DCHindley

Maybe so, but I think this assumes something that cannot be proved either.

If I understand what S&H wants to do, he is looking for a baseline of statements about Christ's nature in an undisputed core of letters. This assumes that the christology expressed in these letters reflects the christology of the author. By extension, it can then be assumed that the christology of the other (disputed) letters will reflect the beliefs of the pseudepigraphic writers. Making these assumptions, I would expect the christology expressed in letters of a later age (the disputed letters, especially the pastorals) to be more developed than that in the earlier (undisputed) letters.

What I wanted to suggest to S&H was that one might not see that kind of expected development of christological ideas if one checks the statements across the entire corpus of letters.

Segregation of the letters between undisputed and disputed is usually based on their relative vocabulary and characteristics of grammar. I am admittedly no grammatical expert, but if I am on to something, these differences may be due to the christological redactions more than anything.

The non-christological materials (as I understand them) make one and only one theological statement: that gentiles who have faith in the God of the Jews have a right to be included among the Jewish people, without having to become circumcised, because Abraham was justified before God on the basis of his faith before he circumcised himself etc. The only agenda appeared to be a campaign to open up the definition of what made someone a "Jew" to include these faithful gentiles.

I suspect, but still have to confirm, that any differences in vocabulary are minor and probably related to differences that might be expected between letters directed to folks with whom the author had no (Romans) or formal relationships with (community founder), meant to inform and sometimes persuade them of the reasoning and limits and responsibilities inherent in his agenda, and those personal letters directed to his intimate associates (Timothy and Titus) meant to encourage them and give advice.

If ALL of the christological statements are by the hands of one or more redactors, and this is in fact where we see the most diversity of theology, then the best we can do is to document them, and by assistance of hypotheses related to how the Pauline corpus and NT cannon formed (such as those proposed by David Trobisch), try to track the development of the christological statements over time as various collections of books attributed to Paul were acquired and "adapted" for use by the redactor's or redactors' community or communities.

All that being said, I do realize that I am arguing that there may be progressions of christological ideas between undisputed and disputed letters in either way of looking at the problem. When I say that "one might not see that kind of expected development of christological ideas if one checks the statements across the entire corpus of letters" I mean that each view makes certain assumptions about the sources and development, but that each view assigns a different degree of significance to these differences, based on whether they are determined by the totality of each letter versus whether they are found in the christological or non-christological materials within each letter.

DCH

DCHindley

Thanks Neil,

I'll be looking into that.

DCH

DCHindley

MM,

Anytime you find a correlation between any two sets of documents (christology of the Pauline corpus and that of Cyril of Alexandria, ca. 378 - 444 CE) one has to grapple with the fact that there are always four possibilities for any possible relationship between them.

1) A > B (B was influenced by A, but not necessarily A alone),
2) A < B (A was influenced by B, but not necessarily B alone),
3) (A & B) < C (A and B were both influenced by outside source(s) C), and
4) the similarities between A & B are simple coincidence.

We can probably rule out option #4 above.

I think you will find the christology of Cyril of Alexandria to be much more highly developed than what that we find in Paul or the rest of the NT. As I mentioned to MM in a recent post in this thread, it is more natural to assume that christological ideas will develop from simpler to more refined over time. As simpler ideas encounter new circumstances that challenge their application, more sophisticated solutions are devised to preserve the essence of the old idea, but adapt it to new circumstances.

Given the unequal level of sophistication between the christology of Paul or the NT in general ("A"), and Cyril of Alexandria ("B"), that pretty much eliminates #2 and reduces the likelihood of #3 (the option closest to your position, I think, with a common source in the early to mid 4th century). That leaves #1.

DCH

spamandham

Not exactly. I want to identify all such statements in regard to the humanity of Jesus specifically, things like 'born of a woman', but then also analyze their fidelity. I've located several such statements that are disputed by respected scholars as being later additions (see link in OP) - enough so that it made me start to wonder if all such statements are later additions.

aa5874

But, already your hypotheses are flawed since you have assumed some-one called Paul wrote epistles. Again, if no-one called Paul actually wrote any of the epistles, then your hypotheses has already failed. And, if the all epistles were not actually written in the time zone assumed then, again, your hypotheses will produce erroneous results.

Your methodologies do NOT cater for wholesale fraud, where the Pauline letters were fabricated by certain individuals to distort the history of Jesus believers.

So, if the Pauline Epistles were actually fabricated to distort history, then you have facilitated the conspirators by making the assumptions that they intended the readers to make, that Paul was a real person and he did write epistles in the time zone they have allocated.

I have made no pre-assumptions about Paul's existence, what he wrote or when he wrote. My conclusions about the authors of the Epistles are based on the information that is available today.

Quickly, Eusebius the man resposible for the canonisation of the present NT, in Church History claimed Paul was aware of a person called Luke and knew Luke wrote a Gospel. Eusebius claimed Paul referred to the Gospel of Luke as "my Gospel".

Eusebius in Church History claimed that Paul died during the time of Nero, sometime before or around 68 CE.

Now, biblical scholars claim that the Gospel of Luke was written long after the time of Nero, in fact, scholars accept or agree that all the Gospels including Acts of the Apostles were written after the time of Nero or the death of Paul.

My conclusion, based on the available evidence or information, is that the authors of the Epistles wrote after the time of Nero and their real names do not include the name "Paul".

My positions are based on available information not on pre-assumptions.

DCHindley

Sorry, I was not familiar with the thread this was posted in. I'm not a Doherty or Price fan.

If you were to ask me, most of these "respected scholars" are looking for excuses to negate the Christian message out of personal dislike for it. I am no friend of it either, but am cautious of comments by either side of the belief spectrum that conveniently "explain away" problems with the texts.

DCH

DCHindley

But, already your hypothesis is flawed since you have assumed Eusebius could not simply be wrong about who wrote the gospels and Acts, or when, or that Paul was referring to "Luke's" gospel as "my gospel". Because of this, your hypotheses will produce erroneous results.

Christianity has never had very good knowledge of its own origins: The gospel accounts of Jesus' birth and death either do not date these events precisely or provide details that contradict other historical accounts from non-christian writers. Early Christians weren't sure whether Judas hung himself dramatically in a potter's field or burst asunder when struck by a hit-and-run chariot in an alley. They cannot date the year Paul died, or decide whether he died in Rome or "in the extremes of the west" presumably in exile in Hispania. They could not decide whether Peter was killed with Paul in Rome or not, or whether one or the other was beheaded rather than crucified. James the Just's prayer just before his head is bashed in by the fuller's club, as told by Hegesippus, happens to be the exact same one said by Stephen in Acts, almost as if Hegesippus didn't even know of the Acts story or considered it so lightly as a source that he could transfer the prayer from a lesser known figure (Stephen) to a greater known one (James). Jesus' relatives were "known" to have led a Jewish faction of the Jesus movement into the time of Trajan, and some authors can even cite the names of the bishops of Jerusalem after James, but they know jack shit about their teachings, what writings they held authoritative, etc. Numerous churches, even as far away as Edessa, claim the same apostle or disciple as their founder, even when we cannot imagine how they could have got there to found them.

If one were to ask me, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hegesippus, Julius Africanus, et al, "reconstructed" their unknown past as they imagined it to have been. Sort of what modern historians do today.

DCH

andrewcriddle

Actually James' prayer according to Hegesippus is closer to that of Jesus in most manuscripts of Luke 23:34 than it is to Stephen's in Acts.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

No, not at all. I have not assumed that Eusebius could not be wrong. I have FOUND out through research that Eusebius wrote FICTION, and is not credible. I am indeed very wary of Eusebius, but in any event, his writings are extremely important and can be helpful in unravelling the true history of Jesus believers, the history of which he himself seems to have distorted.

And as you said, Eusebius reconstructed the past, this is also my conclusion.



I agree with your 100%.

That is why I do not use the comparative method for the Pauline Epistles to check for authenticity because I think that those epistles were all fabricated to distort and to reconstruct the past.





[

mountainman

But what if Eusebius was sponsored to invent the history of Jesus? What evidence is there of Jesus or NT or christianity which is independent of and earlier than Eusebius writing merrily in his tax-exempt status in the fourth century under Constantine? I have looked for unambiguous citations to such in both the literature and in the monumental evidence such as epigraphy and the papyri but have not found anything which is entirely unambiguously "Jesus or NT or christian" before the 4th century.



Best wishes,


Pete