la70119

Since you want us to go that route, what sort of Salvation history are we talking about? Certainly not PERSONAL Salvation! It was NATIONAL Salvation. And who were the national Saviours of Israel at the mythical beginning of that Nation when it was "liberated" from Egypt and 40 years later, took over Canaanland?

The national Saviour was first Moses, then it was Joshua.

If you happen to read Josephus' Jewish War and Antiquities he talks about several would be messiahs who, by their actions, are indicating to the wise reader that they are Moses redivivus or Joshuah redivivus. And if "Jesus the so-called Christ" were actually historical, Josephus would have painted him as one of the several. And if the so-called "TF" was his, he would simply have been quoting Christian propaganda, and making it clear that it was wrong.

I can see how it could have been interpolated. But remember, it's in the earliest fragment containing First Corinthians, P46 (ca. 175 - 225 CE). We have ZERO physical evidence it was interpolated. Other scholars will have to test Robert Price's hypothesis and come to their own conclusions (I'm sure Apostate Abe and aa5874 will have choice words to say about this).

aa5874

The very link you provided dates the Pauline writings [P 46] to the mid 3rd century ca. 250 AD.

There is NO known evidence from any non-aplogetic sources of antiquity that the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed in the 1st century and BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE and before Acts of the Apostles.

The Internal evidence does NOT support the claim that Acts was composed After the Pauline writings.

It is the COMPLETE opposite.

The author of Acts did NOT ever claim Paul wrote any letters to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

In fact, in Acts, it is claimed that it was JAMES who suggested that the JERUSALEM Church writer letters to be Hand delivered by Paul and his group.

But, the most significant evidence that Acts was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Church can be found in the fact that ALL Apologetic sources that substantially mentioned the activities of Paul stated that he wrote Epistles EXCEPT the author of Acts.

The author of Acts dedicated 13 chapters to Paul and mentioned Numerous cities where Paul traveled and never once stated Paul wrote any letter to a Church at any time.

In virtually ALL Church writings Paul was known for his letters to the Churches EXCEPT in Acts of the Apostles.

Clement of Rome "First Epistle" Irenaeus "Against Heresies 3.22Tertullian's "Against Marcion"Clement of Alexandria "Instructor"Origen "De Principiis" The author of Acts wrote NOT one thing about a Pauline letter to any Church even though he was a supposed WITNESS of the activities of Paul his close companion.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Duvduv

Even in those single line examples of the apologists you can see the clear case of building their history long after the events they describe were to have happened for the sake of the new Empire, the new Emperors and the New Religion.

Whether they existed or were the products of a scribal industry for Byzantium, all that could be proffered are biased party hacks (one or more) and insiders whose statements about gospels and "blessed Paul" are of no objective value other than to get a feel for what they thought of the religion that was emerging....

Toto

All of the quoted apologists wrote well after Paul, but well before Constantine. If you think you see references to a new Empire or Emperor, I'd like to know what exactly you claim is that reference.

What do you think they are used for? No one quotes these to prove anything about Paul. The quotes merely show that at some point, Christians associated Paul with his letters.

maryhelena

I made mention of salvation history simply to indicate that that is what a lot of the OT is about - an interpretation of history, a searching for meaning within history, ie history is ground zero. The rest, the salvation history, is the story. Moses and Joshua - figures in a story about the origins of the nation of Israel. Likewise, JC and 'Paul' - reverse the roles. 'Paul' leads the escape from the Law that enslaves - and JC leads the way into that promised land of milk and honey, miracles and healing.

Josephus is interested in messianic figures, but these are not nobody figures: Agrippa I - and the OT story of Joseph. Philip the Tetrarch and the most beautiful story of the land that is the ambition of nature....
I don't go along with the interpolation idea. Yes, it's a long thread to have to go through. My position is stated here.

aa5874

The earliest Jesus story is NOT a Salvation story. It is story of Rejection and the fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture because of the very rejection of Jesus.

Matthew 13:13-15 KJV The Jesus story was NOT ever about Salvation it was about the fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture---the DESTRUCTION of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

A Salvation story was ADDED later when 12 verses were ADDED to the Short-Ending gMark.

The EVIDENCE has been Documented in the Extant Codices.

We have the Short Ending and the Interpolated gMark.

The interpolated gMark 16.9-20 do NOT belong to the Jesus story.

Mark 16 The Crucifixion of Jesus in gMark was NOT ever about universal Salvation. It was about destruction for the Jews.

Tom Sawyer

Well, it's been almost 2000 years and they've gone through countless pogroms, evictions, slaughters, wars and even a holocaust and they're still around.

The crucifixion sucked badly at destroying them.

lmbarre

I have a different understanding of gMark's portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion. I see it portrayed as a high drama of tragedy which like Greek and Roman tragedies was intended to inspire pity and fear, leading to a catharsis of the soul. Note that in gMark, the plot is one in which Jesus moves some supreme confidence before the high priest to one of abject dispair just before he died.

Here is the text that portrays Jesus confident expectation of deliverance through the establishment of the messianic age:

Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:62) “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

It is important to note the messianic text to which Jesus alludes (Dan 7:13-14):

7:13 I was watching in the night visions,

“And with the clouds of the sky

one like a son of man was approaching.

He went up to the Ancient of Days

and was escorted before him.

7:14 To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.

All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving36 him.

His authority is eternal and will not pass away.

His kingdom will not be destroyed.


I interpret Jesus' answer to mean that the high priest was about the see the proof of his claim to be the Messiah, the high priest would (soon) see the fulfillment of Daniel's vision. It makes no sense to find in this context Jesus refering to some future event. Additional details about what Jesus saw as imminent are provided by Mark 13:24:

The Arrival of the Son of Man

Mark 13:24 “But in those days, after that suffering,32 the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; 13:25 the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.33 13:26 Then everyone34 will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds35 with great power and glory. 13:27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.36

While this text treats the coming of the son of Man as a future event, Jesus saw it as an expectation that was already in the process of being fulfilled, a process that began with the appearance of the Baptizer, coming to its climax in Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem at the Passover where for the first time Jesus openingly proclaimed his conviction that he was the Messiah. Both the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple illustrate how he was acting as the promised royal Messiah. That confidence turned into abject despair and was expressed in his last words. Feeling death coming on he said, "MY God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Then he died.

The plot of gMark reveals some surprising, ir0onic conclusions--1) Jesus was proved wrong about his messianic idenitiy and mission. He was not the Messiah; 2) the Sanhedrin's verdict was upheld by Jesus' death. The expectation of an imminent establishment of the messianic age did not occur as Jesus expected; 3) the author's evaluation of Jesus is surprisngly expressed, of all people, by the centurion who lead the crucifixion detail. All three developments in the plot are ironic in the sense that the outcome of events were unexpected and surprising according gMark's portrayal of Jesus' last hours. In sum, Jesus is properly assessed as not a Messiah but rather as a "son of god," understood as a Roman would understand the term, where Jesus is concluded to have belonged to a special class of people (uios theou) with transcendent qualities. And with that gMark concludes his portrayal of Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as a tragic hero whose story was to inspire what good tragedies are supposed to according to Aristotle--pity, fear, catharsis. It is the story about a virtuous man who made a fatal mistake (hamartia) that fate exposed. Of course, the addition of the burial and ressurection episodes changes one's understanding of Jesus With the addition of these episodes, Mark presented Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

Chili

Yes, they send him back to their Galilee to stew some more in their brew and later came back to take the mechanics or method so it would not be crushed by the fall of the temple and used it in Luke and in John where they show how it was supposed to be done.

aa5874

The earliest Jesus story had NOTHING whatsoever to do with a new religion or the start of a new cult or ritual of Human Sacrifice.

The earliest gMark was an EXPLANATION, using Hebrew Scriptures, for the Fall of the Jewish Temple, the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Calamities c 70 CE.

gMark was written AFTER the destruction, not before.