aa5874

Well, it makes ZERO sense talking to you when you are providing NOTHING but imagination. I told you already that I ONLY want to deal with EXTANT sources of antiquity.

I SHOW what is found in sources of antiquity and you show me what others IMAGINE while you simultaneosly ADMIT you have not really "read enough to form an opinion".

Please state the author of your ORIGINAL gJohn and the date of writing.

Doug Shaver

The consensus chronology presupposes a historical Jesus. Under that presupposition, it pretty much follows that John's was the last gospel to be written.

To begin with, historicists as I perceive them tend to be deferential to patristic testimony, and so in their view that testimony establishes a prima facie case for the John's relative position. John's portrayal of Jesus, relative to that of the synoptics, is also most easily explained by supposing that it represents ways of thinking about Jesus that must have taken the longest time to evolve.

And I agree that this is a cogent argument, given the assumption of a historical Jesus. Of course it also follows from all this that Paul's portrayal of Jesus is anomalous, which is exactly how most historicists treat it. As you know if you've read Doherty, at least some historicists have readily admitted that Paul's treatment of Jesus is very hard to explain.

Juststeve

Isn't the anomaly of Paul's treatment of Jesus explained by what Paul himself says? Paul had a personal experience, his understanding of Jesus came from that experience, and he did not get his Gospel from any man. Under those circumstances I would expect Paul's view to be somewhat idiosyncratic until it was adopted by others. Is there anything strange about that?

Steve

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

My general theory is a little different from the conventional theories. I believe there was a lot of John the Baptist text floating around in the First Century. One text described his baptism, his disciples and his arrest and execution in Jerusalem. There were also some encyclopedia/collections - "The sayings of the Lord" and the "the Miracles of the Lord".

At some point around 120, the John text underwent a "retcon" (retroactive continuity) or reboot with a character named Jesus taking the place of John as the lead character and John playing a secondary role. This happened to the character Mickey Mouse in the 1930's. Originally the main character in his cartoons, by the mid-late 1930's, Mickey was more or less a host-type character, just introducing Donald, Goofy, or Pluto who would handle the heavy comic lifting in the shorts. This reflects the way Disney himself went from an animator to being a host/boss of animators.

It was the retcon/reboot then went viral. Using the old story of John the misunderstood prophet who was arrested and executed as the framework, numerous writers could take whatever miracles and sayings they wanted and add and delete from the story as they saw fit.

Mark and Matthew are circa 140-170 and Luke 180's or later. John might have been reworked to bring it closer to the synoptics in the late Second century.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Juststeve

Jay:

A general theory sans evidence. OK.

Steve

Toto

It is quite strange, if Jesus was a figure of recent history. Can you imagine some current politician claiming that he had communed with the spirit of John F. Kennedy, and that the current Kennedy family members were all wrong about his views - not only wrong, but irrelevant? Why would anyone take him seriously? Why wouldn't he have to spend all of his time explaining that away?

TedM

Then you are right. You and I shouldn't be discussing this because it does require insight you are not willing to pursue.

No purpose in doing so with you. If you are curious enough to see what Muller has discovered you'll check out his site. If you aren't then there is no reason to query me on details of his theories.

Juststeve

Toto:

What I find not strange is that Paul's depiction of Jesus is anomalous. Given that it is based on his personal experience and not on discussions with others I would expect it to be anomalous, it was after all a personal experience.

What you may find strange is that Paul's view seems to have to a large degree prevailed. That may well be explained by the fact that Paul's view was preached to Pagans without much competition from the Jerusalem view of Jesus. In the final analysis the view that prevailed was the majority view, that of the Pagan Christians because of numbers, not because of competitive merit. It is a mistake to assume that early converts were making a decision with Paul in one hand, the Gospels in the other. It might have been a very long time indeed before any of the "Pauline Christians" read or heard the competing Gospel views.

Steve

aa5874

Not even the Pauline writers corroborate what you have IMAGINED.

In the Pauline writings, "Paul" knew of a written source that STATED that Jesus died, was buried and was raised on the THIRD day. See 1 Cor. 15

And further, if Jesus did ACTUALLY exist then people would have known about him and would have known that he did NOT resurrect on the THIRD day.

"Paul" was a LIAR when he claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor. 15

Now, it is far more likely that the Jesus story with most details was later rather than earlier and that the story which is least problematic to be later.

Examine gMark 13.30 In gJohn, the so-called Failed Prophecies of gMark's Jesus are Missing which is an indication that gJohn was writteN AFTER "this generation" had passed.

avi

Thanks for this reference. I have now read the entire chapter. Some interesting material there.

To stay focused on this thread, however, I will confine my remarks to your point, concerning a "written source", known to Paul.

I do find a couple of references to "written", or "gospels".

In verse 1, we observe: euaggelion, Latin: evangelium, English: Gospel.

But, this is a vague reference, insufficiently specific to support your thesis, in my opinion. If anything, it would appear that Paul is touting his own words, or text (in harmony with Stephan Huller's theory, and others' too, surely) that Paul and Marcion are related, or similar, or identical.

Then, in verse 3, we find the famous "kata tas grafas" , Latin Vulgate: pro peccatis nostris secundum scripturas, ENGLISH: according to the scriptures.

This phrase has been the object of earlier discussions on the forum, as I vaguely recall, but, without remembering sufficient detail to recite the explanations. I only recall that some forum member(s) claim that "kata tas grafas" refers to ancient Hebrew scriptures, NOT to the four Gospels. I don't recall the rationale for that explanation.

I do wonder, though, why the Latin employs the descriptor "secundum", if this phrase refers to ancient Hebrew texts? The same phrase, kata tas grafas, is repeated, again, in verse 4.

Finally, in verse 44, we find:
speiretai swma yucikon egeiretai swma pneumatikon ei estin swma yucikon estin kai pneumatikon

translated into Latin, as:
15:44 seminatur corpus animale surgit corpus spiritale si est corpus animale est et spiritale sic et scriptum est (emphasis, avi).

Only one English translation, follows this Latin text:
Douay Rheims
15:44 It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written (emphasis, avi)

I don't find a Greek version with "as it is written"......

Can I impose upon you, the task of identifying the precise verse which claims that Paul knew of written text describing the death and resurrection of JC, three days later?

avi