Chris Weimer

I think we've reached the unanimous decision that before any more of the senseless debates continues, we need to define our methods of extracting data from the earliest Christian works and archaeology.

I propose we evaluate these sources before continuing further.

Paul - What does Paul think about Jesus?
DeuteroPaul - What do the pseudepigraphic letters think about Jesus and Paul?
Mark - What does Mark think about Jesus? Can we find any evidence of an earlier layer of Mark that is preserved?
Matthew and Luke - Are there any remnants of earlier beliefs to be found in Matthew and Luke apart from Paul? This includes Q.
Thomas - What does Thomas say about Jesus? How do we define the layers in Thomas? Do the earliest layers antedate Mark?
General Christian Testimony - Not particulary useful by itself, but it may reinforce some ideas.
General Gnostic Testimony - Not particularly useful by itself, but it may reinforce some ideas.

Thoughts?

Clivedurdle

Been in the holy of holies again today - the British Museum!

Comment in their guide to the enlightenment about what to do about xianity.

Conclusion, see it as a human invention like other religions, do not give it any special status.

They were able to do an awful lot of comparing and contrasting - Africa, Americas, the Asias, Australasia. They were able to pick out things about xianity that the modern protestant heresy has tried to suppress - magic, pagan rites, classic religious behaviour as found world wide!

Your methodology is not doing that, it is far too narrowly focussed!

Toto

I guess I'm following you around. Before you can figure out what Paul thought about Jesus, you need to figure out what Paul said.

Check out my post here and please tell me why you think that we have any idea what Paul said, versus what later editors added.

Julian

Also, I believe it might be worthwhile to split DeuteroPauline into:

1) Pastorals
2) Other pseudepigraphicals (Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, etc...)
3) Apocryphal Pauline (Acts of Thecla, Laodiceans, etc...)

Julian

Chris Weimer

Since I clearly stated that I accept archaeological evidence, I don't see how I'm too narrow. What evidence do you have to bring to the table?

Julian - I think personally the Pastorals are a bit late, post-dating even Luke. But if you can give a good reason why they're acceptable, sure.

Clivedurdle

Context? Gestalt?

Religions as human creations?

Being clear about basic assumptions and where those assumptions lead, for example, what is the purpose of xianity.

Julian

I entirely agree with you, which is one of the reasons why I suggested that they should be split out, anticipating them to turn out meaningless in this context. I would go so far as to put them rather late-ish in the 2nd century, cf. anti-woman stance compared to Pliny's testimony in 112.

Julian

Ben C Smith

In your review I find the following:

I can agree with that (though of course it will probably often come down to a question of how onerous is onerous).

But a light burden of proof on the person arguing for a specific interpolation sounds so different than what you have said on the other thread:

This suggests that the burden of proof is on the one arguing against a specific interpolation.

Ben.