TedM

Paul's writings are generally considered to span about 45AD to 60AD . Mark is generally considered to have been written between 70-75AD. Paul was writing about issues related to his current churches at the time of writing. He only rarely (and then without much detail) referred to events that created Christianity.

ted

jakejonesiv

In 1 Cor. 15:45, it is written "Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

We have here an appeal to an allegorical intepretation of the creation myth (as in Philo, "De Opificio Mundi") in which "let us make man in our own image" is interpreted as God having assistants in the creation, who none the less share in the divine nature.

The "last Adam" was primordial also. The mythical mud man could not live without the injection of the divine essence from the last Adam who is the "Lord from heaven". The last Adam became a life giving spirit at the same time that the first Adam became a living being.

Jake Jones

Steven Avery

Hi Ted, but if Paul was not placing the events of the life of Jesus in the time of Pilate, (which seemed to be implied above in a distinction), what did Paul consider as the time of the life of the ministry of Jesus. (I disagree on the dating of Mark, but that is not my question here, as we are using the Mark post-dates Paul scenario for discussion).

TedM

If this 'revealed' Jesus lived prior to Pilate, I don't see any indications from Paul as to how many years prior it was. It may be that since the resurrection of Paul's Christians depended on the BELIEF in Jesus' resurrection, it didn't matter how many decades or centuries before Paul that he had lived. Similarly, it may be that the coming of the kingdom depended on the REVELATION of Jesus, and that it too therefore didn't matter how many decades or centuries before Paul that he had lived. Again, this isn't what I believe, it is a counter-argument others might have.

ted

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Ted.

Agreed, for the most part. Yes, Paul could conceivably still be referring to a mythical Jesus, but he appears to be locating this mythical Jesus in the very recent past, not in the distant past or the time of myth. Even so, however, you have to chalk up just the right factors to coincidence (and of course one would be allowed a couple of coincidences) in order to preserve the notion of myth (one would, for example, virtually have to refrain from taking the mention of James as his brother literally).

Your observations are appreciated.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

What do you think? The forties? (Just curious.)

Ben.

Steven Avery

So we are conjecturing that Paul was writing in 50 AD about a revealed or idealized Jesus from ... say 50 BC ... (without any gospel extant despite his quoting and referencing Luke) that Mark picked up on Paul and created a more recent historical scenario, and then Luke tightened up the work of Mark with a more involved historicity and new elements. Do I have that ?

The idealized Jesus from 50 BC had an existing believer and church structure with no cohesive, known Gosepl account to which Paul related. The Gospel accounts came later.

And then Luke, or pseudo-Luke, counterposed Paul's referencing of him by .. referencing him back.

And Peter's letters were written by ? And when ?
And Jude ? Those were all basically post-Gospels ? Unlike Pauls ?

Hope you don't mind.. just trying to make heads or tails of these theories.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

Paul quite clearly identifies the moment when the last Adam became a life-giving spirit with the moment of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15.42-45). He also quite clearly says that the natural Adam came first, and only then did the spiritual Adam come (1 Corinthians 15.46). So my statement stands. The latter Adam must postdate the former Adam in Pauline thought. 1 Corinthians 15.22 also maintains this progression. In Adam all die (present tense); in Christ all will be made alive (future tense).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

It is a lot simpler than that. Luke (real Luke, IMHO) wrote late in century I, including the mission discourse which he picked up from Matthew (and maybe some kind of Q document). Then pseudo-Paul (in the pastoral epistles) referenced Luke. One reference, no back reference.

Ben.

Julian

That gives you a problem regarding 1 Cor. 11:23 unles you adopt my position or say that there was an early tradition, in which case you will have to explain the Didache deviation. :devil3:

Julian