rationalskepticism.org

proudfootz wrote:The 'high context' gambit doesn't really work as there appears to be many situations represented in the epistolary record where it would not only be appropriate to mention some supposed word or deed of Jesus, but the episode would be the trump card that would have settled the debate.

This has been addressed before on this thread, which I suppose is one reason why the thread is so long, since the same points get raised again and again.

There is a logic problem to that argument. "It is in the Gospel, but it is not in Paul." This doesn't really tell us much about Paul, unless we already know that the Gospel event/saying actually occurred. The argument may work against apologists who assume ALL the Gospels are accurate. But mainstream scholarship does not take this position. As I write in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" several years ago:

A final example: Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early letters. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and that “critical scholarship... has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty finds significance in Gospel details that are missing in Paul:


The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)
I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?

proudfootz, can you give me an example of something that Jesus said or did in the Gospels that really happened (at least according to mainstream scholarship), such that Paul should have mentioned it?

proudfootz wrote:This is why it seems likely that the gospel tales were unknown to the authors who were supposedly hob-nobbing with Jesus's earthly intimates and converting multitudes all over the Empire to their newly-minted religion for the first time.

If using Paul's letters, then the problem is that many consider them as "occasional" letters. That is, Paul wrote them to address issues that had arisen in mostly gentile communities. Now, the logic here is that if some deed or saying by Jesus gives a "slam dunk" case for or against an issue "in places where they would naturally come to mind", then surely we wouldn't expect it to be an issue that Paul needed to address in the first place? In other words if Paul addresses issues that have arisen, then more than likely they are issues that were NOT addressed by known deeds or sayings of Jesus.

Again, probably best to discuss actual examples. If you have any, let's discuss!