mountainman

Constantinian fables for the foolish, manufactured in short order by the illustrious Hans Eusebius Anderson. Didn't Paul destroy the temple of Apollo in one of the apochrypha? Wonderful action! Rivetting stuff. Its still re-running.

Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

Ben, thanks for your very thoughtful analysis! I don't want to pick it all apart, but I have a few questions.

I find it a little puzzling that the Gospel writer would not work Paul into the story if he bases the story on Paul's writings and considers Paul to be basically a contemporary of Jesus.

It's my understanding that the 'first' in firstfruits does not indicate temporal relevance, but relevance in terms of quality. The existence of the firstfruit indicates the harvest is already under way (hence the many zombies seen running around Jerusalem). ...but I could easily be wrong on that.

I agree that one of the purposes of the Gospels seems to be to explain pre-existing traditions.

"Why do we baptize? ....because Jesus was baptized."
"Why do we do the eucharist? ...because Jesus said to."
"Why do we pray the 'our father'? ...because Jesus handed it to us"
...and so on

boneyard bill

What is your point? Of course the dates for Paul can be uncertain and still be prior to the temple destruction. There is no contradiction here. But I don't know of anyone who dates Paul's letters after the fall of the temple except people who claim they weren't written by Paul at all. It isn't impossible that Paul wrote after the fall of the temple but there simply doesn't appear to be any evidence for it.

My question is what do you mean by a pre-existing Christianity? Are you trying to suggest that Mark invented Christianity?

Ben C Smith

I think you may be wrong. The Hebrew term for firstfruits, בכור, is formed from the root word בכר, which means firstborn. I think there is probably an implicit assumption that that first ingatherings of the harvest are going to be of the first quality, but the meaning of the word itself, I think, is temporal. In Deuteronomy 18.4 the firstfruits of grain, oil, and wine are parallel to the beginning (ראשית, same word as in Genesis 1.1) of the shearing of sheep.

And I doubt Paul knows anything about the resurrected saints running around Jerusalem, an event found only in Matthew.

I agree that Paul considered the harvest already underway; the firstfruits officially kick off the harvest. So, if (for Mark reading Paul) the firstfruits of the resurrection had already happened with Jesus, and the harvest was already getting underway, how far back in time before Paul would it make sense to place Jesus? Would it make sense to place Jesus the firstfruits, say, in the time of the Persian kings, with the main body of the harvest already delayed by centuries?

Except that Paul in the epistles never claims to have met Jesus in person (except by revelation). Indeed, in Galatians 1 he claims that he was a relative latecomer to the whole business. Again, a careful reading of Paul would tell Mark that Paul himself was not involved with the actual beginnings of the faith.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Why not a select secret Roman writing team producing all of these documents - Paul and the Gospels and using a few Jews as well? Revelation originally a Jewish text judiciously edited for example.

Firstborn is just one of the ideas thrown out in a writing conference. Pilate was chosen at some point as an important detail of the story to provide verisimilitude.

bacht

Is John the Baptist useful for dating? If he really existed, and was executed by Herod Antipas, would this give us a timeframe around 30 CE?

aa5874

Well, look at this.

What is your point? Of course the dates of Paul can be UNCERTAIN and still be AFTER the temple destruction.

And it isn't impossible that Paul wrote before the fall of the temple but there simply DOESN'T appear to be any evidence to support it.

All you are constantly doing in your post is to IGNORE the uncertainty due to a lack of credible evidence and still claim that you are CERTAIN that Paul wrote before the fall of the Temple.

Uncertainty MUST logically imply that Paul wrote at some UNCERTAIN time, simply meaning, no-one is sure when Paul wrote.

Therefore, you have NO credible evidence, none whatsoever, to claim you are certain Paul wrote before the fall of the Temple.

Clivedurdle

Maybe the stuff about the ruler of Damascus means we are looking at older - BCE - documents that were edited?

jules?

probably the most important question ever asked on this forum.

My bet is john being the voice announcing the arrival of the messiah. john carried weight and was real enough it just happened that the end-time panned out differently to prophesy.

mountainman

Dear Clive,

You may be on to something here. Sponsored literature is not an unknown commodity in antiquity and later. What clues remain to give us an idea of which century first witnessed the preparation of historiographical material in a uniquely collegiate fashion (aside of course from the Historia Augusta)?


You are aware of course that Eusebius declares that at least two prophesies from that illustrious book of the Galilaean Fabrication were physically realised and fullfilled by our resident "Bishop of Bishops" and "Thirteenth Apostle", Constantine the Great (BS) during his long life at the top of the fourth century military supremacist scrap heap. (See Vita Constantini).


And of course to represent the Roman emperor, justice and the Galilaean way of dealing with the annointment of the hands with holy water. Pilate may well have been an historical figure. Weaving actual historical figures into the fabrication is a trade-mark of Eusebius. A few forgeries in the name of Lucian of Samosata for example, turns an extant quippy writer into an instant citation source for the fabrication. His codices may have been sitting around the libraries of Rome, on that day in which Constantine liberated the city from its senate.

Best wishes,



Pete