andrewcriddle

I find what Theophilus says about the origin of the name Christian puzzling.

My best guess is that he does not mean that Christians are so called because of a ceremony of anointing with physical oil (there is actually little evidence for such ceremonies in 2nd century Christianity) but because they share in the spiritual anointing of Jesus by God.

One problem with regarding Theophilus as not a Christian in any usual sense are the passages in book 3 where he refers to Christians as being persecuted, falsely accused of abominable behaviour and alleged to be a new religion without proper ancient roots. (See chapter 4 chapter 15 and chapter 30 in book 3). All of this fits with what we know of Christianity c 180 CE but not with Judaized Gentiles at this time.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,
That may be what Theophilus means, but it is not what he says. He doesn't mention Jesus, but does mention athletes oiling themselves before entering the gymnasium. From this I take it that literal and liberal greasing up was a habit (perhaps a rite) with these self named Christians.

Andrew,

Those are some points worth considering. What if it is true that, as you have written, that the sacred Christian mysteries, would only be disclosed to initiates at a much later time. This could be out of fear of persecution or some other reason. This "secrecy" would be similar to the mystery religions of the era, so would not be strange to find this similarity.

I have often noted that there is an apparent discrepency between Christianity revealed by artificats (such as in the catacombs) and the dogmatics of the writings of the church fathers. The artificats would be aligned with the outer teachings, and the writings with the inner teachings.

The outer teachings were a general allegorical approach to the interpretation of the Septuagint that allowed Christians to hang around the Disapora synagogues without too much controversy. This would be pretty much in line with the methods of Philo, and this is what we see in the writings of Theophilus.

But when a catechumen had been sufficiently indoctinated, it would be progressively revealed to him (or her) the "things of Jesus." The beauty of this is that Jesus is revealed merely by advancing the same allegorical techniques used in Phase I.

We know that this was indeed a method of instruction in the Christian mysteries: it is the described in Luke and Acts. Everything that needed to be known about Jesus could be found out from reading and interpreting the Septuagint in the correct manner. Luke 24:27,32,45. Acts 18:24-25.

I think it is obvious that the allegorical method of reading the Septuagint to reveal Jesus predates the gospels. A list of such "proof texts" was likely the earliest Christian document and may even have been known as "the gospel".

Jake Jones

Didymus

Well, yes, but Theophilus considered himself to be a Christian. He apparently made no distinction between "Christians" like himself (God Fearers?) and those whom we would consider to be Christians.

It's interesting that in describing the Creation, he echoes John:

"And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, 'The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.' The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place."

But he never once mentions Jesus! A glaring omission, easily on a par with the Pauline Silences.

Didymus

Chunk

I hope this is the right thread for this.

From the reading I have been doing, it appears to me that there is a void between Pauls letters and the first Gospel. If you take Colossians to be the last Epistle and Mark to be the first gospel.

A vital question is, are the gospels a ficitional ellaboration on what Paul is writting about, or are they the full story to Pauls summary?

To read some reasoning for argueing either way would be interesting.

Some points that I have come across:

The time between Pauls letters and the Gospel of Mark is very small. http://earlychristianwritings.com dates Colossians as 60-80 and the widely accepted date for Mark seems to be 75ad. This leaves no time at all for such a wildly different view of Jesus to be developed.

Its clear that some people were following what Paul had to say. Why would these Pauline Christians accept the gospels, if they were wildly different to what Paul had been teaching. Surely the Pauline Christians would have taken some action against this new idea about Christ?

The idea that Paul is believing in something different about Jesus, seems to be based on the fact that he includes none of the detail about Jesus' life that is present in the Gospels. Is this a sign that the life of Jesus wasnt invented until after Paul?
The epistles appear to be written to people who are already Christian. Their purpose seems to be to instruct people on how to live by Christ, and how Christ taught people to live. Paul never appears to be aiming to write a detailed description of Jesus' life.

Paul does actualy appear to make reference to miracles performed during the life of Jesus. (Heb 2:4).

Didymus

Most scholars don't think Colossians was written by Paul. So the gap is probably larger than that. But that's not a major issue.

Probably neither. Although there are occasional similarities (e.g. the eucharist) between Paul and the gospels, most scholars don't think Mark or the other gospel authors were familiar with Paul's writings. There seem to have been parallel traditions, the "Kingdom of God" tradition - a wandering miracle-worker who expressed "home truths" in a manner similar to that of the Cynic philosophers, and Paul's "Jerusalem Tradition" of a crucified and risen savior.

By "new idea" I assume you mean the gospel idea of a historical Jesus? It seems that the Jesus idea evolved slowly in that direction during the latter part of the first century. Until we reach the end of the century, there's no evidence that the gospel notion of a historical Jesus was widely accepted. Of course, there'd be little or no opposition; Jesus' newfound place as a man in recent history had to be great news for Christians - Paul's mystical preaching about a descending/ascending savior became concrete and relevant in the form of a suffering human being. It was an idea that rocked the world, but that doesn't mean it reflected historical reality.

There's no need for everything to have happened in tandem. Keep in mind that Paul's epistles and the gospels were written, not in Jerusalem, but in places like Damascus, Antioch and Alexandria. Early Christianity was highly diverse in its ideas about Jesus; we see only a tiny portion in the canonical New Testament.

As far as we know, Mark, writing after 70 CE (definitely after Paul), was the first to combine the two traditions into a biographical narrative. Most subsequent Christian writings are dependent on Mark to some extent.

Only once, in the eucharistic injunction, does Paul quote Jesus by name. Otherwise, he doesn't attribute any sayings or precepts to Jesus. Not once does he present Jesus' life as an example to live by. And in telling us about his meetings with Peter and James, he does not say that they were companions of Jesus during his earthly ministry; nor does he share any stories they surely would have told him about Jesus.

There is scholarly consensus that Paul didn't write Hebrews. For more on this, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html.

Didymus

jakejonesiv

I don't think there is a sequential development from Paul to the gospels. To the contrary, these arose from separate sources and combined in the middle to second half of the second century CE.

The gospels arose from an allegorical reading of the Septuagint in Alexandria. (i.e the proto-orthodox root). The gospels remained very fluid until near the end of the second century when the four canonical gospels emerged.

The Pauline Epistles are second century forgeries by the Marconites. (i.e. the heretics). These were heavily redacted by the proto-orthodox in the second half of the second century. The result was to co-opt the Apostle of the heretics (the ficticious Paul) into harmony and support with the Apostle of the proto-orthodox (the ficticious Peter).

It is in this era that works such as Acts of the Apostles , the Ignatians were forged, along with interpolations into 1 Clement & Galatians 2:7-8 and other works to create the myth of harmonious Christian origins.

ymmv.

Jake Jones

Didymus

Neither do I, if you are saying that the gospel authors didn't "know" Paul. On the other hand, the sequence of Paul early, gospels late is well-supported and widely accepted. I haven't seen anything that makes me think the undisputed (by mainstream scholars) Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) were forgeries or that they were written after the gospels or in the second century. Would you mind citing some sources?

What do you mean by "separate sources"? From separate communities, or from sources other than Paul?

They weren't really combined except in the Diatessaron and other "harmonies."

There's evidence (the Muratorian Canon) that all four gospels were in play at the end of the 2nd century. Although a case (Sundberg) has been made for a third century dating for the formation of the canon, it's been accepted only by a few scholars. Even "liberals" like Norman Perrin haven't found it convincing.

Seems like you've found some scholars who differ. Who takes that position?

That certainly seems to be true of the Passion narratives, but I doubt that the many other legends, miracle stories, pericopes and sayings can be so easily traced to the Septuagint. For one thing, the ironic and elliptical sayings of Jesus in the gospels seem much more compatible with the Cynic school of philosophy than they are with the blunt, in-your-face teachings in the Old Testament.

It would be interesting to see a verse-by-verse treatment of the gospels vs. the LXX in light of that theory. Saying that the NT "arose from an allegorical reading" is one thing; specifics are another breed of cat. I can't quite imagine the thought process, i.e., from where in the OT would you derive an exorcism of pigs? And how would you get to Farmer X and his drowning pigs from Verse Y?

Seems incumbent upon claimants to support this position with abundant parallel OT and NT C & V, exercising great caution to avoid the temptation of "reverse engineering."

Hmmm. A fraud worked upon a forgery. How is it evidenced?

Seems to me that Luke, in the writing of Acts, succeeded in reconciling Peter and Paul, at least sufficiently for public consumption.

For your theory to be plausible, there must have been a powerful church heirarchy surreptitiously promoting a rigid orthodoxy as early as the second half of the second century, i.e., a patristic conspiracy. But did the church constipate so soon? Or are we looking at a scattering of Christianities at that stage? Seems to me that the church didn't arrive at a consensus of orthodoxy until Nicea in the fourth century.

That conspiracy seems not to have succeeded, since anyone who studies the early church knows that there was plenty of disharmony.

My mileage does vary, considerably. But I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you or your sources are using to support this theory of a fictitious Paul and forged early church documents.

Didymus

jakejonesiv

You have asked all the right questions. They deserve more than a short answer.

Here are some links.
The Evolution of the Pauline Canon By Robert M. Price

The Fabricated Paul by Hermann Detering. There was a thread on this, (click here) so you can pros and cons.

The Gospel Jesus by GJPJ Bolland. An Englsh summary by Klaus Schilling, with a few caveats is here.

Jake

Ben C Smith

Doug (Amaleq13), just a relevant update on the night when Jesus was delivered up. On his weblog today Mark Goodacre posted a link to a revised version of the paper he delivered a couple of years ago at Wellesly College. The following snippet says some of what I was trying to say, but says it better and more compactly:

What is interesting is the way in which Paul introduces the eucharistic words. He says in the night that he [Jesus] was handed over (11.23). Sometimes in history you can find out interesting things by observing what a writer thinks his or her readers can take for granted. Paul here apparently assumes that the time note, the night that he was handed over, would be understood by his hearers. "O, that night"; not any other night, not any ordinary night. It is a note that hints that his hearers knew a good deal more of this story than Paul has time or need to share here. The Corinthians, we must assume, are familiar with some kind of narrative of Jesus' last days.

At any rate, the paper is recommended reading.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

The problem is, Ben, that only a believer could find that significance in there. It doesn't look that way from the outside. And second -- and more importantly -- assuming that the hearers know the story doesn't imply that it is the gospel story. It is the usual case, again, of assuming that the story reflects the reading we want to discover in it.

"Scripturalization" is simply another word for the "Historical Core" that can't be made to go away, because it is a faith statement, not a rational argument.

Vorkosigan