Rick Sumner

I'm aware that Robert Price argues for the famous creedal confession to be an interpolation, and that William Walker argues for 29-34 to be interpolated. I don't think either of them represent anything approaching a consensus view.

What "most scholars" do you have in mind? And what portions do "most scholars" think are interpolated?

FWIW, (and an aside that's not necessarily germane here. . .if the discussion goes anywhere perhaps a moderator could split?) I tentatively agree with Price, but not for the reasons Price gives. 1Cor.15 is the only passage in the authentic Pauline corpus that uses the term "gospel" to refer to events narrated, in the sense that the later texts came to be known as "gospels." It seems to me that it's an un-Pauline anachronism.

I'm not sure that anyone takes that tact though, so it could just reflect my own ignorance. Certainly there are those who have pointed out the curiousity of Paul's "gospel" here (eg Wright), but I don't know of anyone who has gone so far as to suggest that Paul didn't write it because of that.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

teamonger

This problem goes away if you realize that Jesus was not an "absolutely unique individual", but a relatively unimportant Jewish cult leader at the time, one of several Messianic pretenders. He would've been well under the radar of the larger Roman world until his "followers" became noticed. Had there been no Paul to reinvent the religion, the cult would've stayed in Judea/Galilee, and probably died out.

It seems that Paul much preferred to listen to the "risen" Jesus in his head rather than pay attention to original disciples in Jerusalem. He was clearly the first gnostic. But even he mentions some historical detail about the guy, which he apparently picked up from the followers from before him: supposed descent from David, last supper, betrayal, execution, burial. He doesn't write very much about such things, probably because this background was already known to his readers. Bringing up historical details would also tend to embarrass him, putting a finger on his being a second-hand apostle, unlike his "superlative" rivals.

What was Jesus teaching? End times, primarily. Apparently that God was about to step into history in a decisive way, end all evil. That was the one area where the epistles all agreed: the end is near. That such a mistake would still be clearly visible is a good sign that Jesus held the view himself.
t

teamonger

I may be new here, but I've had these discussions for many years elsewhere.

I don't know why the criterion wouldn't be used in other fields... seems to me it should be a standard tool of historians to evaluate any document with an agenda. It's not perfect of course, and not the only criterion. But dismissing it just because atheists want a particular preacher to disappear from history seems an overreaction.

Have you read Sanders (not Saunders)? I find him very convincing, in that he strongly emphasizes method, and avoids half-baked theories.
t

spin

Perhaps magnanimity. Hey, look, man, I've made mistakes too, ya know. (Invent mistake to insert here.) It's wiser to deal with texts rather than conjecture about the writers.


spin

Rick Sumner

That really doesn't fit the context of Caesar's Civil Wars.

I agree. But ancient texts in general, and theological texts especially, tend to have agendas. If we intend to glean anything from the texts we need to have methods to sort those agendas out. Are they foolproof? Of course not, Firstly because you can never underestimate fools (I've seen embarrassment used to argue that the Exodus was historical), and secondly because, as you note, we can never be sure of motive.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't help. We do well not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Ultimately it's impossible to remove anachronism or modern biases from any study of ancient history. As long as we're aware we have them, and tread carefully because of that, such criteria have their place.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

bacht

If so then why did we get descriptions like this:


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. John 1

In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.
When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. Hebrews 1

[The Father] has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1


So gentiles took an unremarkable Jewish prophet and elevated him to divinity, is that what happened?

spamandham

That's fine. 16:16 is not central to the argument that the baptism plays a theological role anyway. 1 Cor. is totally irrelevant in that regard. Paul is on a different planet form the Gospels altogether.

aa5874

Explain how a Christian, like E.P. Sanders, who believes Jesus existed is not an apologist for Christianity.

You need to provide evidence or credible information that can place your Jesus in the 1st century during the reign of Tiberius, failure to do so will make others conclude that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth.

The authors of the Gospels all claimJesus of Nazareth was well known, moved with thousands of people and regarded as the prophets like Elijah, Isaiah and others, even like John the Baptist.

Yet no Jewish writer wrote a single word about this new phenomena called Jesus, the son of the God of the Jews, the Messish, the Christ, the Lord and Saviour, King of the Jews, the Redeemer, John the Baptist, Elijah and other prophets who died for the sins of the Jews.

Philo and Josephus covered virtually the entire 1st century, yet show no influence or impact of the phenomena called Jesus of Nazareth.

How can a Jew called Jesus of Nazareth walk around in broad daylight and ask thousands of Jews to pay taxes to the Romans and not be noticed by any other Jew?

How could a Jew walk around with thousands of followers and refer to the Pharisees and Scribes as vipers, and was never arrrested, beaten, or stoned and was allowed to preach in the synagogues?

A letter writer called Paul claimed he was beaten, stoned, imprisonned and run out of synagogues, for preaching the gospel, however Jesus of Nazareth was beating people in the Temple while he was teaching.

Until, you can show that there is information, external of the Jesus stories in the NT and Church writers, to show the Jesus did actually exist, I must conclude that Jesus of the NT was just a legedary fable and did not exist al all, i.e. a mythical apocalyptic preacher.

teamonger

Yes, it's relevant. If baptism was deemed necessary, wouldn't that naturally follow from the historical event of Jesus and John in the river? I think the onus is on you to show why it was a fabrication instead, in the face of the prima facia evidence.

The early datings are accepted by mainstream scholars, not only apologists. I would suggest Luke/Acts evolved over time. But I didn't think we were referring to those documents in any case.

For you to claim the attestations are not reliable requires some evidence, not just a declaration. At least concerning non-miraculous things which were not improbable.

Paul was writing letters about doctrine to people who probably already knew "those things" from being told at a prior time, by Paul or by other apostles. Also, Paul was more interested in listening to the "risen" Jesus in his head. He did mention some historical details about the human Jesus, but mostly steered clear of that, perhaps because this would put a finger on his weakness as a second-hand apostle, unlike his "superlative" rivals. Perhaps Paul had earlier been corrected on some history, and learned to keep his mouth shut about such matters.

The baptism was probably so well known to original followers that it couldn't be left out. I think Mark was written from Rome, around the time of or shortly before the war. I think Mark was a guy who listened to the historical Peter, just as Papias states. I like Papias; he feels like a straight shooter, an inquiring mind who asked questions of anyone he met, and was willing to admit to problems (Mark didn't write "in order"). In any case, I find Mark the imperfect reporter (who also didn't know Palestinian geography), much more believable than Mark the ingenious fabricator.

Not at all, if Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. I think people mistook the war for the apocalypse.

I don't think the birth narrative was necessarily part of the original Matthew; there were Jewish versions without it. I think that Q material in Aramaic likely went back to the actual disciple Matthew, and this was what Papias referred to: "translated by everyone as best they could".

Paul shows no knowledge whatsoever of the war, having visited the "pillars" in Jerusalem repeatedly. He is clearly pre-70, and probably died in Nero's mess.

I think the destruction of the Temple got Jesus' earlier apocalyticism more noticed. His predicting the destruction may have been an interpolation, or even just a lucky hit. But certainly Mark isn't much later than 70CE, since he thinks the temple destruction is just the beginning of the end that was about to occur. By the 2nd century, would certainly have been clear that the war was not the apocalypse. Mark clearly believed he was within a generation of the time of Jesus, because he thought (apparently like Jesus) that it was all about to go away (some standing here will not taste death).

For John, I somewhat like the theory that it was a gnostic text that was "sanitized" to be acceptable. Some had claimed that Cerinthus had something to do with it, circa 100 AD.
t

spamandham

I should know better by now to never say "most scholars". Replace "some" for "most". Price, in The Pre-Nicene New Testament lists several respected scholars who share this view (see the footnote on the page where he discusses it), but I don't have it handy at present.

1Cor15. contains many ideas that are unique to 1Cor.15 among the writings generally considered to be genuinely Pauline, and in one conveninet package ties Gospel traditions to Paul prefaced by "oh yah, remeber that I tought you this stuff?".

I can't think of any reason to assume it is not a later addition in entirety. There is no default assumption of genuineness among Paul's letters.