Paul never refers to ‘the disciples’, the term used for Jesus’ inner circle in the later gospels. Instead, he refers to the founders of the cult as ‘apostles’ (literally ‘messengers’). Cephas is described as an apostle, as is Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Paul himself. Paul defines the term more specifically as someone who has been commissioned directly by Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1-2). Evidently he himself was not: he encountered the risen Christ only in his head. He felt this was more than good enough. For Paul it was the only qualification anyone needed to be an apostle. He cites others who had encountered Jesus in the same way:
- 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, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15: 3-8)
What he goes on to say is crucial in understanding the nature of ‘the gospel’ that was in circulation in the years before Mark’s gospel:
- But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them – yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (1 Corinthians 15: 8-11; my emphasis.)
What they preached was their visions of a celestial Saviour. The witness of these visionaries of the risen Christ was the only gospel they knew and, Paul suggests here and elsewhere, the only one that was being transmitted orally when he was active. As we saw last time, he knew no other details of Jesus’ life, had none passed on to him and passed none on to others, except for these visions and the teaching he worked out from them – his ‘revelations’. Let me say that again: the visions of the risen Jesus were all he, Cephas and others knew. Paul says so categorically. There was no other ‘oral tradition’.
Paul builds his subsequent teaching on Jewish scripture, showing how his ‘revelations’ must be from the Christ because they comply with this scripture (even though he has to manipulate it to make it do so: in Romans 9, for example). Nowhere does he say he is referring to any history he has learnt, nor to anything passed on to him orally about Jesus’ teaching, ministry, life or miracles. Just the opposite in fact:
I want you to know… 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 (directly) by revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 1: 11-12).
About seven years after Paul’s death, a literate member of the one of the cult communities – known to us as Mark – decided to set down Paul’s teaching about the Christ in allegorical form. He tells us this is what he is doing several times in his gospel, including Mark 4:11-12:
To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven’” (referencing and misquoting Isaiah 6:9)
Mark did not depend on any oral tradition for his information about Jesus’ life because apart from the ‘announcement’ built on Cephas’, Paul’s and others’ visions there was no oral tradition. Mark took Paul’s teaching and like him, used Jewish scripture as the basis for the story he developed from it. Thus, Paul’s ‘revelation’ of a bread and wine ritual (1 Corinthians 11:23-27) becomes the Last Supper (Mark 4:22-24); Paul’s teaching about forgiveness becomes Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness; Paul’s dispute with Cephas leads to a gospel Peter who is bungling and disloyal; Paul’s mention of The Twelve in 1 Corinthians becomes, with a miscalculation, the disciples; Paul’s instruction to obey the authorities (Roman’s 13:1) becomes Jesus’ (Mark 12:17); Paul’s, and Jewish scriptures’, promise of the spiritually blind (2 Corinthians 4:3-6) being helped to see becomes Jesus’ miracles of healing; Paul’s predictions about the end of the age (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) become Jesus’ (Mark 13); Paul’s talk of the coming of the Christ in person (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11) becomes Jesus’ prophecies about the Son of Man appearing (Mark 14:61); Paul’s vision of the risen Christ becomes the resurrection. And on and on. There is nothing in Mark’s gospel that doesn’t derive from Paul’s teaching, and Jewish scripture in turn. it is, in short, made up.
All of this accounts for the absence of any resurrection appearances in Mark. His gospel ends with the discovery of the allegorical empty tomb and leaves off there because it is where his audience came in, as it were. They had been converted by hearing of the ‘appearances’ of the celestial Christ to Cephas and those Paul lists in 1 Corinthians. They already knew how the story ended or, more accurately, how it had begun: with those visions.
Later, Matthew, Luke and John would take Mark’s allegory and use it as the basis for their gospels, adding new, invented material of their own. The myth, in both the technical and popular sense, was born.
rejectingjesus, 
Excellent summation, Neil and it makes so much sense.
Has this explanation been in circulation long or was it something you arrived at?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems to be a view that’s becoming more prevalent (though it looks like it was first suggested in 1923!) It struck me that if the gospels were written in retrospect, which they undoubtedly were, they had to have sources other than an oral tradition that, as far as we can tell, was merely reports of visions.
I started reading round and found a growing number of scholars arriving at the conclusion, based on internal evidence, that Mark interpreted Paul. He supports this interpretation with Jewish scripture, as indeed Paul does himself.
Carrier provides a good summary here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934# He includes a pretty comprehensive reading list though I feel sure that, despite this Don will assert it’s all a conspiracy of Carrier’s.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you…I shall toddle over and have a squizz.
LikeLike
Excellent overview. Thank you, Neil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil: There is nothing in Mark’s gospel that doesn’t derive from Paul’s teaching, and Jewish scripture in turn. it is, in short, made up.
Well, finally you agree that PAUL’s gospel was robust enough for Mark to build a narrative upon it. (But where is Paul’s emphasis on faith and the Gentiles? Think about the themes in Paul. Wouldn’t they get transferred into Mark? Especially the church. Luke does a better job, but maybe that is because Luke was one of Paul’s traveling companions for several years. ) But I guess that is progress of a sort.
But please explain the voice of Peter in Mark.
I think you would be on much more solid ground if you attributed Mark to Peter rather than Paul. You would at least be in agreement with the post-apostolic fathers such as Papias and Clement.
However, seeing in Mark a prior source is a step in the right direction.
As for your Jesus myth idea, may I recommend Dr. Richard Miller; you and he seem to be on the same page.
LikeLike
Faith: Mark 4:40; 6:6; 9:19; 11:22 etc etc
Gentiles: Jesus travels to Gentile territories where he teaches and heals Gentiles. Mark explains Jewish customs to his audience; his gospel is primarily for them.
Peter’s voice: We’ve covered this. Only you detect it there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Curious –maybe I’ve been away from the scriptures for too long– but why does Paul say “.. that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”? At the time of his writing, where is he getting this information? I don’t recall any Hebrew scriptures (prior to Paul) where it specifically says that a Hebrew man named Yeshua was going to die for the sins of the Jewish people/ What am I missing?
LikeLike
<b>Nan</b>: <em>“…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”?</em>
Hi Nan,
The Hebrew scriptures say no such thing. This is Paul reinterpreting scripture for his needs.
The messiah was to be a Davidic king, gather Israel, conquer their oppressors, and set up a kingdom that would rule the whole world. Jesus did none of that.
So Paul promised Jesus would do all that when he stopped by but in the meantime Jesus replaced the Law including the sin offerings Jews made in the temple to have their sins forgiven. Basically, anything promised by the Law was now given freely by Jesus. No need to follow any of the rules, just believe.
(Parenthetically, Paul never uses terms like “return” or “second coming” concerning Jesus. It’s always “his coming” or some such. Which underscores that Paul may not have known about an Earthly Jesus prior to the promised coming that would happen in Paul’s lifetime.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, looky there! They’ve gone and changed the markup thingies. But I type my comments in a separate editor!
I hate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So essentially, just as I figured, things got all switched around over the years until –VOILA– we have the “Christian” interpretation that exists today. And since most believers DO NOT READ the scriptures but rather take it by word-of-mouth from their leaders (and others who THINK they know) … well, need I say more?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Isaiah 53:8 He was led away after an unjust trial—but who even cared?Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.
Daniel 9:26 Now after the sixty-two weeks,an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.As for the city and the sanctuary,the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
Both passages speak of the death of Messiah. Daniel even uses the word Messiah (anointed one).
LikeLike
Wow, amazing! Jesus fulfilled these prophecies!
Or was it that a story was built from them, and others like them, centuries later? Yes, that’s it. Gospel Jesus was created from passages like these.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Where does it mention Yeshua? Or even “Christ” in these passages? As with most believers, you are seeing the scriptures through the eyes of those who “interpreted” it to mean Jesus. Of course, in essence, this is the crux of the entire gospel story. People see what they want to see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[Again, my reply buttons are missing so I’m posting on the main level.]
Don sez:
Isaiah 53:8 . . .
Daniel 9:26 . . .
Both passages speak of the death of Messiah. Daniel even uses the word Messiah (anointed one).
Okay. Let’s start with ‘messiah’ (transliterated Hebrew), in transliterated greek ‘christ,’ and English ‘anointed.’ Generally, messiah refers to anyone who is anointed by pouring oil on them. In Hebrew culture this is a king, priest or high priest. Traditionally, for kings the oil is poured on their heads in a circle representing a crown and for priests in an X (I don’t know what this represents).
Chronologically in the Hebrew bible, for most of the record, messiah is used to refer to specific priests or kings. Late prophecies begin being made of future messiahs – a messiah will do this and a messiah will do that. Very late prophecies begin to speak of a specific messiah – the Messiah.
It’s interesting that Don says of Daniel 9:26 that “Daniel even uses the word Messiah (anointed one).” Using the capital M to indicated the Messiah. But this verse specifically (grammatically) refers to ‘a messiah.’ This is one way Christian translations of the Bible lie about the meaning of the text – a messiah often becomes the messiah. Similar to (also in Daniel) the angel that appears in the den of lions in the text is referred to as one “like a son of God” – son of God being a term used at the time for angels and messengers of God. Christian translations often (always?) render this “like the Son of God” changing a to the and capitalizing Son to infer it was Jesus himself playing here kitty kitty with the lions.
Since we’re talking about being anointed, let’s look at Jesus the Anointed. Jewish tradition holds that Moses mixed up a batch of anointing oil and that batch was sufficient to anoint every king and priest that ever was since Moses until the oil was hidden up someplace to be used again when the Jews start having priests and kings again. Yet, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus ever anointed with this very specific oil. Paul tells us that Jesus became Christ after the resurrection. Maybe there was a celestial anointing that didn’t make it into the actual text. Of course, the easy answer is to say because he was God he didn’t need an anointing. But then why call him anointed. It’s probably like “they shall call him Emmanuel” but instead they call him Joshua. Anyway. . .
On to Isaiah 53. Written by 2nd Isaiah during the Babylonian captivity, Isaiah 53 uses the suffering servant theme as it is always used in Isaiah – to refer to the people of Israel. As Berachot: 5a in the Talmud says:
‘So too, Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness.
‘I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly.’
Reread Isaiah 52-53 with the Jewish idea that God punishes the righteous to prove them and that the suffering servant is the people of Israel. It is not about the messiah or even a messiah. It is about Israel, the suffering servant, being beaten down by the Babylonian captivity. Israel the nation is dead, but Israel the people lives on.
Again, this is an example of Christians going back and re-interpreting the Hebrew scriptures to mean what they want them to mean rather than what they were written to say. That’s the beauty of allegory, metaphor, and parable – it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
LikeLiked by 2 people
After making my post yesterday, I’ve been thinking of Josephus’ passage on James: “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”
Why the phrase “who was called Christ?” Was Josephus telling us this Jesus was never actually anointed?
LikeLike
Okay. My mistake.
Rereading my post from yesterday and I see the bit in Daniel and the “son of God” and realize I meant “son of man.”
Checking on it, I see I’ve got the passage wrong all together. I remembered it in the lion’s den and that is an angel in the text. The “son of man” bit is in Daniel’s vision in the next chapter:
“13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.” (KJV)
Here the KJV changes “a” to “the” and capitalizes “Son” to imply this is Jesus where the original text is “one like a son of man” a phrase for angel or messenger.
Sorry. It’s getting longer and longer since I’ve read the book and need to check my recollections when I post.
My point stands. I just put it in the wrong story.
LikeLike
Thank you for your long reply. I will not address all the issues. Neil tires of that.
But…
Kos: But this verse specifically (grammatically) refers to ‘a messiah.’
Hebrew and Greek have no indefinite articles. Thyey may be translated into English with the indefinite “a” which implies one of many OR they may be translated with a capital if the context implies the word is a title or name. The passage in Daniel is one of the places that the context implies a particular Messiah and it should be understood as either a title or name. The NIV supplies a definite article for that reason.
The Essenes understood it that way as well. Danile was a favorite book or the Qumran community and they expected a preacher of righteousness A.K.a. messiah based partly upon Daniel 9:26.
“Lion’s den .Maybe you are referring to the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace. Daniel 3:25. The Aramaic there is likewise without a definite article.
But it hardly matters whether it is THE Son of God or an angel. The angel of the Lord in the OT is not always distinguishable from God. Though I have never heard the interpretation that the Son of God is meant in Daniel. How would Nebuchadnezzar know in any event?
The suffering servant. If you’ll go back a few chapters, you’ll find that Cyrus is called the servant. If you continue reading from that point, Israel is certainty also identified as the servant, though not always up to the job. But there is a change in chapter 52.
Starting in verse 6 and 7 there is a shift from speaking of the suffering servant Israel to a servant who will “deliver” Israel.
In verse 52:15 that servant is described as succeeding in his deliverance of Israel. Through chapter 53 Isaiah explains how he will deliver Israel.
The Torah (written years later and often written as a polemic against the Jewish Christians) may consider the servants to be the same. But that is not the last word from Jews who knew the scripture. Paul quotes Isaiah 53 in Romans 10:16 and refers to the feet of those who bring good news in Romans 10:14. Now if you recall, Paul was a well taught Jewish Pharisee who knew the OT well. But there are other JEWS in the NT who quote from Isa. 53 as well. See The Seven New Testament Quotations of Isaiah 53 – Robert F. Wall (biblecentre.org)
LikeLike
@Don
I am going out on a limb here, seeing as you like to cite Isaiah.
You probably think 7:14 is a reference to the Virgin Birth, yes?
LikeLike
You ignore the fact that ALL of the disciples/Apostles were Jews. And well taught Jews at that. They and thousands of Jews in the first decades of the church were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. The question is which Jews got it right? The early followers of the Nazarene make a far better case than those who thought otherwise.
You are welcome to differ, of course, But you’ll have to make a better case than those who basically were fussed because Jesus rattled their world. As apparently he is rattling your world.
LikeLike
don:
“But that is not the last word from Jews who knew the scripture.”
Correct, the last word from the Jews who knew the scripture, is that jesus is NOT the messiah!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Don.
As usual, your reply skirts around any sort of straightforward reply.
interesting you appear ignorant of the true intent of 7:14 and accept the spurious nonsense interpretation Christian apologists like to bandy around.
Or aare you simply being disingenuous, I wonder?
I suppose you also support the ‘dual prophecy’ waffle much loved by those apologists when the correct details of 7:14 are pointed out?
LikeLike
I do think that some prophecies have a near and a far fulfillment. I am not sure why that would bother you any more than a single fulfillment. You don’t believe in any kind of fulfillment.
But prophecy as I discussed it sometime ago comes in various types. In addition to prophecy proper there are foreshadowing, types, signs and symbols, and promises.
In regard to Isaiah 7:14, I first ask why Matthew identified it as a prophecy. He knew as well as anyone the primary meaning of the word young women.
But there are the several meanings of the word both in Hebrew and Greek in the LXX. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has:
1.a virgin: Matthew 1:23 (from Isaiah 7:14); ; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 7:25, 28, 33() (from Homer down; the Sept. chiefly for בְּתוּלָה, several times for נַעֲרָה; twice for עַלמָה i. e. either a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman,
Brown-Driver-Briggsעַלְמָה noun feminine young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married); — ׳ע Genesis 24:43 (J), Exodus 2:8 (E), Proverbs 30:19; Isaiah 7:14; plural עֲלָמוֺת Psalm 68:26; Songs 1:3; Songs 6:8; עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת to (the voice of) young women, either literally, or of soprano or falsetto of boys: 1 Chronicles 15:20; Psalm 9:1 (read עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת לַבֵּן [for עַלמֿוּת לַבֵּן], ‘voce virginea a pueris decantandum,’ Thes), Psalm 46:1; Psalm 48:15 (read עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת [for עַלמֿוּת]; translated probably to Psalm 49:1).
The BDB is the standard and respected Hebrew lexicon. It is not influenced by the uses in the New Testament. Note the passages used from the OT for determining the definition.
[You do know how lexicons and dictionaries are compiled, right? The editors examine the various uses in texts and determine what the word mean. The definition is not imposed upon the word. ]
So, the word in Hebrew and the LXX had a pool of meaning that did include virgin.
Seeing Isa. 7:14 as foreshadowing a distant fulfillment is probably what Matthew had in mind. But the virgin birth was not based on the prophecy. It was based on verse 20 and the message of the angel. Matthew simply found a hidden foreshadowing of it in the prophecy regarding Isaiah’s wife. So, the Bible teaches the virgin birth with or without Isa. 7:14.
See also Luke 1:34, 35
LikeLike
One of your most contrived and boring responses yet.
‘In addition to prophecy proper there are foreshadowing, types, signs and symbols, and promises.’ Metaphor, in other words, that you have only recently attempted to downplay. The OT is full of it, yet you insist the gospels are not. Special pleading, Don.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is nice to have to carry around just one basket. (Metaphor)
LikeLike
Metaphor for what, Don? I’m convinced you don’t know what a metaphor is. I’ll take a stab at it: the ‘one basket’ is my observation that because the books preceding the gospels are metaphorical and much of those following them are (Paul’s heavenly Messiah, John’s Revelation, etc,) then it’s likely the gospels are too.
You’ve already conceded they ‘contain’ a good deal of metaphor, and have failed to enlighten us about how we might distinguish metaphor from fact. You haven’t, in short, demonstrated the gospels are anything other than symbolic.
One basket indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Either your ignorance is profound or you are being as disingenuous as fuck.
This has nothing to do with whether I accept prophecy or not or the word almah, but the fact of for whom the prophecy was intended, and it sure as Gehenna wasn’t for the character Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLiked by 1 person