Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: Loren Rosson's August 15 note concerning the C-P debate concerning Earl
Doherty's argument that there was *no* historical Jesus:

> I'm not sure why this issue is being obsessed on
> C-P (touchy tempers notwithstanding). Unless this is
> brought to bear on Pauline matters, it seems more
> appropriate for a list like XTalk.

My reply to Loren is: To assume, as Loren does here, that whether Jesus
actually existed or not, makes no difference to a correct understanding of
Paul, is obviously to make a grossly false assumption, for the following
obvious reason:

If Jesus did not exist (as Doherty, et al, allege), then a correct
understanding of Paul would be so much affected by that fact, that it would
have to be *based* upon that fact.

If, on the other hand, Jesus did exist and Paul perpetrated a coup d'etat
against his religious organization after Jesus' death and replaced that
organization with an entirely new religion (as I allege), then a correct
understanding of Paul would be so much affected by that fact, that it would
have to be *based* upon that fact.

If, on the other hand, Jesus did exist and Paul was one of his authentic
followers/proponents (as the Christian mainstream alleges), then a correct
understanding of Paul would be (and is) so much affected by that fact, that
it would have to be (as it, in fact, is) *based* upon that fact.

Q.E.D.: *Whatever* the truthful answer to this central question is, is of
profoundly fundamental relevance and importance to Pauline studies,
notwithstanding Loren's false assumption to the contrary.

And also therefore, Loren's reference to "touchy tempers" as being the basis
for the C-P debate about this issue, is also false.

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net