Didymus

While this is all very interesting, my proposition does not rely on a particular dating of Paul's epistles.

I know it sounds crazy, but it is not unreasonable to think that when Paul referred to a crucified savior, he had in mind a man who had been crucified. On earth.

Whether Paul was writing in 30, 40, 50 or 60, or even in the second century is beside the point, which is that the circumstances surrounding a real, earthly crucifixion served as the impetus for the earliest beliefs in a crucified savior.

Unlike the "conventional wisdom," which holds that Paul knew all about the Jesus of the gospels but had "other concerns," I think he knew nothing of Jesus' earthly life, and that Jesus' biography was a fiction created by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

Ddms

spamandham

How can the dating not be relevant if we're trying to establish what the earliest Christian beliefs were?

In regards to Paul and statements he made of the crucifixion, consider Phillipians 2:6-11 (NIV):

"6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

Now consider a scholarly translation as provided by RM Price in "The Pre-Nicene New Testament", (or via: amazon.co.uk) 2006 hardback edition pg 475:

"Who, disposed in the very form of a god, thought ill of seizing equality with God, but cast himself into the emptiness, donning the form of a slave to the archons, taking on the outer likeness of humanity, to be seen clothed in mortal fashion, he humbled himself becoming obedient to the point of death, death by crucixion...."

...a few things to notice here

The first is that it's anachronistic, conveniently answering the question of Jesus divinity long before the debates on that subject in the early church. Secondly, that this is a later insertion is confirmed in vs 12 "So then, my beloved ones, as you always obeyed (notice the past tense here), and not only in my presence, but now all the more in my absence (the jig is up!), work on your salvation".... This analysis is not mine, but that of RM Price on the referenced page footnote j.

Next, notice that in a scholarly translation, there is no denying a gnostic mythological interpretation. This was F.C. Baur's argument (according to Price). The gnostic Jesus was a strange apparition designed to fool the evil archons to come to earth for his sacrificial death. The death and resurrection is central to the mythology, not something tacked on oddly from which we could yell "aha! the crucifixion is out of place, therefor it was historical!"

So when you put these together, we have evidence of a hymn tradition inserted into Pau'ls mouth, that while still showing evidence of an early gnostic tradition, also shows signs of later historcizing. This was P.L. Couchoud's argument (according to Price again).

This is not the only passage that has Paul believing in a historical Jesus in modern translations, that is disputed as genuinely Pauline by respected scholars.

Incidently, I highly recommend Price' book, for what that's worth.

aa5874

But, how can Acts be used to date the Pauline Epistles when the dating of Acts itself is also uncertain?

Acts may have been written upto 100 years after the proposed dates of the Pauline Epistles.

The Acts of the Apostles is mentioned by Irenaeus for the very first time late in the 2nd century, and is not mentioned by Justin Martyr at all.

Toto

The dating of Acts does not have to be certain if the events in it correspond to history. The events described in Acts can be placed in a historical time frame. Paul's letters have no historical markers to speak of, but some scholard think that events and people described in the letters correspond to events and people in Acts.

Didymus

In my understanding, we are not discussing the entirety of Christian beliefs at that time, but only a specific area of earliest Christian belief: the locus of Jesus' existence.

To that question, the sequence of writings is highly relevant, but the specific timeframe is of marginal importance. For the "Obscure Historical Jesus" proposition to operate as I've suggested, Paul need only have to have written his epistles prior to Mark's writing Jesus' fictitious biography.

Docetist christology doesn't deny that Jesus life and works were earthly, only that he was a "true" man made of (horrors) flesh and blood.

Wait! By positing a "later insertion," RM has dated the undatable Paul before those 2nd and 3rd century debates!

Well, I'm not yelling that. I agree that the death and resurrection of Jesus form an axis that's central to the myth, but the notion of an atoning sacrifice is not gnostic; if fact, it undermines gnosticism, as well as the notion that Paul was the "first gnostic." As early orthodox Christians like Ignatius were quick to point out, the illusory suffering and death of an illusory Jesus wouldn't satisfy God's requirement for atonement. He wouldn't settle for anything less than the real thing.

I agree that that passage from Philippians seems self-contradictory and contains 2nd or 3rd century insertions to counter a gnostic interpretation of the phrase "in human likeness." But it's stretching things to think that that phrase qualifies Paul as a gnostic.

Seems like just about all the gnostic writings we've got are from the 2nd century and even later. (IMO, we have the same dearth of support for Paul's gnosticism as we do for Paul's Middle Platonism.) I would be interested in seeing BCE gnostic writings regarding a savior who would come to earth in the form of a man and who would die / be murdered as a propitiary sacrifice on behalf of mankind. (The closest I've seen are the Wisdom of Sophia passages in the OT, but they really, really don't qualify as gnostic.)

Ddms

aa5874

The dating of Acts is critical to help to determine whether or not the information it contains could have been copied from some other source or fabricated.

If it is reasonable certain that Acts of the Apostles was written late in the 2nd century, then it could be deduced that the author was not a disciple of "Paul" and was complete fiction.

The dating of any writing is perhaps the single most useful information.

spamandham

...after spending quite a bit of time on a reply, my system locked up and it's lost. I'm too depressed to go through it all again, so I'll just summarize a few key points I was trying to make:

1. This particular passage was not written by Paul, but was added later, so to the extent it displays belief in HJ, it was a later belief. Further, it doesn't really even argue for an HJ since gnostic ideas do not support the concept of a recent historical figure in the mind of the author. I only brought it up because passages such as this are sometimes used to argue against the MJ position without analyzing when they were written.

2. When talking about dates of the epistles, it's too simplistic to think of a given epistle as having been written at a particular time, since even the 'genuine' epistles show signs of nontrivial tampering over time by different authors.

3. I don't think Price would argue Paul is undatable (even though ascetics don't date much :Cheeky. I think Price would argue something akin to my point 2, (seeing as my point is derived pretty much from his book referenced previously).

4. This passage shows clear evidence of a mixing of gnosticism with Jewish thoughts, and the entire concept of an atoning sacrifice and resurrection is easily derived from this combination, without need for a historical crucifixion.

Didymus

Sounds like: HJ came later, so this suggestion of an HJ could not have been written by Paul. Therefore, belief in HJ was a later belief. And round and round.

Do you mean Robert Price or the author of the insertion? In either case, if by gnostic ideas, you mean docetism, there is no conflict between docetism and a historical Jesus. Docetism is about the nature of Jesus, not his historicity. The docetists acknowledged that Jesus appeared as a man on earth. If he appeared as a man on earth, he was historical, whether he was a flesh and blood man or a spirit in the form of a man.

If the concept of an atoning sacrifice is "easily derived" from Jewish and gnostic thoughts, what are its antecedents in both traditions?

I don't view a historical crucifixion as some sort of theological imperative (although that might be an interesting path to explore), but as a highly likely impetus for the birth of Christianity.

Ddms

spamandham

That's not the argument at all. The determination that this passage was added later is based on a scholarly textual analysis and has nothing to do with HJ/MJ or anything of the sort (I already gave reference), therefor it was not written by Paul.

Yet it (and others like it) are sometimes used to argue that Paul believed in a recent earthly Jesus.


RM Price. I provided the reference in the post that spawned this conversation.

I meant gnostic. That was Bauer's conclusion, not mine, as promulgated by Price in the reference I provided before.

I'm not saying you'll find the concept in both traditions, I'm saying you can arrive at it by mixing the traditions. Gnosticism brings the idea of the death and resurrection as some kind of heavenly restoration of the divine element, and Judaism's ancient sacrificial system brings the idea of atoning sacrifice to the table. Combine the two, and you have the Christian idea of an atoning sacrificial death with resurrection.

So, since we have clear evidence of the mixing of gnostic and Jewish ideas, and the mixing of the two easily accounts for the Christian idea of a sacrificial death and resurrection, IMHO, the crucifixion adds nothing to the HJ position.

andrewcriddle

The Philippians chapter 2 passage seems to have been part of Marcion's NT
Tertullian "Against Marcion" Book 5 http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-35.htm
IF it is later than Paul (which I doubt) it must be a very early insertion.

Andrew Criddle