but to me what you are saying comes closer to "avoiding" the puzzle than explaining it.

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

You're welcome !
Avis ( I assume that's you're name), consider Paul who said it was indeed a mystery But Now Made Manifest, in Romans 16:26 and Colossians 1:26. He speaks of the mystery that had been kept secret to the sons of men since before the foundation of the world but now is made known.. As I mentioned Paul's ministry was/is today a bit of a different calling from Jesus Christ. We get more of the grace and mercy message from him than the others, or more direct text on it at least..

I'm just saying consider it. I know you must be well versed in this but it's always worth a look see when you feel there is a mystery. The apostle Paul has been the source of much confusion among many along the way, starting with the other apostles lol !!

 

[AvisG]

Now you seem to be softening your argument. You were not just saying that what we KNOW of what Paul taught is what we have in the NT. You were saying that what we have in the Pauline letters IS all Paul taught! Are you admitting now that Paul COULD have taught more than what is in his letters?

Or do do still hold that Paul only taught what we know he taught? If you still hold to this then I ask you: And you know this how?

Of course Paul taught much that is not in his epistles. If you thought I was saying otherwise, I just didn't communicate very well. The fact remains, the historical Jesus is curiously missing from all of his writings that we do have.

That is a non-sequiter. There is no logical connection between a "Paul of the gaps" and "God of the gaps". The "God of the gaps" argument that atheists use on us believers is that they accuse of throwing God as an explanation when science has not found an answer yet. I am not doing this at all! I am not dealing with a scientific issue, so it cannot be an atheistic gaps argument.

Besides, you seem to be saying that the "God of the gaps" is incorrect. I agree. But it seems strange to me that would use a weak atheistic argument to prove your point.
I wasn't using the gaps analogy in any technical sense, merely making the point that you were filling in what we can never know about Paul's teaching with speculation that conveniently fits your argument. No big deal. (BTW, the atheists' God-of-the-gaps argument isn't weak when it is properly leveled at believers who do this very thing. It is weak when leveled at something like Intelligent Design, which is quite the opposite of a God-of-the-gaps argument.)

I am only saying that Paul had more to teach than in his writings. And I can base this on his writing itself!

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Paul himself writes here that there is more to his teachings than what were in his letters. That is why he is commanding his readers to also hold fast to what he has taught them by word of mouth. Now, why would Paul tell his readers to hold fast what he has taught orally if all he taught them were in his writings?

Fine, I don't disagree. But the puzzle still remains: Why is the historical Jesus so curiously missing from his epistles?

Thanks to you too for your thoughtful responses!

 

[AvisG]

Welcome to CF.


FWIW ... the CHURCH existed before the Scriptures. The Apostles traveled around establishing Churches and teaching people all they needed to know to continue in the faith, and checked back in on them periodically later.

The epistles are mostly corrective letters to Churches that existed and had operated for some time.

The Bible wasn't meant to be a complete how-to manual. Seeing how it came about organically and within its historic context makes a lot more sense.

I'm pretty well-versed on the history of the early church. The church as such "barely" existed at the time of Paul's early letters, some of which date to less than 20 years after Jesus. Overall, it was a small community of home "churches" (as I'm sure you know). But it grew pretty rapidly. Estimates of the number of Christians by the fall of the temple in 70 AD are all over the map and some are outlandishly high. The four post-70 AD Gospels represent a "formalization" of the life and teachings of Jesus as the church itself took on a more formal structure.

I don't disagree that Paul's epistles are mostly corrective and instructional. But many of Jesus' parables and other teachings would seem directly relevant. So, to me, the puzzle remains: Why is the historical Jesus missing from the epistles?

I'm not suggesting anything sinister or heretical - or at least I'm not intending to. I just believe it's a genuine puzzle worth pondering. The first time I heard someone make this point, which was many years after I had been a Christian, it momentarily stopped me in my tracks.

 

[AvisG]

Avis ( I assume that's you're name)

Actually it's an inside joke between me and my Russian wife that would take too long to explain - but it's certainly my name here!

 

[charsan]

The Bible wasn't meant to be a complete how-to manual. Seeing how it came about organically and within its historic context makes a lot more sense.

Exactly

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm pretty well-versed on the history of the early church. The church as such "barely" existed at the time of Paul's early letters, some of which date to less than 20 years after Jesus. Overall, it was a small community of home "churches" (as I'm sure you know). But it grew pretty rapidly. Estimates of the number of Christians by the fall of the temple in 70 AD are all over the map and some are outlandishly high. The four post-70 AD Gospels represent a "formalization" of the life and teachings of Jesus as the church itself took on a more formal structure.

I don't disagree that Paul's epistles are mostly corrective and instructional. But many of Jesus' parables and other teachings would seem directly relevant. So, to me, the puzzle remains: Why is the historical Jesus missing from the epistles?

I'm not suggesting anything sinister or heretical - or at least I'm not intending to. I just believe it's a genuine puzzle worth pondering. The first time I heard someone make this point, which was many years after I had been a Christian, it momentarily stopped me in my tracks.

But my point is ... what makes you think they weren't telling the parables and other instruction Jesus gave during all those decades before they were written down?

I don't think it's anything sinister either. It's just that Paul wrote more directly from his own instruction. The epistles in general all have a somewhat similar sound in that respect, don't you think?

 

[AvisG]

But my point is ... what makes you think they weren't telling the parables and other instruction Jesus gave during all those decades before they were written down?

I don't think it's anything sinister either. It's just that Paul wrote more directly from his own instruction. The epistles in general all have a somewhat similar sound in that respect, don't you think?

They may well have been. I assume they were. But the fact that the historical Jesus is almost entirely missing from Paul's numerous epistles remains very puzzling. In giving correction and instruction, references to Jesus and his teachings seem so likely and even inevitable that the absence is startling. Paul does make enough references (e.g., "born of a woman") that it's clear he isn't talking about some mythical figure as some claim - but still, the paucity of references is certainly odd. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation along the lines you suggest - it's just puzzling and was startling to me since I had read Paul's epistles many times without ever really noticing it.

 

[FenderTL5]

They may well have been. I assume they were. But the fact that the historical Jesus is almost entirely missing from Paul's numerous epistles remains very puzzling. In giving correction and instruction, references to Jesus and his teachings seem so likely and even inevitable that the absence is startling. Paul does make enough references (e.g., "born of a woman") that it's clear he isn't talking about some mythical figure as some claim - but still, the paucity of references is certainly odd. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation along the lines you suggest - it's just puzzling and was startling to me since I had read Paul's epistles many times without ever really noticing it.

A curious exercise could be to identify the direct references to Christ in Paul's letters.
The one that jumps out in my mind is Paul's comments on the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11)