aa5874

I don't really understand your problem when the passage clearly named the Gospel as "LUKE".

Once you EXAMINE the passages BEFORE you will NOTICE that the author is giving his chronology of the order of the FOUR Canonised Gospels.

"Church History" 6.25.3-6
You have IDENTIFIED another passage that have DESTROYED the early "Paul" theory.

"Paul" was ALIVE AFTER the FALL of the Temple and was NOT executed under NERO.

"Church History"6.25. 6. "Church History" 3.4.8 The "authentic Paul" is the LATE "PAUL", the "Paul" that COMMENDED gLuke.

gurugeorge

Which seems to me to be the giveaway in the whole thing. Unless you're willing to psychologize "Paul" ("no need" - really, how do you know?), then one has a sequence that simply requires one to understand why the later writers had history when there is no history in the earlier writer.

i.e. why was history introduced?

That sequence from no-history to history, combined with Walter Bauer's picture of the early history of the movement as a whole, gives one obvious and highly plausible answer: history was introduced as a political move, to legitimize the concept of "apostolic succession".

aa5874

Of course, a "history from "Paul" was needed.


Ga 1:23 - Ga 4:4 - 1Co 11:23 - Ro 8:32 - 1Co 1:23 - Ro 10:9 - 1Co 15:52 - Ga 2:7 - The PAULINE writer claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH so MUST have KNOWN the VERY DETAILS of Jesus story WHILE he was a PERSECUTOR.

The PAULINE WRITER MUST BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE FAITH in order to PERSECUTE.

Based on the Pauline writings, the Pauline writers KNEW, BELIEVED or was AWARE of the story that Jesus was God's OWN Son, was BETRAYED, CRUCIFIED, DIED, BURIED, RESURRECTED, was SEEN AFTER the Resurrection, ASCENDED, and would RETURN for a second time.

It must NOT ever be forgotten that "Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH that he NOW preached.

A history from "Paul" was needed and was documented in the Pauline writings.

maryhelena

"Paul"? - or whoever is writing under that name - did not date his Jesus story. That's not any attempt to psychologize him.....

Why was history introduced? Well, we could ask the very same question re the OT. History has a habit of influencing how people live their lives. The very mundane experience of living. "Paul" and his intellectualizing is great - but philosophizing is a contemplative pursuit that is neither the interest or the luxury of most. Politics, yes, the rough and tumble of our social environment - is as much a reality today as it was 2000 years ago. History was introduced because people live in that context of social realities. For an investigation into early christian history the question becomes - what historical realities were of significant interest that the early christian writers dated their gospel JC story to the time of Pilate - or Luke, being very specific, to the 15th year of Tiberius.

Sure, one can argue that any date would do if the gospel writers wanted to produce a pseudo-historical storyline. Close ones eyes and pin that tail on the donkey.....Or, one could give the gospel writers the benefit of the doubt, until evidence to the contrary is produced, that the dating they have given for their JC storyline had, for them, some relevance.

DCHindley

Some years ago, I was reading Burton Mack's The Lost Gospel Q (or via: amazon.co.uk) and noticed that the earliest strata he develops doesn't look particularly Jewish.

John Kloppenborg, in The Formation of Q (or via: amazon.co.uk), compared Q to more or less contemporary sayings collections and concluded that they most closely resembled collections of wisdom sayings that were common in the ANE.

Both of these scholars have stratified the contents of Q, with the earliest strata being rather devoid of Jewish cultic elements, the latter being introduced in the later strata only.

If fact a whole cottage industry has developed, devoted to explaining what kind of Jesus could recite things recorded in Q (which is essentially the double tradition common to both Matthew and Luke).

Gerd Theissen, in Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), started this trend, proposing that the Didache showed Jesus to be one of many itinerant (wandering) preachers, driven to this fate by Roman-inspired economic exploitation of the peasant class, his family and farm taken away and sold to satisfy his debts, living on the charity of peasants who have still managed to hang onto their farms by the skin of their teeth. His sayings were recorded, along with rules for the reception of itinerant prophets and teachers, by scribes among this degraded peasant class.

This kind of interpretation still has some traction in Didache research (Kurt Niederwimmer, Aaron Milavec). Leif Vaage's proposal that Jesus was deliberately imitating the lifestyle of Diogenes the Cynic is an outgrowth of this, IIRC.

Anyhow, I came to think the distinctly un-Judaic flavor of the early strata of Q is not a sign of a freethinking Jesus whose superior ethical mind had transcended his Jewish roots (generally the POV of the wandering itinerant proponents), but a body of anonymous Wisdom Sayings borrowed from ANE culture to take the edge off of the roughness of a real Jesus, a Jew who was executed for being a rebel against Roman domination of his homeland. Jesus's execution was excused as an over-reaction to a misunderstood but quite harmless Sage.

Again, the gospels (at least the ones by the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke) served as apologetic literature directed to the pagan world to excuse the execution of their founder.

DCH

aa5874

Well, "Paul" or "whoever was writing under that name" did DATE his Jesus story.

1Ti 6:13 - In the NT Canon, "Paul" was introduced AFTER the "history" of Jesus was CONCLUDED.


You have it UPSIDE DOWN. It is as if you do not understand that "Paul" claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH.

Ga 1:13 -
In the NT Canon, "Paul" was introduced AFTER the "history" of Jesus was supposedly CONCLUDED on EARTH.

The PAULINE writer was supposed to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus.

The PAULINE writings are about the "history" of Jesus AFTER HE was RAISED from the dead.

The PAULINE Gospel is the product of the RESURRECTED Jesus not from the Synoptic or Johanine Jesus when he was supposedly on earth.

The PAULINE history of Jesus is AFTER the Holy Ghost was sent on the day of Pentecost.

Examine the LATE Interpolated Long Ending gMark.

Mark 16.17 Of the four Gospels, Only the LATE manipulated Long ending gMark mentioned the talking of tongues.

Now examine 1Co 14:18 - The Pauline history of Jesus was written AFTER the EARLY Short-Ending ending of gMark.

No, No, No!!! You can't do history with YOUR EYES CLOSED. It is BELIEVERS who CLOSE their EYES in vain to get their "history" of Jesus.

The evidence that "PAUL" was LATE is there to be SEEN.

No Gospel writer seem AWARE that "Paul" talked in tongues and that Jesus claimed the disciples would speak in "tongues".

If your eyes were open, you might have SEEN that the Church historian claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.26.

All the EARLY dates for the writing of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are BOGUS.

mountainman

Hi gurugeorge,

A very interesting comment. There were other versions of very legitimate "apostolic succession" running in production during the entire epoch that we call early christian origins. One of the more high profile and imperially sponsored lineages was that of the Acadedmy of Plato.

There is clear evidence to suggest that the method used to legitimitize the concept of "Christian Apostolic Succession" was fraudulent, and was based on common identify theft. I have recently written an essay on this specific subject here.

Four historical figures in the "Platonic Apostolic Succession" targetted for identity theft are as follows:

(1) Ammonias Saccas (the founder of Neoplatonism)
(2) Origen the Platonist
(3) Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist mathemetician
(4) Porphyry the Platonist - preserver of Plotinus and Euclid, etc

For each of these historical Platonists we will find a second fraudulent identity that Eusebius has created with the same name, the same date of birth and death, etc, etc. Consequently the Christians history that was introduced as a political move, to legitimize the concept of "apostolic succession", was cloned from the Platonists in an attempt to steal their legitimacy, and boost the history of trhe christians with identities that were popular and well known at that time in the early 4th cemtury.

This cannot be coincidental. Why Eusebius did not just make some other names up highlights the power that Constantine had, because it was Constantine who responded to complaints about the integrity of the christian religion during his rule. Christian history is a massive fraud.

Best wishes,


Pete

EarlDoherty

I certainly do miss the point, Maryhelena, because you have not made clear what “history” Wells has in mind, or what you do. I fully realize that Wells does not subscribe to a Jesus reflective of the Gospel story, one who was crucified. But he does subscribe to some kind of historical figure lying at the root of the Gospels, that is, at the root of Q or Q-type traditions which fed into the Synoptics. Yet, as I tried to point out, there is no identifiable history of such a figure in Q. What we have there is a general picture of the teachings and activities of a sectarian preaching movement, with the supposed founder of it “subsumed” (as William Arnal puts it) into the character of the Q preachers themselves. So there is no distinction that can be identified between the history of the sect and the history of the assumed founder. In other words, the founder Jesus Wells subscribes to is superfluous, and serves no practical purpose. Besides, I have demonstrated that the Jesus figure in Q was invented in the course of the Q community’s evolution.

What, are you going to bring coals to Newcastle? That’s been my own position since Day One, clearly outlined in my books and website, and I didn’t get it from Wells. But here Wells goes off the rails…

I don’t know the context of this quote, but it makes no sense. Wells has read at least The Jesus Puzzle, so he should hardly be implying (as you seem to be using this quote) that I would say anything like the sources of the Gospels in regard to Q somehow developed out of the epistles. That’s gibberish. The Pauline Christ cult had no connection with the Galilean kingdom preaching movement. The ‘history’ of the teaching traditions behind the Gospels, namely in Q, had nothing to do with Paul, it was a separate strand of its own. OTOH, Wells can’t be talking about the ‘traditions’ of the Passion story because, as you confirm, he doesn’t regard that as in any way historical. So what’s left to be “developed…from the early epistles” with an historical basis?

So I have no idea what Wells means in the above quote, or what you mean by quoting it.

Again, I don’t know what you have in mind by this. Paul had no need for dating because his Christ did not live in history. And even if we accepted Wells’ view of Paul’s view of Christ, Paul is assumed to have known nothing about his supposed history and did not even speculate on it. So clearly history did not “matter” to him. The Gospels, on the other hand, are “dated” partly because their story had to be set in some kind of context with historical markers, just as an historical novel is, but also because Mark is writing some time into the course of the kingdom sect’s development and he is reflecting that past genesis and development, so naturally it will be set at some time in the relatively recent past. (And who is trying to “rationalize” any of that away?) But the ‘historical’ picture in Mark does not represent something happening specifically in the time of Pilate, or under the conditions of that time (in fact it’s anachronistic in many ways), since none of the events as portrayed in Mark, both in ministry and Passion, actually happened as portrayed or in the time portrayed. In fact, aside from Mark’s ministry dimension being built on the basis of the ‘history’ of his sect, his entire story has more to do with representing his own present time and the ‘lessons’ he was trying to impart than anything in the past. So “history” apparently mattered very little to Mark either.

So I don’t know what this “history as big deal” is you’re trying to trumpet. What history there is, is a history I thoroughly acknowledge myself, as I derive my composite Christianity on one side from the ‘history’ of the kingdom preaching sect. I just don’t see it as a history of the sect’s reputed founder that Wells subscribes to without any identifiable foundation.

In sum, I don’t see a “point” to what Wells has written which in any way weakens my position on an entirely heavenly Christ as opposed to his position of an “unknown historical figure” supposedly residing in Paul’s mind. But then, as is so often the case, I don’t know just what it is you are trying to say.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

And so have I, pointed out that Wells has no historical evidence for his Galilean preacher that he finds in Q. Demonstrated? By argumentation, Earl - not by any historical evidence. Consequently, your position is no different from that of Wells here - neither of you have historical evidence to back up your opinions or interpretations.
And is the quote, copied below, still your position?

I’m still waiting, Earl, (and that web reply was well over 10 years ago)for you to name the historical figures from whose lives ‘elements’ have fed into the gospel JC myth -“especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths”. The quote is from Wells’ book: (as noted in an earlier post)

Can We Trust The New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Earl, you have lost me here - you say there is ‘no sense’ in this quote from Wells. It really is very straightforward - Wells is saying ....

I can’t for the life of me understand what you find so difficult in such a very plain statement....


Earl, that is all your interpretation, your opinion, for which you have no historical evidence whatsoever....What is ‘left’, Earl, is what has been there all the time - history, real history, not interpretations or opinions.Wells, (and Dunn), and my own position, is that history has a role to play, has an influence in the why of the gospel story. Yes, we can discard the Galilean preacher of Wells, we can discard a historical gospel JC (if that is the position of Dunn) but what we cannot discard is history - the very real history of the time period in which the gospel JC story has been set down.

Sure, Paul’s supernatural JC figure did not live in history - and therefore Paul has no need to give such a figure a pseudo-history. But, Earl, go back to what you stated earlier and what you inferred in your response on your web page - a composite gospel JC figure. Remove the Paul spiritual aspects, the resurrection, the crucifixion as atonement etc and you are still left with some other aspects of that gospel JC that you have yet to account for. It’s not all mythical - as Wells says - and as you, yourself, have said in the quote from your website - elements of historical figures have been used - “since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities”. Who are these historical figures, Earl, who are these historical models that the gospel writers drew upon?
That is all opinion, Earl - and has no historical evidence to back it up. “Kingdom preaching sect” - opinion Earl, no historical evidence to back it up.
Earl, I am not, let me repeat this, I am not trying to weaken your position. Yes, I might have some disagreement with it - but overall I think your position that Paul’s JC is purely a spirititual/intellectual/philosophical construct is correct. But that position does not negate, let me repeat that, that position does not negate the necessity for a historical component to early Christian history. No, of course, not, not a gospel JC ‘history’ - but a very real history outside of that gospel storyline. A very real history that the gospel JC storyline is only an interpretation of, a salvation interpretation, a pseudo-history. Working from a pseudo-history will not lead one to history. Working from history can lead one to an understanding of the pseudo-history - or at least to an appreciation of how the pseudo-history has taken it’s cue from the historical situation.

And Earl, even Wells has given your theory some credit:

Earl, perhaps it’s time to give another look at what Wells is saying - history matters. Without history, Earl, you only have half a story - and half a story is never going to be sufficient as an argument against the historicity of JC. The argument against a historical gospel crucified JC has to be a historical argument - interpreting Paul is not going to do it.....

gurugeorge

"Did not date" is a statement of fact, "had no need to date" seems to go a bit further than statement of fact.

For whatever reason, there's nothing dateable in Paul - neither did he self- consciously date anything, nor is there any kind of "giveaway" as to the dates of the Jesus event.

This could be for any number of reasons, on either HJ or MJ hypothesis. "He had no need to" seems to rather too specific and presumes knowledge of his psychology, and/or that we really do understand his Christology (but to do that the MJ/HJ debate would have to be settled first).

Yes of course, there must have been some reason for the rather precise dating of circa 0-30 CE for the biography. On the HJ hypothesis, that's easy, on the MJ it's not so easy. Both theories have difficulties in different areas.