gurugeorge

It's not such a crazy idea - isn't there a comment in 1 Corinthians 1:12:-

What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."

I mean WTF - here "Christ" is mentioned on a footing with his supposed apostles????

Perhaps this is a window or a crack on something quite strange that we will never be able to figure out until and unless some new revealing evidence turns up.

Rich Oliver

In response to the OP, I can only give a subjective and transitory view.

Having been a Wellsian for many years, I've more recently looked at Hebrews. I can't see how if you even slightly open minded you can avoid the conclusion that the author didn't believe that Jesus had been on Earth. Case closed?

But then I've just started looking at Eiseman's stuff, which I've long ignored. He does seem to make a good case for a lot of dynastic shenanigan's. So how can you have a dynasty of a non existent person.

But if Jesus was really divine, maybe he had an over sized quantum effect, where he both existed and didn't exist.

stephan huller

I don't even think Eisenman believes any longer that the DSS reflect the early Christian milieu.

spin

There are pro bono exceptions.


spin

DCHindley

I figure this is another case of a final redactor stealing the original Paul's thunder:

11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12a What I mean is that each one of you says,
12b "I surely belong to Paul,"
12c "But I belong to Apollos,"
12d "But I belong to Cephas,"
12e - 13a [...]
13c Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius;
15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
17 - 18 [...].

It looks like he was complaining that the Corinthians were allowing themselves to be pursuaded to form factions around baptismal formulas formulated by the likes of Apollos, Cephas or even Paul himself. Paul disapproved. They were baptised unto God.

What did the final redactor add to this example of humility in order to steal his thunder?

12e "But I belong to Christ." [the redactor's own statement of faith]
13a [In contrast,] Is Christ divided [like this]? [rhetorical question, answer "of course not"]
13b Was Paul crucified for you? [another rhetorical question, answer "no, Christ was"]
17 For Christ did not send me [he assumes the person of Paul here] to baptize but to preach the good news [of the atoning sacrifice of Christ], and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the [atoning sacrifice of the] cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It is no longer about baptism to dedicate oneself to God in normal Jewish conversion practice, but as part of a baptism into Christ's death and resurrection. He steals a Jewish conversion ritual (although Paul leaves out the circumcision part) and turns the whole discussion into the ritual of a mystery cult.

DCH (back to moving furniture)

stephan huller

Who knows what the original (Marcionite) material behind any surviving text in the Pauline canon. For what it is worth I have always strongly suspected that the 1 Corinthians is a Catholic adoption of the Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians. The fact that the Catholic tradition never had any meaningful presence in Alexandria until the fourth century made the original ascription impossible to maintain (the fact that Acts [deliberately?] doesn't mention the Alexandrian Church was also problematic).

My suspicion was always rooted in the Muratorian canon's preservation of a canon that began with 1 Corinthians. There is a pattern of renaming documents in the Catholic tradition away from the original Marcionite identification. To the Laodicaeans becomes the anonymous (Ephesian) epistle. I don't think that Corinth could have been as important as deserving preeminent stature within the Christian community. It couldn't have had its epistle appear first and (a) not have developed an intimate association with a patron saint (the way Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem do) and (b) no one - not even Irenaeus or Eusebius - knows anything about the apostolic succession of the city.

Indeed they have a bishop named 'Primus' as late as the middle of the second century. That's the time I assume the city became a 'Christian see.'

Most of the literature on the Marcionite canon has mistaken the canonical arrangement of the New Testament canon of Tertullian's source for the Marcionite canon. In other words, the manner in which Galatians appears first followed by 1 Clement etc. is not a reflection of the Marcionite canon but the canon of the original author of the material from which Tertullian developed Book Four and Five of his Against Marcion. We know this because Ephrem seems to have had Galatians first in the order of Pauline letters. The author of the original material in Books Four and Five of Tertullian's Against Marcion also employed a Diatessaron like Ephrem (and so he argues that Marcion took things 'out' of his gospel which aren't found in Luke in the first place).

I can provide three suggestions in the pages of Against Marcion that the Marcionite canon actually started with the text we call 'to the Corinthians.' My suspicion that 1 Corinthians was originally called to the Alexandrians and then later renamed by the Catholic tradition would imply that Christianity original argued for the primacy of Alexandria, the primacy of the Markan tradition and the gospel of Mark.

mountainman

The figure of "Apollos" is more explicit in Codex Bezae as "Apollonius", whom many take to refer to Apollonius of Tyana, active in Tarsus and many other localities "visited" by "Paul". So many people still revered Apollonius in the 4th century (including, possibly, the Emperor Diocletian) that Eusebius c.324 CE was compelled to author many books of polemic against the philosophical idea that it was healthy to compare Apollonius and Jesus in matters of divinity. See "Against Hierocles ..."

Perhaps the majority of the entire empire already knew about Apollonius. How many in the empire knew about either Paul or Jesus is unknown. My guess is that there were not many who knew the first thing about Jesus, and can cite the NHC to support this view. So here in Corinthians 1:12 perhaps the author may be mixing his references between fictional figures of his own construction (ie: "Paul" and "Jesus") and real historical figures of the epoch, in order to "historicize" these fictional characters in the minds of prospective Greek speaking converts to Christianity.

IMO it may have been simply a literary "public relations exercise" for the questions "Who is Paul?" and "Who is Jesus?" We can be well assured by logic that the increasing percentage of the greek speaking populace asked these questions after Nicaea and the publication of the Bibles.

stephan huller

Really? There are reputable scholars who take the Apollos of Acts to be Apollonius of Tyana. Who are these 'many' that you speak of here? I checked this webpage of yours:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/Apollo...Nazarene_3.htm

and did find that you cite one nitwit who does indeed make such an idiotic case. I think this guy became the model for how you operate. He begins by making the same reference to the reading in Bezae but then switch back and forth between the names until - and this is utterly hilarious - he ends up making Luther a spokesmen for this nonsense that Apollonius was Paul.

In the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica under the heading of Apollos, we read: APOLLOS (contracted from Apollonius) - an Alexandrian Jew who after Paul's visit to Corinth worked there in a similar way (Italics ours). He was with Paul at a later date in Ephesus. In Cor. 1. 10-12 we read of four parties in the Corinthian church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos respectively, using their names, though the 'division' could hardly be due to conflicting doctrines. From Acts xviii. 24-288 we learn that he spoke and taught with power and success., He may have captivated his hearers by teaching "wisdom" as P.W. Schmiedel suggests, in the allegorical style of Philo, and he was evidently a man of unusual magnetic force...Since Apollos was a Christian and 'taught exactly' he could hardly have been acquainted only with John's baptism or have required to be taught christianity more thoroughly by Aquila and Priscilla. Martin Luther regarded Apollos [=Apollonius] as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and many scholars since have shared his view

This is utterly deranged. Morton Smith saw similarities between Apollonius and Jesus - but that Martin Luther thought Apollonius of Tyre was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews? Of course you might argue that this is not the author's point. But why stick the square brackets with the name Apollonius after Apollos if this isn't the case? What's the point of emphasizing the minority reading?

I don't see how in the world any of this furthers your argument that Christianity was 'forged' from scratch in the fourth century. Why would Eusebius want to rip off Apollonius of Tyre to make some minor character - someone of the same importance as Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern? Why was this at all necessary?

jgoodguy

Then such pro bono advocates must be at least mildly put out or feel uncomfortable with their advocacy otherwise the least bit of pleasure or self satisfaction places them in the doom of self serving. Horrors if they get some kind of tax deduction for it. :constern01:

spin

Are you still complaining about Stephan Huller's use of "self-serving" or are you just running further into tangent mode for nothing better to do?

Are you really complaining about having to deal with the cultural aspects of hegemony?


spin