Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 01-05-2010, 02:23 AM

An interesting article by Steve Mason - on the NT use of ‘the gospel’ or ‘good news’ - in connection with Paul.

From my own, unscholarly, reading of this view on Paul - the article’s point re Paul and ‘The Announcement’ does seem to indicate that the principle, or fundamental, thrust of Paul’s message is apocalyptic. Paul as apocalyptic prophet! No wonder he was on a rough ride....

The theological field at the time - messianic prophecies, mystery religions with their dying and rising gods - a Paul with any of these type of messages would simply be part of the local scenery - nothing to make him stand out. But an apocalyptic prophet, an apocalyptic prophet with a fire in his belly - that would get him noticed big time among the gentle Jesus crowd.....

Mason goes on, in his article, to show how Paul’s ‘The Announcement’, in time, became a more general Christian term than what it was originally with Paul - a very specific message stamped with Paul’s own ideas. In other words, Paul’s ‘The Announcement’ was context based, to a specific time period - and when that time passed (70 CE or 135 CE) Paul’s ‘The Announcement’ , containing an apocalyptic message, could be viewed as no longer central - thus Paul’s term, ‘The Announcement’ could evolve to include the whole of the Christian gospel and not just Paul’s particular apocalyptic role in that evolving Christian history.

Could it be that the apocalyptic voice accredited to the gospel Jesus is in fact the voice of the apocalyptic prophet Paul?

Quote:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mason3.shtml

Methods and Categories: Judaism and Gospel

By Steve Mason

Paul’s proprietary usage of to euangelion appears throughout his writings. 1 Thessalonians, his earliest writing, is the earliest known Christian text. In its mere four pages or so, it uses to euangelion six times, defining the term in the process. At the first occurrence, Paul makes it proprietary (1 Thess 1:5): “our Announcement came to you not in word only, but also in power….” Happily, he goes on to remind his audience what it was that he announced to them on his recent visit (1:9-10): turn to serve living God, trust in him, and wait for his son (Christ) from heaven, who will rescue (or evacuate) his followers from impending divine wrath. While awaiting this salvation, Paul his followers are to live pure, blameless lives (4:1-8), so that they will be ready “at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:23-24). Paul had left the impression that this saving event would come very soon, so soon that they are troubled by its delay, and he now continues in this vein (1 Thess 4:13, 17; 5:1). This apocalyptically charged message is evidently the principal content of The Announcement.

By the time he writes 1 Corinthians, Paul has to face divisions among his followers, some of whom have since his visit opted to follow other teachers. Some defectors have come to think in terms of resurrection as an internal spiritual transformation, rather than being disposed to wait for a physical end of the age and resurrection of the dead—the core of The Announcement (4:8-13; 15:12-51).

My bold of the text.

dog-on · 01-05-2010, 03:04 AM

Perhaps this lead to the need for Mark to create a Savior that came in the recent past and allowed also for a less specific prediction of a second coming in the future.

maryhelena · 01-05-2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps this lead to the need for Mark to create a Savior that came in the recent past and allowed also for a less specific prediction of a second coming in the future.

Mason does link Paul and the gospel of Mark - re 'The Announcement' - so the question is quite intriguing as to just what the connection is....

Re the 'second coming' idea - I'm beginning to think its more about a second 'Jesus' figure rather than the earlier 'Jesus' figure coming back to life in some new type of body - in other words - two historical individuals merged, fused, into the gospel Jesus storyline...a new body for 'Jesus' that was not at first easily recognizable...

Quote:

Steve Mason

In short, then, a triple movement needs explaining: first, why Paul and Mark seized upon the hitherto unused form to euangelion so energetically and programmatically, almost always without qualification; second, why all of the next-generation texts except for Mark drew back and avoided the term (or qualified it if used); finally, why from the third generation onward does to euangelion become a fundamental term of shared Christian discourse? It seems to me that the best explanation of the evidence is along the following lines.

dog-on · 01-05-2010, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps this lead to the need for Mark to create a Savior that came in the recent past and allowed also for a less specific prediction of a second coming in the future.

Mason does link Paul and the gospel of Mark - re 'The Announcement' - so the question is quite intriguing as to just what the connection is....

Re the 'second coming' idea - I'm beginning to think its more about a second 'Jesus' figure rather than the earlier 'Jesus' figure coming back to life in some new type of body - in other words - two historical individuals merged, fused, into the gospel Jesus storyline...a new body for 'Jesus' that was not at first easily recognizable...

Quote:

Steve Mason

In short, then, a triple movement needs explaining: first, why Paul and Mark seized upon the hitherto unused form to euangelion so energetically and programmatically, almost always without qualification; second, why all of the next-generation texts except for Mark drew back and avoided the term (or qualified it if used); finally, why from the third generation onward does to euangelion become a fundamental term of shared Christian discourse? It seems to me that the best explanation of the evidence is along the following lines.

I think that Paul was originally refering to the initial coming of the savior and not to a second coming.

aa5874 · 01-05-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....Re the 'second coming' idea - I'm beginning to think its more about a second 'Jesus' figure rather than the earlier 'Jesus' figure coming back to life in some new type of body - in other words - two historical individuals merged, fused, into the gospel Jesus storyline...a new body for 'Jesus' that was not at first easily recognizable...

How do you get a "future historical" figure to merge with a supposed "past historical" character?

Your idea is extremely complicated.

It would appear to me that the Jesus character, Son of God, was simply a literary device used by the authors themselves as an authoritative source. The Jesus character represents the "voice of God" and the authors of the NT manipulated this "voice of God" to make their own personal message believable.

maryhelena · 01-05-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....Re the 'second coming' idea - I'm beginning to think its more about a second 'Jesus' figure rather than the earlier 'Jesus' figure coming back to life in some new type of body - in other words - two historical individuals merged, fused, into the gospel Jesus storyline...a new body for 'Jesus' that was not at first easily recognizable...

How do you get a "future historical" figure to merge with a supposed "past historical" character?

I suppose much the same way any character is put together within a storyline - bits and pieces of historical figures fused into whatever character an author is creating....

Quote:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

Earl Doherty: Response to Mary on his website.

Models for the Gospel Jesus

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths. However, just because certain models were drawn on, this does not constitute the existence of an historical Jesus.

Quote:

Your idea is extremely complicated.

It would appear to me that the Jesus character, Son of God, was simply a literary device used by the authors themselves as an authoritative source. The Jesus character represents the "voice of God" and the authors of the NT manipulated this "voice of God" to make their own personal message believable.

Sure, I'm just suggesting the authors added a bit of local colour....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2010, 03:04 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Perhaps this lead to the need for Mark to create a Savior that came in the recent past and allowed also for a less specific prediction of a second coming in the future.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.