MrMacSon

if you mean ongoing serial 'revelation' by subsequent generations revisiting, rewriting and re-inventing scripture (the Septuagint, etc), I agree.

if you mean "emotional, volatile minds" - plural = in an apocalyptic, messianic age, I also agree.

Though, I tend to think the writings attributed to Paul are a compilation of edited & collated writings by several people.

Thanks for engaging, Earl.

MrMacSon

That seems, to me, to be the most plausible and parsimonious explanation.

EarlDoherty

What is that "evidence"? Simply that certain 2nd century writers know of the Gospel story and yet seem to know nothing of Paul? That is hardly conclusive, and next to nothing on which to base an entire theory of early Christian development. It ignores the content of the epistles, it ignores the diverse nature of earliest Christianity and its components, it ignores other considerations that would explain some of the problems, as I have tried to outline.

It also ignores the fact that your statement is simply wrong. We do have knowledge of Paul reflected in documents from the early part of the 2nd century, namely in 1 Clement and the Ignatians. Of course, that requires--and it's been done of course--that these documents be declared later forgeries from the mid-2nd century or later. (Even if the Ignatians are forgeries, they come from not long after Ignatius himself.) Knowledge of Paul and use of his letters, coming a decade or more before the mid-century, is also thoroughly attested through Marcion and his Apostolicon.

By surveying the overall early 'Christian' record up to 180, one can recognize its great diversity and easily understand why writers in one sort of faith could be ignorant of writers in another sort. Justin's ignorance on Paul is not a problem; he had nothing to do with Paul's circles. Minucius Felix ridicules the idea that Christians ought to worship a crucified man. Some writers of the 2nd century (such as Athenagoras) who figure so large in our view of that century, were apparently unknown in other circles for two hundred years. It looks like the epistle to the Hebrews was completely outside the knowledge of other epistolary circles until almost the end of the 2nd century. Are you going to subscribe to aa's questionable methodology and declare that the epistle to the Hebrews was not written until the late 2nd century simply because no other Christian document attests to it (1 Clement, however, may do so, it's not sure), even though internal considerations would strongly date it even before the Jewish War? Attestation is not the be-all and the end-all.

Nothing of the gospel of Mark is attested to before 180. Are you going to deny Markan priority on the grounds that it must have been written after Matthew because its first attestation comes long after Matthew? Be reasonable. This is not scholarship.

So the Gospel story existed first in the minds of Christians of the 2nd century, and then the epistles of "Paul" were produced to reflect a higher christology, but without incorporating any of that story into them, without presenting us with the human man to whom that high christology was supposedly applied? Not only failing to give us even the basics of that story and that man, but presenting its faith movement in terms of features which did not even make any room for him? That is beyond un-reasonable, it is ludicrous.

You mention the high christology of John. Yet that is exactly where he differs from all the epistles. He presents us with a human man in history (supposedly) to which that high christology is applied. Paul and the other epistle writers do no such thing. Has that escaped you?

I'm not sure what you mean by Paul's epistles being pre-christian Jewish writings by a Saul. If by "pre-Christian" you mean prior to the development of the Gospel story in Mark and its incorporation of the ideas of a Galilean kingdom of God sect to create a Galilean preaching sage known as Jesus of Nazareth (he did not actually exist, as a study of Q will demonstrate), then I agree with you. But the heavenly "Christ" preached by Paul equally fits the category "Christian". However, the faith preached by Paul, while it may have been conducted chiefly by Jews (though it's hard to identify the ethnicity of everyone involved in apostleship, especially Paul's rivals outside Palestine), was as much a movement involving gentiles and pagan ideas as Jewish ones.

If you want to identify that whole cultic Christ movement of which Paul was a part, preaching a heavenly Logos/Son who had been sacrificed for salvation, as a pre-Christian Jewish movement borrowing from the mysteries and other religio-philosophical ideas of the day, go ahead, though I might quibble about your terminology. But you have simply identified one of the main strands of thought on the first century scene which went into the composite creation of the Gospel of Mark, and you have identified a major body of literature reflecting it.

However, I cannot see any necessity to add some significant phase to that literature in the late 2nd century, especially to "Christianize" (as you put it) those epistles, because (a) they were already Christian in that they reflected the high christology of a heavenly Son/Christ which subsequently became attached to the Galilean Jesus, and (b) they were NOT christianized in the sense of having the Gospel side of things incorporated into them, because that is exactly the dimension they lack. You have not supplied any explanation for why such writings by a first century Saul, in their late 2nd century "heavy editing and interpolations and pseudo-Pauline additions" (as you put it), were not outfitted with the Gospel dimension. You are positing that late phase of revision without any evidence for it within the texts themselves. If this is the late 2nd century, how is it the case that "(this) is why they lack significant knowledge of the life and acts of the earthly HJ of the Gospels" (as you put it), when that knowledge was now available? Sorry, but you are not making sense here.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Sorry, but my previous posting demonstrates that this is anything but plausible and anything but parsimonious.

And for those who may be taken in by the Apology of Aristides, I suggest you read my Appendix No. 11 in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. The so-called "gospel passage" can easily be seen as an insertion.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

The evidence from the 2nd century does not just show Jesus as Flesh and blood but as God Incarnate,

Effectively, Jesus of Nazareth was not simply like Adam and Romulus who were supposedly of Flesh and blood in Jewish or Roman Mythology.

2ND century writers of the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was actual God.

See the writings of Ignatius, Aristides, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen.

The stories of Jesus are plausible only when he was never known to be human but the Son of God who manifested himself in the likeness of human flesh.




1. Ignatius Ephesians 2. Justin First Apology 3. Aristides' Apology The evidence from antiquity shows that the Jesus cult of Christians believed Jesus was a God who manifested himself in the Flesh and that belief developed at least 100 years after the reign of Tiberius.

aa5874

You yourself claim that the Pauline writers were early because they wrote nothing of Jesus' crucifixion on earth and wrote nothing of the earthly life of Jesus.

You are attempting to impose a double standard.

It seems that it is perfectly reasonable for you to make claims about Paul because he makes no mention of some activities of Jesus but not acceptable for others to point out that the Author of Acts did NOT mention the Pauline letters.

Even when you presume that the Pauline writer wrote early and wrote nothing of Jesus on earth it can clearly be seen that your view makes the Pauline writer to be WITHOUT corroboration.

The Clement letters are all forgeries or fasle attribution and are sources of fiction

I have gone through the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement and it has been found that the Clement letter was completely, completely unknown by Bishops of the Church.

It would have been virtually impossible for the Bishops of the Church not to know when Clement was the Bishop of Rome.

You are arguing against yourself. Based on your own statement then your methodology is seriously flawed. It was not logical at all for you to claim the Pauline writers really knew nothing of the Life of Jesus because they wrote hardly anything of him on earth.

Please, Doherty, there is no attestation for the Pauline letters to the Seven Churches in the Canon.

Again, you contradict yourself. gMark has exposed your flawed methodology.

First of all a passage found ONLY in gMark is found in the writings of Justin Martyr which likely means gMark or the source for gMark was already known since c 150 CE.

You will do exactly what you claim is not scholarship. You will argue that the Pauline letters predate gMark and gMatthew because Paul did not mention the supposed life of Jesus on earth.

Why have you given priority to the same Pauline letters over gMark and still simultaneously also claim some letters are manipulated??

This shows your lack of understanding of the Pauline letters. How have you managed to miss the fundamental story of Paul?

It was NOT ludicrous and unreasonable that the Non-Pauline Epistles do NOT mention the Life of Jesus .

It was NOT ludicrous and unreasonable that the author of the Apocalypse

The Pauline writers were merely claiming to be Witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline story of the Resurrected Jesus was an attempt to historicise the resurrection of Jesus and the Jesus cult when it was found that there was NO history of the Jesus cult from the supposed Resurrection and about 100 years later.

The writings of Justin had exposed a Big Black hole of about 100 years which is compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts.


If Jesus was a man in gJohn there you are arguing yourself. You seem to have forgotten that you are arguing that Jesus was NOT human and was never on earth.

gJohn and the Epistles of John are forgeries or false attribution and are historically bogus.

Sheshbazzar

Who said that Earl?
"So the Gospel story existed first in the minds of Christians of the 2nd century," I said no such thing.
I would question whether there even were any identifiably 'Christians' before Marks seminal Gospel was written.

I tend to be more persuaded that people read, heard, or watched a stage play of the religious Drama presented in 'Mark', and became 'christians', than that many people first believed in a vague and undelineated 'Jesus Christ', and then collectively cooked up a Gospel story about what they believed, which latter came to be written down to fit that belief.
I do not care to argue this 'chicken or the egg' beginning with you, just pointing out that my view is that the written text now called 'Mark' came -before- the rise of the 'Christian' movement'.
It was the production and distribution of 'Mark' (or a Proto-Mark) that generated the sect, not the sect that generated the book.

Second, you are in great error with regards to my position on 'Paul'.
I did not claim that 'Paul's' high(er) christology was "without incorporating any of that story into them, without presenting us with the human man to whom that high christology was supposedly applied ? "
Acknowledging that you presented this as a question, evidently one incredulous and rhetorical.

If you accept that the content of 'Paul' in First Corinthians is genuine, he incorporates an account drawn directly from the gospel story about the actions of the earthly and human 'Jesus';
This is human activity by 'Jesus', and on earth. And as you are perhaps aware, is drawn from 'The Last Supper scene' recorded in 'Luke's Gospel' 22:17-20

It is evident here that 'Paul' was familiar with the written Gospel of 'Luke'.,
__unless you wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven.
And it would be senseless to posit that 'Paul' originated this saying, and it was latter incorporated into G 'Luke', because such a saying refers back to a 'night', a setting and ritual that would be without context if presented in 1 Cor 11 first.
It is the Gospel of Luke and knowledge of that 'Last Supper' scene that informs the 'Pauline epistle' of 1 Corinthians.

Again the evidence is clear, The written Gospel known as 'Luke' was known before 'Paul' wrote, and incorporated the story into 1 Corinthians.

The written Gosples came FIRST. The 'Pauline epistles' LATTER.

maryhelena

I tend to agree with that position - somebody originated that Jesus story. Once the idea was conceived, published - sent about - developments of that story and advocates, followers of that story, would arise. Once the seed is planted sprouting takes over. Originality, creativity, does not spring from committees, groups, or schools. These are the promoters not the creators.

'Paul' says he got his gospel from no man. Indeed, creativity arises from within (however indebted it might be to those who have preceded one). To take this to mean, as some ahistoricist/mythicists are wont to do, that the Pauline epistles came before the gospel story, is unwarranted. 'Paul's creative theological/philosophical developments do not rule out the creativity of others who preceded him and to whom he was indebted.

aa5874

Aristides in the 2nd century explained how the Jesus cult of Christians started.

Some one invented a story that the Son of God came down from heaven and that the Jews killed the Son of God and people of antiquity believed the story was true.

Those believers were called Christians.

Aristides' Apology

aa5874

It is completely erroneous that Late Pauline writings are problematic.

Early Pauline writings are extremely problematic because they do not even reflect the very teachings of the Jesus character in the earliest stories of Jesus found in the short version of gMark.

When the author of gMatthew was ready to write about his Jesus of Nazareth he employed None of the details about the Pauline Revealed Gospel and the Resurrection of Jesus but used virtually all of gMark

The author of gMatthew claimed the Tomb of Jesus was EMPTY and that UP TO THE DAY he was writing that it was claimed the disciples STOLE the dead body of Jesus.

The author gMatthew has implied that NO-ONE say Jesus alive again EXCEPT some of disciples and the 12 Apostles.

It is extremely important that we understand that the author of gMatthew claimed that UP TO THE DAY he was writing it was said that the Disciples stole the brother of Jesus.

The author of gMatthew does NOT know of the Pauline letters where it was claimed OVER 500 people saw the Resurrected.

Now, Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE also wrote that UP TO THE TIME he was writing "Dialogue with Trypho" that the Jews claimed the disciples STOLE the body of Jesus.

The Pauline claim that OVER 500 people saw the Resurrected Jesus was unknown by the AUTHORS of ALL the Gospels.

Matthew 28 Up to c 150 CE, the Jews claimed that the disciples Stole the body of Jesus to make it seem as though Jesus resurrected based on Justin.

Justin's "Dialogue with Tryph Why did Justin and the author of gMatthew Not claim that OVER 500 persons saw the Resurrected like the Pauline writers?

It is clear that virtually Nothing of the supposed details about the Pauline Over 500 was known by the authors of the Gospels and Justin Martyr.

Early Pauline writings are extremely problematic.

The Pauline writers had NO influence at all on the earliest authors of the Jesus stories.

The Pauline writings do NOT represent the 1st century or the Jesus cult of Christians in the 2nd century..

The Pauline corpus are anti-Marcionite writings attempting to historicise the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline authors made False claims about the Resurrection of Jesus.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the recovered dated NT manuscripts all show or imply that there NO Jesus cult of Christians in Jerusalem.