Rick Sumner

Stylistically, it isn't Paul. It includes metaphors (Melchizedek, for a flagrant example) that clearly aren't Pauline. It includes a focus on atonement that we don't find in Paul (indeed, Paul seems to have little interest in Jewish conceptions of atonement--a curious silence, you'd think he would have mentioned it, and it seems ludicrous to presume he wasn't familiar with the subject).

As an interesting aside (or at least an aside I find interesting), Yigael Yadin once proclaimed with delight that with the finding of the DSS we now knew who the epistle to the Hebrews was written to, numerous others have suggested we know who it was written by. I'm not persuaded on either end, despite theological parallels. As Phillip Engmann once pointed out in correspondence, Hebrews favors Qumranic texts if and only if the Qumranic texts are in accord with the LXX. Thus the author of Hebrews did not have the Qumranic texts, he had the LXX (eg. Dt.32.43//Heb.1.6 does not appear in the Qumranic texts).

Could be that the group had simply evolved (we are, after all, looking at a century or so difference), but it seems more likely to me that the link is less direct than is frequently suggested (though I think we'd be loathe to take the other extreme and suggest a link is non-existent).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I think the difference is that I was speaking only about what was known and not what might possibly exist. I was also not operating under the assumption that a reference to parts means the whole was extant. That means we have evidence of two copies at the most. We have no evidence of other copies, only the possibility that they might have existed.

I don't see Justin have the same significance as Papias with regard to representing an allegedly consistent oral tradition from Jesus.

If he was a reliable source of evidence for a continuous tradition from Jesus to the establishment of the Church, I disagree.

That is more in line with what I meant by "faithfully preserved".

No, he allegedly collected sayings actually spoken by Jesus and thereby established a continuous tradition from Jesus to the Church. This is a claim that the Church continues to make even today yet the actual documents that would support this claim have not been preserved. I find that to be decidely odd if not downright suspicious.

I consider the treatment of the text after Eusebius to be even more bizarre but, perhaps, my expectations of earlier Christians are not fair. It was only later that it became important to try to support the authority of "orthodox" beliefs so the value of Papias might not have been appreciated.

It is my understanding that luck is the best explanation for Mark's survival. Otherwise, we might very well be discussing the hypothetical Gospel that Matthew and Luke independently relied upon.

Rick Sumner

Which is why you had it backwards :P We have two known copies, and theoretically no limit to how many existed.

But there were gospels that were believe to make the same claim. Using your already stated criteria of firm proof, we know that there were two copies of Thomas as of the fourth century. Are we to presume that it just wasn't important to the Gnostics?

Didn't the early church think the gospels established a continuous line? Unless there is reason to think that the early church viewed Papias as being inspired in the same way that the gospels are inspired--unless Papias was ever "scripture"--there is absolutely no reason to expect him to receive the same treatment. Remember the early church's purposes were theological, not historical.

We do discuss the hypothetical gospel that Matthew and Luke independently relied upon :P

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

My apologies. I am a chronic tangent creator. Put your stick away.

Magdlyn

Did Jacob Aliet change his name to Ted Hoffman? 2 people seem to be asking me the same question.

I do not want to derail the thread to a discussion of who wrote which "Pauline" epistles. I gave a brief comment of explanation above. Surely this topic has been covered in the past.

Stylistic and theological differences, use of Hebrew text, etc. No, I will not give a list of scholars opinions pro and con.

Back to archons, AofI etc...

the_cave

I've read IoA, and argue that even without the interpolation the text doesn't make sense unless Jesus descends to earth. I have written Doherty twice about this, with no response yet, unless he does not take my claim seriously. I believe I've also mentioned it on these boards at least once, without response from anyone.

GakuseiDon

Who are you, masked man?

Assuming you are Jacob - I've already responded at least twice that "archons" could refer to spiritual forces, and it still could be an expression of a HJ belief, as per the example in AoI. The final redactor who put the HJ bits in didn't mind leaving in the bit about how Satan was instrumental in Jesus's death by inciting the Jews to kill Jesus. Why you keep asking me to try to pin "archons" on Pilate, I have no idea. I haven't claimed that.

Amaleq13

I think that response is based on the assumption that you were claiming Paul meant "Pilate" when he wrote "archons". The use of the plural seems to make that a difficult connection to establish.

I tend to agree with you that this statement by Paul, on its own, can be understood within either context (HJ or MJ). Without an explicit statement like "in the heavens" or "by causing Pilate to crucify Jesus", neither can be said to be more likely.

Ted Hoffman

The cave,
Maybe he ignores you because he handles AoI in Appendix 4 of The Jesus Puzzle and in p.105-108. It wouldn't be realistic to expect him to repeat his arguments to you after he has published a book dealing with your sentiments.

There are three mss of AoI: Ethiopic, Latin and Slavonic.

The passage 11:2-22 in the Ethiopic text doesn't appear in the other two. This is the passage that includes Mary's birth and the nativity scene in Bethlehem - with Joseph too. This account seems to be more primitive since it lacks Herod, magi, stars manger etc plus, Jesus is crucified, by the "ruler" (not Pilate) on a tree (not a cross).

Doherty cites M. Knibb, the commentator and translator of AoI, from The Old Testament Pseudiepigrapha, and Doherty writes that "the reference to rising on the third day and remaining for 545 days is a later addition to the text derived from gnostic sources who believed that Jesus remained on earth for 18 months".

The passage, to you, "doesn't make sense unless Jesus descends to earth" only because you cannot peer at the text without the Gospel mindset. Have you read Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Didache and 1 Clement? Esiptle to Diognetus is clear that God never sent anyone on earth yet it was written by a Christian. Tatian comprehensively expounded Xstian Doctrine in Address to the Greeks without mentioning Jesus. Inanna was also nailed, died and resurrected after 3 days and yet her death never took place on earth. The universe was arranged in layers and these deaths and resurrections of the incarnating saviour figures never had to take place on the earthly plane.

These indicate to us that there were Christians in the 2nd century who had never heard of a HJ, Jesus, Mary, Jerusalem nor Pilate yet believed in Christ.

In the Ethiopic text, Jesus remained on earth for "40 days" in 11:21 after resurrecting. Doherty argues that this is a sign of influence from Acts and supports the idea that incremental revision was undertaken on the mss. He says that AoI "reveals an evolution from a spiritual setting, to a physical Christ living a life in an earthly setting. The document is being periodically revised (by multiple redactors in different versions) to reflect new developments in thought and doctrine, even if not every detail is always brought up to date" p.309

Gdon,
Earlier here:
GDon wrote:
HJers used Pilate (earthly plane). MJers used archons (sublunar plane).

"Pilate" (singular) is not interchangeable with archons (plural) the way George W. Bush is interchangeable with the President of the United States.

Paul, an educated and well-travelled individual, must have known that not all the leaders of the world had a hand in the killing of Jesus.

In MJ mss, gnostic texts and even in the patristic writings, archons was used to refer to demons and if I am correct, was always used in plural and in a spiritual sense.

GakuseiDon

My point was that the word "archon" just means "ruler" or "prince". It can refer to people as well as spiritual forces. But HJers also used "archons" to refer to those who killed Christ. We have the example of AoI. There is also an example in Acts:

Act 13:26
Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Act 13:27
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled [them] in condemning [him].

That seems to be a clear reference to HJers using "archons" to refer to those who killed Christ.

What you seem to be saying is that Paul would never say that more than one ruler was responsible for the death of Christ, so would never use "archons" in the plural if he was a HJer. But I've never seen you present evidence for this.

But even so, the AoI has archons in the spiritual sense killing Christ, AND Pilate killing Christ. It has BOTH ideas there. So, at the point that this part of AoI was written, we can see that the idea of Christ being killed by spiritual archons had been adopted by HJers. The question is, when did this idea begin?