aa5874

We have a recent model. We have Joseph Smith of Mormonism. It is futility to think one can explain why Joseph Smith used an angel called Moroni instead of Gabriel or claimed he found "golden plates" with his canon.

But it is extremely critical that we have a fundamentally correct chronology of the beginnings of the religion.

The evidence so far appears to indicate that there were no Jesus stories up to the writings of Josephus and that there were no named gospels, Acts of the Apostles and letters from "Paul" until after the writings of Justin Martyr.

gurugeorge

With respect aa, that's not good enough. "They're all weirdos! Who knows what they'll come up with!?" isn't really a good enough answer to the question: Why would orthodoxy invent in such a central place in their canon works that are of dubious orthodoxy like "Paul"?

aa5874

You have invented your "orthodoxy".

There is no external or internal source or information that shows your "orthodoxy" in the 1st century, where real people were preaching a gospel and had already established churches in Judaea and other places before the death of Nero.

And, my theory does not include your invention.


This is my theory. It is very simple.

The gospel or the Jesus story was manufactured using information from the writings of Josephus possibly around the end of the 1st century.

Later, sometime after the writings of Justin Martyr and the Diatessaron by Tatian, the names of the gospels were manufactured and the character called Paul is fabricated for propaganda purposes.

All the main characters in my theory are fictitious, including Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

spamandham

One scenario, is that Paul was not invented by the church, but rather, by Marcion. The church pulled in followers of Marcion, including the letters of "Paul", and proceeded to alter and add to those letters to better fit their theology. Paul then becomes the voice of everything the church wants to say. "Hey look! I found another letter from Paul! This one answers the question about divorce."

spin

It all depends on your evaluation of the message.


spin

gurugeorge

It's hardly my invention, it's just a triangulation from scholarship I've read - especially W Bauer. I mark the beginnings of orthodoxy around 80-90CE (Matthew) - as I said it's a relatively late development in the earliest Christianity, so of course you wouldn't see it in the 1st century. What exists from the first century is (towards the end of it) Mark, and before that "Paul", Hebrews, a few other bits and pieces. These are traces that are generally agreed on by what seems to me to be sound scholarship.

I just don't think "Justin doesn't mention" him is good enough to sweep that away.

WHAT propaganda purposes? What propaganda purposes could possibly be served by inventing strange doctrine in a prominent place in the Canon when a non-strange doctrine would have done just as well?

gurugeorge

This is possible (although I don't know how possible in the light of serious textual analysis), but in that case why don't we just take Marcion (and other Gnostics) at their word and accept they had a founder they looked back to with respect who wrote a few bits and pieces?

spamandham

Taking them at their word is one option.

Have you read Detering's position on Paul? He argues that Simon Magus is the 'historical Paul' (originally called Simon in Marcion's writings), whom Marcion freely attributed his own ideas to, and whom was later turned into "Paul" by the catholic church.

aa5874

Well, you propagate an invention. Would Joseph Smith's Mormonism be considered orthodox when it was initially started?

There is no recorded information external of the NT and apologetic sources to support an "orthodoxy" at around 80-90 CE. "Orthodoxy" may have occurred in the 4th century.

And "Paul" is by far the worst person/s to use as a witness to Jesus believers in the 1st century, since he was unknown by face to the churches in Judaea, using Pauls words.

Now what is "pieces and bits"?
What does "Paul" mean, who is "Paul", who saw "Paul", the real "Paul" and when?

If you have no support for the invention of others then I would sweep that away until the inventors get evidence. I longer accept people's imagination as corroborative information.

In the NT, "Paul" rules.

No angel from heaven or any other person can preach another gospel.

The gospel of "Paul" is final.

"Paul" seems like the Church.

Galations 1.8 "The curse is final"

From whom did "Paul" get his authority? Jesus in heaven or the Church on earth?

The gospel of "Paul" is the gospel of the Church. Every single letter from "Paul" is authentic, even Hebrews is authentic and of "Paul".

"Paul" is unknown by face, he is faceless.

"Paul" is the Church and his gospel is of the Church.

gurugeorge

This just doesn't make sense at all.

Surely you are aware that part of the impetus of the whole debate on Jesus' historicity is the paucity, in "Paul", of what are recognised as some of the characteristic elements that belong to the orthodox interpretation (of whom the first recognisable named and probably historical is Justin) - that is to say, the lack of emphasis, in "Paul" on the fleshly elements and biography of Joshua Messiah?

IOW, if it can be said that one of the strong elements in what later became Catholicism is the fine balance between the fleshly aspect of the Jesus story and the spiritual aspect, and that balance is represented in every orthodox Father, from Justin on down - why would that balance be lacking in an invention that's supposed to "seal" their teaching?