Kent F

Why the need to force disparate stories together if it were members of the same church that edited and modified them? If they shared the same beliefs, the stories would be much closer if the editing was done for a century or more. The only explanation possible is that the editing was done independently as you say, but that the Roman church was only one of several rival churches with different beliefs doing it, i.e. the epistles by Paul have different roots, just as for instance 1 Peter and Hebrews.

outhouse

Nope, its not possible or probable.

We know which ones were edited, redacted, added to and compiled. And we know about the dates in which all these were done.

A few glosses here and there maybe hard to tell the dating, but even then there are ideas.

Your making more of a mystery then there really is.

mountainman

You need hard evidence for this negative statement.
And you have not produced a skerrick of it.
What are these evidence item(s)?


The knowledge you allude to above is hypothetical knowledge capable of being addressed by various sets of competing and sometimes mutually exclusive antithetical hypotheses.

You may make hypotheses about which ones were edited, redacted, added to and compiled. And you may make hypotheses about the dates in which all these were done. This knowledge is hypothetical, just like any other historical knowledge.

outhouse

You can wiki "Paul the Apostle" and under authorship, "anyone" can read the details that follow my statements directly.

First of all, your the one who never backs up his statements that goes directly against the grain of those with knowledge on the subject.


Its a personal problem of which I dont care, when one purposely chooses to ignore the knowledge at hand, creating more questions then answers with guesses for alternitive paths of the developping canon.


Can you name credible scholars that discount Paul's first century writing that would surpass the fingers on your hand out of thousands with a real education?

aa5874

Early Pauline writings are like FLAT earth--No evidence will ever be provided.

These are the FACTS---The Pauline writings are late and historically bogus.

1. The Pauline writings are WITHOUT corroboration in the very Canon.

2. The Apologetic author of Acts wrote about SAUL/PAUL and never once claimed he wrote letters to Churches.

3. The Apologetic author of Acts wrote NOTHING about the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

4. In the mid 2nd century, Apologetic Justin Martyr claimed that the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the Churches--Nothing about Pauline letters.

5. Around the 3rd century, Apologetic Hippolytus claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

6. Around the mid 3rd century, Apologetic Origen claimed that 2nd century Celsus did NOT write anything about Paul.

7. Around the 3rd-4th century, Apologetics Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

8. In the Apologetic Muratorian Canon, it is claimed the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

9. No Pauline letters have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

10. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul before c 70 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.

maryhelena

Doherty upholds the idea of an imaginary Q founder figure. An imaginary figure, re Doherty, that was developed re the 'dying and rising' element, from scripture. In other words; for Doherty - the gospel JC story of an "imaginary founder of the Q movment" stands alone - it is not dependent upon an interpretation of the Pauline epistles - regardless of the dating of these two sources. Thus, the gospel crucified JC is not a historicizing of a Pauline crucified cosmic figure. If some mythicists are running with this idea - they are not following Doherty. Although, methinks, perhaps Doherty is not following his theories to their logical end...If the Pauline epistles are not the generator of the gospel JC story - then - the gospel story of a crucified JC cannot be interpreted through a Pauline lens. i.e. don't read Paul's cosmic crucified JC into the gospel JC crucified story...it's apples and oranges here. Two completely differed crucifixion stories. One set in a historical time frame and the other set in a timeless cosmic context.

footnote: Paul says he met with James etc - i.e. he met with those who knew the story about the imaginary founder of the Q community. Ergo.....the gospel crucifixion JC story precedes the Pauline epistles. All Paul does is transpose this historically based imaginary story to another context - a timeless cosmic context. Yes, this imaginary Q founder figure can be 'born' from a woman, 'born' in the line of David - Paul is simply upholding the imaginary gospel story. He is not supporting a historical gospel JC.

aa5874

Again, I do not deal with unknown, never heard, never seen hypothetical "Q".

We have Acts of the Apostles and it contains many stories about Saul/Paul and those stories about Saul/Paul did NOT include writing letters to Churches and did NOT include the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.


This is extremely significant.

The very author of the Canonised Acts who claimed or implied he traveled "all over" the Roman Empire with Saul/Paul NEVER once suggested that Saul/Paul was a MAJOR writer of the Church Doctrine before c 70 CE.

And, if the Gospels were composed AFTER Saul/Paul then we have the very same anamoly---None of the Five Canonised authors of the Canon utilised the Pauline Revealed Gospel--None of the FIVE Canonised Gospel authors claimed that there would be NO Remission of Sins without the Resurrection.

The very same problem occurs if the Non-Pauline Epistles are examined--they do NOT mention anywhere that there would be No Remission of Sins without the Resurrection.

Again, up to c 180 CE and later, many Apologetic writers do NOT mention the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Melito, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, and Arnobius wrote ZERO--NIL--NOTHING about the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

The evidence is extremely clear.

The Pauline writings had virtually ZERO influence on Apologetic writers in the 2nd century except for Irenaeus who did NOT know when Jesus was crucified and did NOT know that Paul could NOT have preached Christ crucified under King Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was about 50 years of age and crucified under Claudius.

The Pauline writings are extremely Late based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV No other Apologetic writer up to c 180 CE Taught such a Gospel.

The Pauline writings are historically bogus and were composed sometime AFTER 180 CE.

gurugeorge

I'm aware that there are Apostles who are also disciples with some of the same names Paul uses in the gospels (though not "Cephas"). And I'm aware that a bunch of writings were collected together as a Canon, probably some time towards the end of the 2nd century in roughly the form we know.

But I'm not aware that they are consistent, and I'm not aware that we know exactly why they were put together that way.

You seem to be assuming that the NT Canon is all of a piece with a consistent, coherent "message". I don't assume that.

I especially don't assume that when I see that pivotal terms like "disciple" aren't used in a part of it, but are used in another part of it.

As I said several posts ago, I'm not all that hung up on the "never on earth" aspect. That aspect of it could go either way, really. Plenty myths have gods appearing in human form and talking to people on earth.

However, given, on the one hand, absence of any sense of witnessing, hearing-teachings-of or being-a-disciple-of of an earthly human-like Jesus in the Paul writings, and on the other hand the positive presence of visionary "appearance" only after resurrection, it looks like the earliest version of the myth is more appropriately called "celestial" than "earthly".

IOW, since, in the Paul writings, it looks like the first time anybody on planet Earth ever "sees" in any sense an entity called "Jesus Christ", is after his "resurrection", and since the death-resurrection is claimed to have been "secret", it seems that a "celestial" Jesus is a good bet, and that the death-resurrection was a sort of magic shadow-play with demons in outer space, with power to alter things on earth (microcosm mirrors macrocosm). It's not a bad way of neatly tying up the early evidence.

What's more certain, actually, it that it looks like what we're dealing with is a bunch of people who have a variant idea of what "the Messiah" is, which puts him in the past, having done his stuff in secret, but "appearing" to them in Scripture and hallucination. It is a theophany, and whether that entity is considered as having been sacrificed on Earth in secret in fleshy form, or in outer space in a sort of dramatic magic play, in secret in fleshy form, is really six and a half dozen so far as mythicism is concerned.

They key point of mythicism is (pretty much) won in either case, as soon as it is admitted that, in the earliest writing (Paul), there is no good evidence of human-on-human contact between anybody mentioned in the NT canon and the cult deity prior to crucifixion, but quite a lot of evidence to suggest a purely Scriptural/visionary "appearance":-

Quote:

Third, the verb opththe, "he was seen by" or "he appeared to," is of great significance. Paul does not use this precise form elsewhere. Its emphasis is on the active role of Christ, who lets himself be seen by chosen witnesses. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ophthe is used frequently in narrating theophanies, where it serves as a technical vocabulary for "appearing from heaven" (see, e.g., Gen. 12:7; 17:1, 18:1; Exod. 3:2, 4:1; 6:3). All uses of ophthe in the New Testaqment reflect similar contexts, a fact that raises questions about interpreting the "seeing" literally. (Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives)

The rest of it is just detail, pinning down the actual beliefs more precisely. And in the nature of the case, there can be no certainty about it anyway, since it's the very ambiguity of the evidence that makes historicism plausible to some people.

The timing is an inference (and for me personally, partly based on other considerations, like the Caligula events ca 40CE), but it's based on several considerations, including priority. Never mind the actual date for the moment, just look at the difference in content between the Paul letters and the gospels. Only if (as I said above) you assume that the NT Canon is deliberately presenting a consistent picture, as a whole, would you have to say what you are saying.

However, that sheer difference in content alone is suggestive of earlier to later, since usually things get elaborated over time, and the gospels are far more elaborate than the Paul letters.

Not for the first time, I'm struck by how your position mirrors historicist attempts to harmonize the NT writings around the image of a historical Jesus. You just harmonize them around the idea of "late, made-up crap".

It's not an assumption, it's an inference.

And again, you are being naive in assuming that "being part of the NT canon" means that all the texts are consistent with each other, or that the central figure is consistent throughout.

Plenty myths have gods "in the likeness of man", it doesn't support the historicist case, and it doesn't support yours (of a late Paul).

gurugeorge

Hey Tanya, so far as I'm concerned, it's partly trust that biblical scholars are not complete buffoons and, apart from their monomania about a historical Jesus, know what they're about when they do philological investigations; partly considerations about simple-to-complex (as mentioned above to aa); partly my own idea that given the positive tone (the sense of "good news of victory won", evangelion) in the Paul writings, then if you were to find a moment in time when Jews felt somewhat positive about the future, about an imminent change, it would have been that short period after Caligula died circa 40 CE.

aa5874

Again, you have NOT provided any actual evidence that the Pauline letters were composed BEFORE Acts of the Apostles.

I no longer entertain imagination as evidence. I NEED EVIDENCE.

Examine Acts of the Apostles, word-for-word, chapter by chapter and there is NO mention whatsoever of any Pauline letters to Churches--NONE--ZERO--NOTHING.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was converted AFTER the Apostles Peter preached that the Jews KILLED Jesus.

The EARLIEST stories in the Canon is that the Jews CRUCIFIED Jesus.

Acts 2 Acts 2 The Pauline writer ADMITTED he Persecuted those who BELIEVED the Jesus story BEFORE his Jesus was revealed to him. See Galatians 1.