I grow tired of hearing people repeatedly use Gal. 1.1 and 1.11-12 to suggest that this disproves the historicity of the figure of Jesus. It doesn’t. Why? Because someone can receive revelatory information (be it delusional or hypnotic or otherwise) from formerly historical individuals. Just because Paul felt he received information from revelation does not ipso facto imply that Jesus never existed historically. When people use this as an argument against the historicity of Jesus by itself they only make themselves look bad. Paul does appear to make claims for historicity which must be dealt with before one can claim something like this; but even then one could not make this particular claim in regards to Gal. 1.1 or 1.11-12. Neither of these claims by Paul deal with the function historicity. Paul is dealing with a theological message here; where did he receive his ‘truth’. Now, one might argue that Paul cared little about the function of historicity, but you cannot just cite Galatians and announce ‘QED’ and presume you’ve defeated historical Jesus scholarship.
Posted on October 30, 2011 by Tom Verenna