My argument is that this is unsupported as Paul seems to be doing the exact same thing and we know he never claims to have seen the historical Jesus. it is not clear how you are distinguishing these two identical claims.My point is that Peter can build his authority on having seen Jesus only in a time when the Gospel Jesus has been introduced.
- Peter talks about seeing Jesus while Paul talks about seeing the risen Jesus. With Paul we are more sure that he is building his authority only on visions. With Peter it is less probable.
- Peter compares himself with his readers (common Christians). Paul compares himself only with the Pillars. With Paul we are more sure that he is building his authority only on visions. With Peter it is less probable.
On the traditional dating (epistles before, Gospels after), I continue to see some passages in Paul as anti-marcionite interpolations (in primis "born by woman"). The verdict is mythicist in virtue of this reason:
Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html
La crucifixion est celle d'un être surnaturel exécutée par des êtres surnaturels. Coup également décisif contre l'historicité. M. Loisy objecte que, dans la pensée de Paul, les Princes de cet Age ont pu agir par des intermédiaires humains. Supposition qui n'a aucun appui dans le texte. Si, dans l'Évangile de Judas, Satan agit par Judas, c'est que toute une représentation nouvelle s'est substituée à celle de Paul. Le rôle de Satan subsiste comme un témoin du thème original. Dans l'Ascension d'Isaïe le thème original a été conservé: ce sont bien Satan et les autres Princes qui crucifient directement Jésus.
Jésus dieu ou homme ?
In la Nrf , Paris 1939, my bold
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Sat Jun 15, 2024 8:26 pm