Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2004, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet

If Paul regarded Pilate as an archon, he would have referred to him as an archon, but he refers to archons - so what you should be asking me is whether Pilate (singular) was archons (plural) as Paul states.

I agree. The HJ redactor of AoI would agree. If Paul and the AoI redactor wanted to refer to Pilate, they could have. So obviously "archons" doesn't refer to just Pilate.

Quote:

2. Paul could have known that not all the leaders of the world were responsible for Jesus' death therefore could not have blamed all of them.

No, Paul could have believed like the AoI redactor did - that Satan and his angels ("the archons") caused the Jews to kill Jesus.

Quote:

We have been through this. Kirby did a survey of scholarly opinion and said 9 scholars lean towards an 'earthly meaning' against Doherty's seven. I noted that against Doherty, Kirby excluded Thackeray, Paul Ellingworth and Schmiedel. That's 10 in favour of Doherty and 9 contra (or at least a tie).

So, lets just say you can choose who to believe on the issue.

I'm okay either way. I have the AoI redactor on my side.

Quote:

Common sense dictates that one cannot add primitive elements to a story like Jesus being crucified on a tree instead of being crucified on a cross, like Jesus being pre-existent (as opposed to being born), phrases like "Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus'" indicate to us that Jesus was a mythical saviour figure - who died and was named Jesus.

As the narrator is apparently Isaiah, and apparently writing before Jesus was born, why is this a problem? According to the Gospels, Jesus wasn't named until just before His birth anyway, so it all fits.

Quote:

To answer your question: Satan and his angels killed Christ. Anything else is the hand of an interpolator - because we know that the Gospel tradition came later than primitive traditions which had a nameless god descending to be crucified and being exalted by being named (as we seen in Phillipians).

Just like the HJ, according to the AoI redactor.

Quote:

First of all, please note that the evaluation has to be done on a case by case basis. Making a general rule of thumb may not work because we have works like GJohn which have Christ logos combined with an earthly one.

JA, all you are doing is pulling out any MJ-like components from Tatian, AoI, etc, and then claim "these are primitive elements made by a MJer". That is your case-by-case basis. In fact, I'm pretty confident that most of those components can be found in HJer writings. You don't really have any method, I'm afraid, you are just assuming what you are setting out to prove. (That doesn't mean you are wrong - the evidence may simply not have survived. But it makes building a case almost impossible IMHO)

Quote:

But the following reasons can be used to argue why, when we find HJ references in a text that has primitive MJ references, we conclude interpolation:

Because a mythical Jesus preceded a MJ as we see from Jewish Personified wisdom to Christ Logos.
Because later Church tradition embraced a HJ especially after establishment of the Canon and imperialization(?) of Christianity.
Because later Christians could not have inserted a spiritual Jesus into documents given a HJ had pervaded every nook and cranny.
If we have interruptions in the flow of narrative occasioning the mixture of HJ and MJ as we have in AoI, we are even more confident.

Based on the above, if gospel HJ references are found together with primitive references, we know a redactor sat down and tried to 'correct' what they saw as an anomaly.

So, FINALLY. You've admitted that someone had noticed an anomaly. But where is the evidence that anyone noticed this anomaly? We have LOTS of heresies being decried by the 2nd C CE. Marcion's belief that Jesus was not flesh and blood, but formed as the angels in the OT were, was heavily criticised and fought against. Where is the evidence that the MJ was ever fought against? KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU'VE JUST ADMITTED THAT A HJER WAS CORRECTING AN 'ANOMOLY'.

So, did the HJer redactor correct the anomoly or not?

Quote:

A HJer, by definition, wouldn't do that. Pilate "killed" Jesus. The Nicene Creed is testimony to how much an MJ needed eradication.

Yay! More evidence of an anomoly! And going on for centuries, what's more.

Quote:

GDon >>>Tell me, why did the redactor in AoI leave in the primitive elements?

Because of editorial fatigue which undermines thoroughgoing redaction.

I see. And was that written with a straight face?

So, we have the redactor noticing anomolies, but then deciding part way through not to take all of them out. And no-one else later worried about doing it. Fine, let's go with that. It doesn't matter to my point. The AoI was noted by HJers like Origen and Jerome in the following centuries.

So, can we conclude that at SOME stage that there was a final redacted version of AoI, talking about Jesus descending from Heaven, being killed by Satan and hung on a tree, and returning, that was regarded as acceptable to HJers?

Amaleq13 · 08-27-2004, 01:05 PM

GDon,

IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree in this line of attack on the MJ position.

The "anomaly" is simple an absence of any reference to earthly events like those described in the Gospel stories. I don't see "correction" as much as attaching information that was added by stories written subsequent to the original beliefs.

An original belief in a spiritual Son of God getting executed by spiritual forces would not have been considered heretical to later Christians asserting the historicity of the Gospel stories because those beliefs don't explicitly deny that assertion. I also wouldn't expect any 2nd century MJ believers to be concerned about this new emphasis on the literal truth of the Gospel stories because it would still contain the "spiritual truth" of their own beliefs.

Folks who claimed that Jesus' physical form was only an illusion, on the other hand, clearly were explicitly denying those beliefs so they earned the title of "heretic".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet

The Nicene Creed is testimony to how much an MJ needed eradication.

IMO, this would be better worded as:

The Nicene Creed is testimony to how much an MJ needed supplimentation.

I agree with GDon that there doesn't appear to be any evidence that early belief in a "mythical Jesus" was considered heretical by the Explicit Historical Jesus boys of the 2nd century but I disagree with him that this is significant because there is nothing inherently or explicitly problematic about such beliefs for HJ assertions.

Notsri · 08-27-2004, 03:28 PM

...just thought I'd add my two cents (based on a few comments here and there from the above posts):

1. Paul's references to the crucifixion on a "tree" are not incompatible or contradictory with the NT affirmation elsewhere that Christ was crucified on a cross. "Tree" is just a figure of speech, a synecdoche (or a metonymy) in this case; and taken within the context of both the Pauline corpus and the NT in general, it would undoubtedly refer to the cross. Paul is not the only Greek writer to use such figurative language. Seneca (Dialogue 3.2.2 [or Epistle 101]) uses the very same of crucifixion; he says: "Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree..."

2. If not explicitly stated, it certainly seems to be implied in portions of the discussion that Paul didn't believe in a historical, human Jesus. When given close scrutiny, though, I think his epistles suggest otherwise. In Romans 1:3, Paul says Christ was "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh." In Rom. 5:15 and again at 1 Tim. 2:5 Paul refers to the "man" Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 6:13 says, "Christ Jesus...testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate." And perhaps most important of the few I'll list (and there are others) is 1 Corinth. 11:23ff.: "For I [Paul] received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"

Toto · 08-27-2004, 03:38 PM

Hi Notsri - welcome to the boards.

The question of Paul's beliefs has come up here before, but we have not settled the question.

Do you think that Paul wrote the Epistle to Timothy? (Most scholars consider the answer to be No.) Have you considered the possibility that the few phrases in Paul's epistles that speak of Jesus in human terms were added by a later editor?

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2004, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

GDon,

IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree in this line of attack on the MJ position.

The "anomaly" is simple an absence of any reference to earthly events like those described in the Gospel stories. I don't see "correction" as much as attaching information that was added by stories written subsequent to the original beliefs.

An original belief in a spiritual Son of God getting executed by spiritual forces would not have been considered heretical to later Christians asserting the historicity of the Gospel stories because those beliefs don't explicitly deny that assertion. I also wouldn't expect any 2nd century MJ believers to be concerned about this new emphasis on the literal truth of the Gospel stories because it would still contain the "spiritual truth" of their own beliefs.

Then my point would be: how do we know that Paul believed in an MJ? If there was nothing heretical for a HJer to say that Christ was killed by spiritual forces, then Paul's comments about the "archons killing the Lord of Glory" is consistent with HJ beliefs. We have HJers like Ignatius and Tertullian who also wrote apologies without historical details. The mere lack of such doesn't mean that the author didn't believe in a HJ.

Quote:

Folks who claimed that Jesus' physical form was only an illusion, on the other hand, clearly were explicitly denying those beliefs so they earned the title of "heretic".

It seems to me that people who denied that Christ was on earth at all would have been considered just as heretical, if not more.

Quote:

I agree with GDon that there doesn't appear to be any evidence that early belief in a "mythical Jesus" was considered heretical by the Explicit Historical Jesus boys of the 2nd century but I disagree with him that this is significant because there is nothing inherently or explicitly problematic about such beliefs for HJ assertions.

So then, if we come across such belief in an MJ, how do we know whether the author believed in a HJ or an MJ, in the absence of historical details? It seems to me that it is impossible. All we can say is that the author doesn't mention historical details, therefore MAY be an MJ. But we have HJ authors who did the same.

As I've said, it doesn't mean that Doherty is wrong. It just shows that it is impossible for him to point to any letter and say that it is the product of an MJer, without assuming it in the first place.

Notsri · 08-27-2004, 05:33 PM

Hi, Toto. Thanks for the welcome.

So in answer to your questions: Yes, I do accept the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, though I do admit I need to give it further consideration. Among my reasons for accepting its authenticity at this time, I suppose, are: a) the testimony of the early Church is unanimous in saying that Paul wrote the letter (in contrast to the doubts over the authorship of books like Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John); and b) the church structure evinced in 1 Tim. (and all of the Pastorals, in fact) is that of the 1st century (bearing in mind that the more liberal strain of scholarship places the books' origin in the 2nd century): the church hierarchy in 1 Tim. (e.g., 3:1ff.) consisted of bishop (sometimes called elders in the Pastorals) and deacons (or deaconesses). Already by the time of Ignatius (ca. AD 107/115) the church had bishops, presbyters, and deacons - a now three tiered structure. Ignatius writes in Magnesians 2:1: "I was permitted to see you [Magnesians] in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop, your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow servant, the deacon Zotion."

As to your second question: I think it unlikely that Paul's letters were reworked, so as to portray a more human Jesus. From Philippians 3:5 we learn that Paul had been a Pharisee prior to his conversion (cf. Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5); and Pharisees had every expectation in a human, Davidic messiah. And though Paul ultimately abandoned Pharisaic Judaism and its oral traditions, he nevertheless maintained its high view of OT scripture (see, e.g., Rom. 1:2; 1 Corinth. 15:3-4; Gal. 3:8; et al.); and the OT prophesied the coming of a human messiah (e.g., Isa. 9:6; 11:1; Jer. 23:5; Micah 5:2; Zech. 6:12; 9:9; et al.). I think Paul, then, would've expected the very same - nothing less than or divergant from what the OT had foretold; and clearly he found that putative expectation fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Ted Hoffman · 08-28-2004, 02:53 AM

Quote:

As to your second question: I think it unlikely that Paul's letters were reworked, so as to portray a more human Jesus.

ON INTERPOLATION (Mods can start another thread if deemed necessary.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

"You [referring to the Christians of Thessalonica] have fared like the congregations in Judea, God's people in Christ Jesus. You have been treated by your countrymen as they are treated by the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out, the Jews who are heedless of God's will and enemies of their fellow-men, 16hindering us from speaking to the gentiles to lead them to salvation. All this time they have been making up the full measure of their guilt, and now retribution has overtaken them for good and all." [NEB]

Doherty writes:

Quote:

Verses 15-16 of this passage are almost universally regarded among critical scholars as an interpolation. Their sentiment does not agree with attitudes expressed elsewhere by Paul toward his Jewish countrymen, and the final sentence contains a virtually unmistakable reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred after Paul's death. Their authenticity is also belied by Paul's silence elsewhere on any guilt of the Jews in the matter of Christ's death, such as in Romans 11, where such a reference would have been natural and expected.

1 Timothy 6:13 / ( and 6:3)

1 Timothy 6:12-14 reads ("Paul" addressing "Timothy"):

"Run the great race of faith and take hold of eternal life. For to this you were called and you confessed your faith nobly before many witnesses. 13Now in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Jesus Christ, [who himself made the same noble confession and gave his testimony to it before Pontius Pilate,] 14I charge you to obey your orders irreproachably and without fault until our Lord Jesus Christ appears."

Doherty

Quote:

The way the reference to Pilate is introduced into the text (the clause in square brackets above) shows that it is intended as a parallel to Timothy's confession in the previous sentence. But there is much to be concerned about in this assumption. (See J. H. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles, p.100-1; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, p.143.) Jesus' situation on trial before Pilate is not the same as Timothy's at his baptism, or even his ordination. Timothy's confession is before God and friendly witnesses; Jesus' is not, and it puts Pilate in parallel to God, which is at best inappropriate, at worst irreverent. Jesus' declaration before Pilate is presumably a statement about himself, which is an awkward equivalent to the believer's declaration of faith in Jesus. With all of these difficult features in such a comparison, one might wonder what would have led the original writer to think of making it.

Commentators discount the possibility that the occasion of Timothy's confession was before a magistrate, when he might have been on trial for his Christian beliefs. No such event, from which the writer could have drawn, appears in the genuine Pauline letters. Besides, such a trial would hardly be called a summons to eternal life. However, we must consider the possibility that a later scribe may have misinterpreted things in this way. Perhaps by some time further into the second century a tradition had grown up that Timothy had in fact been prosecuted for his faith. This may have prompted such a scribe to insert the idea that, just as Timothy had declared before hostile magistrates his faith that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah, Christ himself before a hostile Pilate had declared these things about himself. Such an editor may have felt that while "God" (in verse 13) had a qualifying phrase, "who gives life to all things," something was lacking after "and of Jesus Christ," and the comparison with Jesus' trial was what came into his mind.

It has also been pointed out that in the account of the trial before Pilate in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus barely says anything, maintaining a stoic silence. His simple agreement, "It is as you say," in answer to the question "Are you the king of the Jews?" is hardly a "noble confession" to inspire such a comment as we find in 1 Timothy 6:13. However, John, when he came to revise the synoptic passion story, had Jesus engage in a dramatic debate with the Roman governor, which might well have been the source of the comment. Since attestation for the Gospel of John is lacking during the period to which the Pastorals are usually assigned, this would suggest that the clause is indeed an interpolation from a later point in the century, when John was more widely known. The Pastorals are not included in the earliest corpus of the Pauline letters, so the fact that there is no manuscript evidence of the letter without this reference to Pilate does not pose a problem.

Moreover, only a few verses later (6:16), when speaking of God, the epistle makes this sweeping statement: "No man has ever seen or ever can see him." If the man Jesus of Nazareth had recently been on earth, standing before Pilate, a man who had in fact seen and come from God, one would not expect the writer to have said such a thing—at least without some qualification.

The possibility of interpolation is supported by something suspicious which occurs a few verses earlier. In six places in the Pastoral letters the writer uses the phrase "wholesome teaching." In five of these, there is no indication of the source of such teaching. In fact, the first time the phrase appears, in 1 Timothy 1:10, the writer (speaking as Paul) says that such teaching "conforms with the gospel entrusted to me, the gospel which tells of the glory of God." This pointedly ignores any identification of Jesus as the source of the teaching.

But in 1 Timothy 6:3 an unexpected phrase intrudes:

"If anyone . . . teaches differently and does not agree with wholesome words—those of our Lord Jesus Christ—and with pious teaching, I call him puffed up and ignorant."
The phrase "those of our Lord Jesus Christ" (tois tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou) has the look of a scribal notation originally made in the margin which later got inserted into the text. (This was a common occurrence in the transmission of ancient manuscripts.) If it were part of the original writer's text, the word "those" (tois) would have been redundant and would not likely have been written. Rather, it conveys the impression of an afterthought. The whole thing seems carelessly done, because the insertion fails to cover the succeeding phrase, "and with pious teaching," which we would expect to find identified with Jesus as well.

Magdlyn · 08-28-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet

This 'sacrifice in heaven' is different from the ransom soteriology in the gospel though they are similar in principle. Paul explains it in depth in Hebrews (sacrifice in heaven) where he draws paradigmatic parallels with the High Priest in Exodus who carries out an act of sacrifice.

Since we are talking about who wrote what, want to make the point that Paul did not write Hebrews, and I wonder why Jacob says he did?

Amaleq13 · 08-28-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Then my point would be: how do we know that Paul believed in an MJ?

I don't think we can "know" this, hence my agnosticism.

IMO, his letters are vague enough that they can be read as consistent with either position. Which side has to work harder to obtain that consistency seems to me to be ultimately subjective.

The only HJ explanation, IMO, for Paul's lack of reference to the Gospel Jesus is a deliberate avoidance of it because of the authority implications any such reference would create (ie former disciples have more). As we've discussed before, Paul seems to me to go beyond simply ignoring this past experience to explicitly rejecting it when he disparages their "high reputation" and I just can't imagine him getting away with that if it was generally well known that their reputation was based on actually knowing a living Jesus.

It is like imagining that a religion was created based on resurrected Elvis appearances and some guy who had only seen the resurrected Elvis disparaged the established reputation of Colonel Parker. What Elvis devotee would buy such a ridiculous statement knowing that Parker knew and worked with the living man?

Quote:

We have HJers like Ignatius and Tertullian who also wrote apologies without historical details. The mere lack of such doesn't mean that the author didn't believe in a HJ.

Correct but the absence of such makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assert that the individual did believe/know of a historical figure.

Quote:

It seems to me that people who denied that Christ was on earth at all would have been considered just as heretical, if not more.

But that is my point. There is no reason to assume early MJ believers would ever make such an assertion. The specific location of Christ's sacrifice does not appear to me to be especially relevant to MJ beliefs. It is belief in the significance of the sacrifice that is crucial. If they ran across folks who believed in the same significance of the sacrifice but insisted that it has taken place in a specific time or place, why would the MJers care?

Quote:

So then, if we come across such belief in an MJ, how do we know whether the author believed in a HJ or an MJ, in the absence of historical details?

I consider the presence of historical details to be the only definitive evidence.

Quote:

All we can say is that the author doesn't mention historical details, therefore MAY be an MJ.

I agree.

Quote:

It just shows that it is impossible for him to point to any letter and say that it is the product of an MJer, without assuming it in the first place.

In my view, Doherty's thesis is an attempt to explain the pattern of historical detail observed in Christian texts. That this detail is virtually non-existent in earlier texts but becomes more prominent after the Gospel stories appear is consistent with his thesis. That the Gospel stories appear to be largely, if not entirely, based on Hebrew Scripture is also consistent with his thesis. That there are examples of later texts lacking historical detail is entirely irrelevant since that is not actually contrary to the thesis.

GakuseiDon · 08-28-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The only HJ explanation, IMO, for Paul's lack of reference to the Gospel Jesus is a deliberate avoidance of it because of the authority implications any such reference would create (ie former disciples have more). As we've discussed before, Paul seems to me to go beyond simply ignoring this past experience to explicitly rejecting it when he disparages their "high reputation" and I just can't imagine him getting away with that if it was generally well known that their reputation was based on actually knowing a living Jesus.

Personally, I think the reason Paul doesn't mention historical details about Jesus is because he generally doesn't mention historical details period. Other than names of people and places, there are few background details about anything and anyone. In fact, the only real details he gives are on himself and Jesus, and sometimes in similar terms (seed of Abraham).

I don't know why Paul doesn't want to include historical details about anything, but it seems to be his style.

Quote:

Correct but the absence of such makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assert that the individual did believe/know of a historical figure.

Agreed.

Quote:

But that is my point. There is no reason to assume early MJ believers would ever make such an assertion. The specific location of Christ's sacrifice does not appear to me to be especially relevant to MJ beliefs. It is belief in the significance of the sacrifice that is crucial. If they ran across folks who believed in the same significance of the sacrifice but insisted that it has taken place in a specific time or place, why would the MJers care?

For MJers, perhaps. But we don't have lists of heresies constructed by known MJers. But I can't believe that HJers would have accepted a belief in a non-historical Christ as anything other than heretical.

Quote:

In my view, Doherty's thesis is an attempt to explain the pattern of historical detail observed in Christian texts. That this detail is virtually non-existent in earlier texts but becomes more prominent after the Gospel stories appear is consistent with his thesis. That the Gospel stories appear to be largely, if not entirely, based on Hebrew Scripture is also consistent with his thesis. That there are examples of later texts lacking historical detail is entirely irrelevant since that is not actually contrary to the thesis.

The problem here is dating these texts. There seems to be a belief on this board that the earlier texts contain no HJ details, which start to appear in more detail in later texts. JA likes to trot out a sample list from time to time, but he never seems to want to assign dates to them. In fact:
(1) The dating of many of these materials isn't known precisely.
(2) A lot that Doherty uses as examples of Christ Myther writings date well into the second century.
(3) We have a lot more extant materials from the 2nd C, which may be why there suddenly seems to be this sudden increase in HJ details. But there are materials that existed early which were lost, e.g Papias's 5 volumes on "Oracles of the Lord".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2004, 03:28 PM	#13
Notsri Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 220	...just thought I'd add my two cents (based on a few comments here and there from the above posts): 1. Paul's references to the crucifixion on a "tree" are not incompatible or contradictory with the NT affirmation elsewhere that Christ was crucified on a cross. "Tree" is just a figure of speech, a synecdoche (or a metonymy) in this case; and taken within the context of both the Pauline corpus and the NT in general, it would undoubtedly refer to the cross. Paul is not the only Greek writer to use such figurative language. Seneca (Dialogue 3.2.2 [or Epistle 101]) uses the very same of crucifixion; he says: "Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree..." 2. If not explicitly stated, it certainly seems to be implied in portions of the discussion that Paul didn't believe in a historical, human Jesus. When given close scrutiny, though, I think his epistles suggest otherwise. In Romans 1:3, Paul says Christ was "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh." In Rom. 5:15 and again at 1 Tim. 2:5 Paul refers to the "man" Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 6:13 says, "Christ Jesus...testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate." And perhaps most important of the few I'll list (and there are others) is 1 Corinth. 11:23ff.: "For I [Paul] received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"

08-27-2004, 03:38 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Notsri - welcome to the boards. The question of Paul's beliefs has come up here before, but we have not settled the question. Do you think that Paul wrote the Epistle to Timothy? (Most scholars consider the answer to be No.) Have you considered the possibility that the few phrases in Paul's epistles that speak of Jesus in human terms were added by a later editor?

08-27-2004, 05:33 PM	#16
Notsri Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 220	Hi, Toto. Thanks for the welcome. So in answer to your questions: Yes, I do accept the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, though I do admit I need to give it further consideration. Among my reasons for accepting its authenticity at this time, I suppose, are: a) the testimony of the early Church is unanimous in saying that Paul wrote the letter (in contrast to the doubts over the authorship of books like Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John); and b) the church structure evinced in 1 Tim. (and all of the Pastorals, in fact) is that of the 1st century (bearing in mind that the more liberal strain of scholarship places the books' origin in the 2nd century): the church hierarchy in 1 Tim. (e.g., 3:1ff.) consisted of bishop (sometimes called elders in the Pastorals) and deacons (or deaconesses). Already by the time of Ignatius (ca. AD 107/115) the church had bishops, presbyters, and deacons - a now three tiered structure. Ignatius writes in Magnesians 2:1: "I was permitted to see you [Magnesians] in the persons of Damas, your godly bishop, your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow servant, the deacon Zotion." As to your second question: I think it unlikely that Paul's letters were reworked, so as to portray a more human Jesus. From Philippians 3:5 we learn that Paul had been a Pharisee prior to his conversion (cf. Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5); and Pharisees had every expectation in a human, Davidic messiah. And though Paul ultimately abandoned Pharisaic Judaism and its oral traditions, he nevertheless maintained its high view of OT scripture (see, e.g., Rom. 1:2; 1 Corinth. 15:3-4; Gal. 3:8; et al.); and the OT prophesied the coming of a human messiah (e.g., Isa. 9:6; 11:1; Jer. 23:5; Micah 5:2; Zech. 6:12; 9:9; et al.). I think Paul, then, would've expected the very same - nothing less than or divergant from what the OT had foretold; and clearly he found that putative expectation fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.