In this post, I continue to look at the article “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories” written by Raphael Lataster. I am not going to comment on everything he says but there are certain things I would like to respond to.
In this post, I look at his critique of Paul’s epistles as evidence for the historical Jesus. This are, I argue frequently, important historical texts for understanding the historical Jesus. Lataster disagrees.
Paul may have met James and Peter, but never claims them as sources. Given that he also never claims to have received this information from anyone who may have witnessed the events of Jesus’ life (potentially eliminating the possibility of primary sources), his status even as a reliable secondary source is questionable. Either Paul is indeed speaking straight from the Old Testament and from supernatural sources as he claims (leaving open the possibility of non-literal accounts), or he does utilize other sources and is simply not being truthful. Either way, the credibility of his work is very much compromised. In any case, it is agreed by Jesus historicists and mythicists that the Pauline Epistles have very little to say about Jesus’ teachings and deeds.
Part of Lataster’s argument is that Paul explicitly states that he did not get any information about Jesus from any human sources. He combines Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in such a way that is a bit deceptive. Let’s take them one at a time.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)
Paul is not claiming, contra Lataster, that he has never received any information about Jesus from other people. That would be impossible since he interacted with people who had been disciples and apostles before him. What he claims is that his “gospel” came from Jesus directly.
I can understand how this would be confusing. We call the four ancient biographies of Jesus “Gospels.” But that is a later title given to the genre. The gospel was not a life of Jesus but a description of how one could be saved. For example, in Mark 1 we are told Jesus preached a gospel, but that is not about giving details of his life, it is the message of the coming kingdom.
It is perfectly reasonable Paul could claim that his gospel came from Jesus and that over time he learned details about the life of Jesus from those who knew him. In fact, Lataster has unwittingly pointed us in that direction. The passage he combines with Galatians comes from 1 Corinthians 15.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
Lataster uses this with the Galatians passage to show that the only two sources that Paul had was a vision (if that is what it was) and Scripture. But those are not the only sources and Lataster has helped point the way.
When Paul says “For what I received,” he does not mean what he saw in a vision but rather the tradition that he received from others and that he was passing on to others. Scholars are almost universally agreed that 1 Corinthians 15:3b-7 was not written by Paul but was an earlier tradition or hymn that he was citing.
It is interesting that Lataster quotes approvingly from atheist biblical scholar Gerd Ludemann throughout his article. What does Ludemann think of this passage in 1 Corinthians 15?
“…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
Doesn’t this contradict what Paul claimed in Galatians? No! Paul is stating that the nature of the gospel message, how one is reconciled to God through Christ, came directly from Jesus. Paul never claims that he has never learned information from the apostles or others.
In Galatians 2, Paul acknowledges that he spoke with Cephas (Peter), John, and James (brother of Jesus). He wanted to make sure that they were all on the same page. They agreed they were preaching the same gospel and that Cephas would preach to the Jews while Paul would preach to the Gentiles.
Lataster claims that Paul only had two sources: a vision and Scripture. Obviously he doesn’t believe that Paul had a real vision of Jesus. Where did he get his understanding of Jesus from then? Personal imagination and personal biblical interpretation? Then why does Paul’s understanding of Jesus fit with what the rest of the disciples were saying? Even if Paul lied about the agreement in Galatians 2, Paul’s letters fit, not only with the Gospels, but with the other non-Pauline writings. They are similar enough to be preaching the same Jesus but different enough to not be derivative.
This leaves us with Lataster’s rehearsal of the popular claim that Paul never speaks of the historical Jesus and only refers to the spiritual Christ in heaven. That is simply false. To answer that, I will point you to my own article: Paul and the Historical Jesus: A Case Study in First Corinthians.
