Toto

I think you got the wrong link again - that is the home page for earlychristianwritings.com.

Remember, you have to prove that Paul's letters were written in the mid-1st c. and not interpolated or messed with, if you want to use them to prove that there were Christians around before that time.

But in the first of Peter Kirby's articles on Thessalonians , he reports a date estimated at 50-51 and discusses scholarly contentions that various parts had been interpolated, just because they do not fit what those scholars think Paul would have said.

Still a pretty high bluster to fact ratio, Ev.

Toto

Except that there is no evidence for this.

Why is it absurd, except you don't want to believe it?

Where else would you look?

GakuseiDon

Actually, it's worse than that. The Flaccus events took place in 38 CE, so happens after the death of Jesus (assuming He died between 26 CE and 36 CE).

Thus, the Mockery and Flaccus's treatment of the Jews may have well been influenced by the Jesus story.

Evangelion

Nope.

Well, duh. And it lists the dates for the Pauline letters (as previously mentioned.)

Mr Kirby's material does that quite nicely, thankyou.

The consistency of the textual evidence militates against interpolation. If you wish to prove otherwise, feel free to go right ahead.

In the meantime, don't bother asking me to prove a negative. I have a tendency to ignore illogical proposals.

That would be I Thessalonians, of which he says:

• The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.

Nice try, though.

50-51 suits me just fine.

Again, from Mr Kirby:

• The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.

Clearly, the "interpolation" arguments simply don't carry enough weight in this case.

Still a pretty high bluster to fact ratio on your part, Toto.

Vorkosigan

Don, the PN is a fiction drawn from many sources -- the OT, and others. As Crossan writes:

• The second reason is positive, for the position of prophecy historicized. The individual units, general sequences, and overall frames of the passion-resurrection stories are so linked to prophetic fulfillment that the removal of such fulfillment leaves nothing but the barest facts, almost as in Josephus, Tacitus, or the Apostles' Creed. By individual units I mean such items as these: the lots cast and garments divided from Psalm 22:18, the darkness at noon from Amos 8:9; the gall and vinegar drink from Psalm 69:21. By general sequences I mean such items as these: the Mount of Olives situation from 2 Samuel 15-17; the trial collaboration from Psalm 2; the abuse description from the Day of Atonement Ritual in Leviticus 16. By overall frames I mean the narrative genre of innocence vindicated, righteousness redeemed, and virtue rewarded. In other words, on all three narrative levels -- surface, intermediate, and deep -- biblical models and scriptural precedents have controlled the story to the point that without them nothing is left but the brutal fact of crucifixion itself.

John J. Collins (a Christian) says in his study of Jewish messianism The Scepter and the Star that

• Psalm 22 was especially important in the shaping of the Passion Narratives. The Christian use of these psalms involved a new line of interpretation, however, for which there was no precedent in Judaism.

Theissen and Merz, who are avowedly pro-historicist Christians, nevertheless concede the power of the prophecy historicized argument. On page 107 of The Historical Jesus, they list some of the prophecy historicized insights, noting that "Psalm 22 runs through the passion narrative." They are attempting to refute this hypothesis for the whole PN (they do not, however, adduce any argument) but even though they are on a mission to refute the skeptics, they must confess that the PN and the OT are closely related. Even where they attempt to decisively rebut it, they still must concede to it: after arguing that the Crucifixion must have occurred because it is a scandalous fact, they state "So we cannot draw conclusions for the whole of the Jesus tradition from the indisputably productive power of the proof from scripture.

In other words, across the spectrum, everyone agrees that the PN is based on the OT. That is why the search for parallels goes on.

You might want to argue that Jesus attempted to live his life by OT prophecy, but this leaves us with only a couple of choices. Either (1) the Jew Jesus attempted to live his death in harmony with OT verses that nobody else had ever considered messianic before, or (2)somebody constructed his death from them. The problem with the former is that much of Jesus' death was largely out of his control. For example, the casting of lots is taken from an OT verse, but there is no way Jesus leaned down from the cross and said to the Roman soldiers: "Would you guys mind drawing lots for my clothes? It's a bible thing I have to do. Thanks a bunch." Since the use of the OT runs through events Jesus both could control and could not control, it follows that Jesus could not have lived his life in accordance with some maverick interpretation of the scriptures, so we must reject (1) above. That leaves (2).

Because the OT is a fiction, your suggestion that Philo borrowed from a fictional event whose story had not yet been written cannot be supported.

Vorkosigan

the_cave

There's no evidence to my knowledge that they were buddies, either. I find no reason to assume either. I don't really have much invested in it, though, I'm just pointing out that it could well be the case that they were, without there being any evidence for it. (Unless, of course, the passion narrative is the evidence for it. Note that I'm not arguing this.)

Quote:

Why is it absurd, except you don't want to believe it?

I didn't say it was absurd, I merely meant to imply that one could reason to absurd conclusions using that line of thought. Again, heavens, it matters little to me what Herod and Pilate's attitudes were towards one another. What I do find difficult to believe is that the passion narrative is just a modified version of Flaccus. I don't find it difficult to believe that there could possibly be some influence going on, but again, there could be many scenarios for this influence, as I described previously, and I have no way to choose among them.

Quote:

Where else would you look?

Nowhere--that's just it. I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to prove anything one way or the other. I am plausibly convinced that the gospels have a historical kernel, and I realize that others, looking at the same evidence, will reason to different conclusions. There's really nothing either one of us can do about it.

Toto

Hey Ev - does Peter Kirby know that you are misusing his site that way?

Do you think I can't read? Peter does an excellent job of summarizing scholarly opinion. This is not proof. Ask him.

From I Thessalonians :

So here we have a scholarly statement that deduces an interpolation in one of Paul's letters based on an inconsistency with the rest of Paul's writings. And that's just right off the bat, first example, without even looking. If you think that there is proof in that site that Paul's letters were all written as we now know them, you haven't read the site.

Toto

The argument is not that Mark copied the story from Philo. The argument is that he copied certain elements, along with working in themes from the Hebrew scriptures, and that all of his themes can be found in earlier writings.

The import of this is that conservative Christians use the criterion of embarrassment to argue for the historicity of various elements of the gospels. But many of these "embarrassing" elements can be explained as borrowings from Philo. So there is no basis left for claiming any history in the gospels.

For example, it is argued that Judas must have been historical, because no one would make up a betrayer (as if no author ever writes a villain into the script ). Even Crossan argues that there was some historical person behind Judas. But when you see that Judas has certain key elements in common with Flaccus, that Flaccus was a betrayer who repented at the end of Philo's story and died with a lot of blood, you have no reason left to claim any historical basis for Judas.

But I'm glad you think there could be some influence.

Peter Kirby

My site has not proven that Paul wrote any letter now extant.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Ahem.