FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-23-2006, 08:57 PM   #161
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
How can it be determined when the Gospels or any book of the Bible was actually circulated versus when the texts were written?

That they are simultaneous is straightforward. Even the pseudo-letters are liturgical devices merely masquerading as letters. Or, if one wishes to believe in the letters as "genuine", then they were clearly written for a much wider purpose.
rlogan is offline  
Old 10-23-2006, 08:57 PM   #162
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
OK, I am happy to help.

If you haven't been exposed to radical kriticism before, you will probably enjoy reading it no matter what your final conclusion. Much of this has been hidden from the English speaking audinece because most of the works are in German or Dutch.

However, here is a link to some introductory texts in English.
RADICALKRITIK: Articles, reviews and books in English

Jake Jones IV
Much to read through. Again, thanks!

My first impression, is that if Paul's works are a second century creation, that takes the wind out of the sails of the mythicist position substantially, since in my mind, one of the strongest arguments for it is the mystical presentation of Christ as given by Paul at such an early time (under the standard assumptions of mid 50s).

Without that, I might find myself siding with the SHT based not on anything in the NT, but rather, based on the Gospel of the Hebrews. There are no known surviving copies of this, but we do have criticisms of it early in the church history. Supposedly, it was very similar to Matthew, but without the birth story, the magical aspects, and without the redemption by crucfixion message. This book supposedly depicted Jesus as nothing but an extraordinarily wise and moral man and was supposedly written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

The counter argument to this is that the Gospel of the Hebrews was a redaction written by someone who liked aspects of Christianity but found the god man business offensive and so rewrote the story without those aspects. Such a person would probably have actually been Jewish rather than Greek, as the writers of the NT were.
spamandham is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 03:50 AM   #163
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Since you have no evidence that Jesus was historic, there is no need to ask a priest, both of you have the same belief.
We've been over this. Jesus existed. Sorry if you'd like to believe otherwise.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 04:08 AM   #164
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
The earliest extant copies of the Pauline epistles date to the third century CE, some 150 years after they were allegedly written. Yet, it is assumed that they are in the same format and say substantially the same thing as they allegedly come from the pen of "St. Paul" circa 50 CE. No offense, but that view is naive in the extreme. I don't know how many times I have seen it argued that we must accept the Pauline epistles (or at least the seven so called authentic epistles) at face value, else we must admit we know nothing! Well duh! It is much better to admit that we don't know rather than make assumptions on what we hope is correct. This is faith masquerading as scholarship.
The earliest extant copies of the works of Tacitus date to the 9th century AD. The earliest extant copy of the work of Velleius Paterculus is a 16th century printed edition. The earliest extant copy of any of the works of Tertullian dates to around 800 AD.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 05:56 AM   #165
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
We've been over this. Jesus existed. Sorry if you'd like to believe otherwise.
You might believe you've got this settled, but I've seen no evidence anyone has put forward that is a substantive case for a Jesus and I've been on this forum for several years. So, whatever you think you've been over, I still haven't seen a substantive case, only various kinds of pleading not to need to make a case for the substantiation.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 06:25 AM   #166
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I would call it uninformed rather than naive. If I were more than a layman in my knowledge of 1st/2nd century history, I guess I wouldn't be asking basic history questions. I believe I am capable of drawing my own conclusions from the basic facts, but must leave the fact finding itself to the experts.

I had never heard such a wide flung contention regarding Paul before your post, other than quibllings about which of the epistles were "authentic" Pauline epistles (from what I have read, the latest concensus is only 4 of them were substantially written by the same author).

By the way, thanks! This is the type of thing I'm hoping to find (whether it strengthens or weakens the case for a historical Jesus).
As jakesonelv points out, this line of inquiry is mostly from the "radical critics". The most interesting essay in this area is Detering's one on Paul.

I've posted my theory (which is mine - Python reference ) before, but I think it's worth considering for someone like yourself who's starting to think along these lines, and I haven't seen anybody else put it quite like this :-

If you put Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy" together with Detering's essay on Paul, what you have is the image of a Christianity kicked off to a mythicist, proto-gnostic start with "Simon Magus" aka "Atomos" (later to be dubbed "Paulus", which duplicates his Greek nickname in Latin), and a few others (the "Brothers of the Lord"). This is a novel, Jewish version of the pagan Saviour myth, using the Jewish Messiah as a pagan Dying and Rising god (instead of a martial/political superman). Some (obviously proto-gnostic) version of "Simon Magus'" "letters" are part of the literature that goes with the spread of the movement.

As time goes on, inspired "gospels" appear, fleshing out the details of the myth for this or that doctrinal purpose; some "gospels" provide more concrete pseudo-historical details than others. At this stage, the religion is partly exoteric (the "stories" providing an emotionally engaging entry point), partly esoteric (a "secret" teaching of inducement of astral visions and non-dual mystical insight). Through "Simon Magus'" many students, and students of his students and of other "brothers" (e.g. Marcion, Theudas -> Valentinus), this Jewish/pagan proto-gnosticism spreads fairly quickly to a few key points in the ancient world. It is popular with gentiles because Judaism is sort of "cool", yet this new version of Judaism has enough recognisably familiar elements from paganism and Platonism to attract them. (At this point it's worth remembering that the pre-130 CE Judaism wasn't nearly as coherent as it later became, and in fact the anachronistic imposition of a fully-formed Mishnaic Judaism onto "Jesus"' supposed milieu in the Gospels is a dead giveaway. At that time, Judaism would have been much more of a patchwork, some Jews being pretty much "pagan" themselves - and quite familiar with dying/rising gods like Baal.)

Meanwhile, a more literalist "Catholic" version of the myth which concretises "Jesus Christ" into fairly recent times in Palestine develops, and the missionaries of this zealous sect lament the fact that "heretical" (i.e. proto-gnostic and gnostic Jewish/pagan) Christianity is already well established wherever they try to spread their message. This literalist version of the religion is purely faith based (requiring only belief in a doctrine), and doesn't have much of an esoteric side to it (much less emphasis on attainment of visions and mystical expereince).

By the time of Constantine, "a number of bishops" (Tertullian, after his rejection of Catholicism) of this literalist sub-sect of Christianity (probably especially including Eusebius) present their version of Christianity to Constantine as a suitable religion for uniting an Empire in which Christianity in its proto-gnostic and gnostic forms is already modestly widespread (their version being more suitable for the masses because it requires only faith, only belief in some supposed facts and philosophical doctrines, and not much in the way of spiritual exercises, or the attainment of spiritual or mystical experience). They create a "backstory" involving "apostolic succession" going back to their imagined incarnation (the purpose of which was to give them psychological ascendancy and political power).

Because versions of his "letters" were already so widespread and revered, they had to co-opt "Simon Magus" as one of their own, so they bowdlerized the letters and called him "Paul", called "Simon Magus" a heretic, and rewrote the history of the movement, magnifying themselves and their role, by means of the con-job of "apostolic succession".

To me, this is the "cleanest" explanation for all the facts and texts (including their interpolations).
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 07:48 AM   #167
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I can invent a simple explanation that I believe fits all the evidence, though it is clearly pulled staright out of my backside: "Jesus was a fictional character used as a teaching aid by John the Baptist. This spawned a movement upon the death of John as people wished to keep his teachings alive. Johns followers quickly split into two rival groups; one that continued to see Jesus as simply a symbolic character, and one that began to syncretize him to popular mystical concepts of the day. Paul came from one of the mystical camps, and wrote letters of persuasion to the other camps, who had already started to historicise Jesus by the time Paul was writing. The Gospels came from the by-then historical Jesus sects. Josephus, Tacitus, et. al., were influenced by the historical Jesus camps who had already incorporated the letters of Paul by the time the Gospel's were written (because they HAD the letters that Paul had sent to them!)."
Hmmm. Not bad, actually.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 07:59 AM   #168
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I can invent a simple explanation that I believe fits all the evidence, though it is clearly pulled staright out of my backside: "Jesus was a fictional character used as a teaching aid by John the Baptist. This spawned a movement upon the death of John as people wished to keep his teachings alive. Johns followers quickly split into two rival groups; one that continued to see Jesus as simply a symbolic character, and one that began to syncretize him to popular mystical concepts of the day. Paul came from one of the mystical camps, and wrote letters of persuasion to the other camps, who had already started to historicise Jesus by the time Paul was writing. The Gospels came from the by-then historical Jesus sects. Josephus, Tacitus, et. al., were influenced by the historical Jesus camps who had already incorporated the letters of Paul by the time the Gospel's were written (because they HAD the letters that Paul had sent to them!)."
I agree with this, but I would add that I think Mark was written AS allegory. I defiantely think that JtB had a role to play in all this, as in being possibly the impetus for the roots of the whole thing
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 10:38 AM   #169
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
The earliest extant copies of the works of Tacitus date to the 9th century AD. The earliest extant copy of the work of Velleius Paterculus is a 16th century printed edition. The earliest extant copy of any of the works of Tertullian dates to around 800 AD.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Hi Roger,

Thanks, that is good information.

I have a question about Tacitus, Annals 15:44, but I will put it in a new thread.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 10:47 AM   #170
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Hi Roger,

Thanks, that is good information.

I have a question about Tacitus, Annals 15:44, but I will put it in a new thread.

Jake Jones IV
I've added a note there. It's odd how little ordinary people know about how we get classical literature. I never knew myself; yet all these ancient books slumber on shelves, never consulted, which I think most of us would find interesting all by themselves.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:06 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.