gurugeorge

Quite a few scholars have seen Pauline influence in GMark.

As to the great store you set by the lack of mention of Paul in Justin, etc., you are simply jumping to the conclusion that Paul isn't mentioned by those writers because he didn't exist.

He may also not be mentioned because Paul had existed, but they didn't like him.

How do you distinguish these two possibilities? Or have you even thought about the latter possibility at all? If so, what's your reason for rejecting it?

As for the rest of your anti-Paul stuff, again, it's not very plausible that the Pauline writings would be introduced so late just out of the blue. It's established that Gnosticism is a problem later on. The Pauline writings have a strongly Gnostic flavour to them, and we know that some of the Gnostics, at least, as well as Marcion, traced their own lineage back to Paul.

So why introduce into the canon, with Paul, elements of Gnosticism that are becoming troublesome at the time you propose, if the Canon could have been left at the gospels and a few letters from the supposed actual disciples of Jesus?

Sorry aa, it just doesn't make sense to me, and it never has. It leaves too many questions without an answer.

Much smoother and clearer:-

The Pauline writings were early writings included into the proto-orthodox (Catholic) canon, interpolated and hedged about with the Pastorals and Acts, in order to make Paul appear to be a proto-orthodox precursor not too dissimilar from Peter (the made-up lineage founder of the proto-orthodox lineage).

Here's the timeline, which I believe fits the texts we have pretty exactly, as giving an explanation for their existence and order, given their internal logic:-

1) circa 30-40 CE, probably around the time of Caligula's death and a slight cheering of the Jews, some Messianists in Jerusalem have a variant concept of the Messiah. A VARIANT CONCEPT THAT PLACES HIM AS HAVING ALREADY BEEN RATHER THAN SOMEONE TO COME. The new idea of the Messiah puts him in the recent-ish past and make him a spiritual victor on celestial planes (so that Caligula's then-contemporary come-uppance may be understood as the first fruits of that victory). They get the idea from scripture and from their own spiritual, visionary experience (or, as we would understand it, hallucinations). They are "Apostles" of the idea, and of the good news that a great spiritual victory has been won.

2) circa 50-60 CE "Paul" whoever he was, has a similar idea independently, and very strong visionary experiences (hallucinations) of communicating with the cult deity, and eventually meets the leaders of the above movement. He develops the originally Jewish-oriented idea into a more universal message, allowing Gentiles to share in the spiritual victory won by the Messiah (whom Paul has had visions of). The original founders accept the genuineness of his vision, but are divided about his universalism and how much emphasis should be put on the cult's Jewish roots.

3) During this time, "Paul" seeds the new Messiah idea abroad. As a travelling businessman, he has an opportunity to start small study groups (i.e. the form of the meetings being partly like synagogues and partly like symposia, a common Hellenistic way for people to be together and share ideas together, and support each other financially) in various centres of civilization. At this stage, it's only a relatively small cult, not more than a few hundred, perhaps, with small study groups of a few dozens or so per group scattered around the ancient world. (Remember again, the form of the gatherings: symposia, i.e. convivial shared meals, scripture study, inspired speaking, prophecy, magical practices of communicating with spirits, with the cult deity, etc. This is the context in which things like "gospels" begin to be created as inspired stories of "what Jesus did", with all sorts of variations as to celestiality or earthly doings. But nothing is written down at this point yet. "Paul"'s last supper may itself be understood as such a vision. The Philippians hymn and a few other segments may also be understood as early forms of gospel like this.)

3) Also, in the run-up to 70 CE, the study groups seeded by "Paul" are starting to diverge a bit, on the one hand you have Roman and Alexandrian elements developing into proto-Gnosticism, Syrian elements developing into a sort of non-dual mysticism; some other forms developing a more purely philosophical stance.

4) 70 CE hits, severely wounding and scattering the original earliest Jewish forms of the cult, and cutting off some of the scattered churches from their roots in the earliest Jewish forms. After 70 CE, proto-Gnosticism and the other remnants of Paulinism continue to take shape. Marcion probably comes at just this point, just at the end of the 1st century. But also GMark is written, as a proto-Gnostic and somewhat Jew-critical allegory, euhemerising the cult figure into a very specific pesudo-historical scenario. GMark also posits the early Jewish Apostles as disciples of the cult deity while he appeared on Earth. This is an entirely novel idea. GMark is partly a proto-Gnostic allegory, but also partly an attempt to explain why it all went so badly wrong for the Jews: they didn't take on Christianity, they were too dim-witted to understand it.

5) Shortly after this period, a sub-sect develops out of the Roman-Alexandrinian remnants of the cult. Some diaspora Jewish Christians as it were "muscle in" and pretend to have a lineage going back to "Peter", now understood as having been a direct disciple of the cult deity while He was on Earth. Since the true origins of the movement are a bit back in history by this time, nobody's any the wiser and nobody can really contradict their claims. Most Christians know that "Paul" was an important founding figure for their lineage, but they're easily fooled by the claim of some of these con-artists and accept the "Peter" lineage too.

6) This novel lineage idea is facilitated by proto-orthodoxy's own primary gospel, GMatthew, which takes the GMark allegory and fleshes it out, downplaying the proto-Gnostic and anti-Jewish elements, and making the disciples look more like proper disciples capable of carrying on a lineage after the Messiah's ascension.

7) Now comes 130 CE to 150 CE. Again during this period there's another huge calamity for the Jews, further confusing and dispersing any knowledge of the true origins of the movement. At this time Marcionism is the most popular version of the cult, with various proto-Gnostic, mystical and philosophical forms scattered around the Graeco-Roman world, and the new proto-orthodoxy, centred around Rome and Alexandria, also existing at the same time.

8) Now, proto-orthodoxy really wants to downplay the (visionary) lineage of "Paul" and bolster its made-up (personal discipleship) "Peter" lineage, and it also needs some kind of response to the Marcion canon. Polycarp writes GLuke as a response to Marcion's gospel, writes Acts to create a pseudo-history (albeit with some grains of truth here and there) that co-opts "Paul" as a sort of co-founder of proto-orthodoxy, along with Peter; he also edits the remnants of "Paul" communications from the pre-Diaspora period, to downplay their proto-Gnostic aspect, and bring forward a sense of proto-orthodoxy in "Paul". It's only once "Paul" can be sanitized in this way, that he becomes acceptable and mentionable as part of the proto-orthodox lineage.

This, to me, is the clearest way to make sense of the evidence, both textual and archaeological.

All through this time, the cult is still a relatively small cult (hence no archaeological evidence for it till some time in the 2nd century). It's still basically symposia/synagogue based, still not more than a few thousand people at most. Any appearance in the writings of it being something large and widespread is simply exaggeration in order to make it seem shiney to the uneducated. The only part of it that even gets above the public radar is some of the Gnostics, who are known to some philosophers at the time. It doesn't become a really substantial cult until Constantine, who favours the by-then-fully-developed Catholic/Orthodox variant.

EarlDoherty

I guess you haven't read any of my books.

Vigorous denial of someone else's case usually requires an actual rebuttal of it. And if you think simply quoting "God hath raised him from the dead" is sufficient proof that Paul is talking about a human man and an earthly death, you are way out of your depth here.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

Its only my opinion Earl, but I would say that isnt entirely accurate.

Paul claims a human Jesus charactor quite oten. I would agree it in a mythological setting though.

Its a dynamic situation i'll give you that.

Paul and the writers never knew or met a Jesus charactor, they could not comment on him without fear of being caught in a mistake by those who may have knew him. Purposely vague here mandatory. Reason two! is while not wanting to alienate Roman/Gentiles, they could not shine a light on the plight of real Jews hatred of Roman oppression, and the Jesus charactors real intent. This left Paul in a trick bag, and its what we see in his version of the mythology.

But we also have excellent reasons for Pauls mythology. We know that the foundation of the mythology is based on the OT. This demands human leaders will be used and seen as Messiah figures to fit the prophecy. Born of a woman.

Because of the hellenistic nature of Paul and his Judaism being in question, the use of "Son of God" is in question because this was a title given to human mortal men.

That and Pauls targets were God-Fearers. Its my opinion there had long been a split in Judaism with real Jews looking down on these people who would not convert, while God-Fearers viewed themselves as Jews, following Judaism and living it for generations. This split in Judaism due to another culture using Judaism was a match waiting to be lit, for complete seperation without even adding a messianic figure to the picture.

Paul purposely ran with a split in mind, taking his message the first chance he had, straight to the Roman/gentiles, all the while holding on to the Jewish foundation required for God-Fearers.


We have the enemies of the Jesus charactor, telling their legend, in their own personal brand of mythology, capitolizing on the martyred figure at passover that generated oral traditions that was simular to a shooting star within Judaism.

Had Paul not ran with it straight to another culture, the quickly fading light would have left the Jesus charactor as another failed murdered Jewsih leader.

outhouse

Correct.

The vast majority.

EarlDoherty

If there is one thing I have tried to emphasize it is the wide diversity of expression of the "Christ belief" movement that eventually coalesced into orthodox Christianity. I tried to summarize it in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, pages 496-502. I can't give you any clear breakdown of the evolution of the Pauline literature as it passed through the hands of various of those expressions. I don't think anyone can. Basically, I see proto-orthodox and proto-gnostic elements evolving throughout the mid to late first century and into the second (Pauline ideas fed into both, or were adopted by both in different forms of exegesis). Perhaps the Marcionites were the first to directly cross-pollinate by their forced interpretations of Paul to support their own beliefs. It is not perfectly clear whether those interpretations were in the form simply of exegesis, or constituted actual alterations to the Pauline texts they possessed, or what the mix was. Criticisms of Marcionite scripture by such as Tertullian are late and have been affected by more recent redactions that may have been made by the proto-orthodox, though the latter don't seem to have been that extensive since the opportunity to insert Gospel elements into the epistles was simply not taken. By the same token, Tertullian doesn't witness very much in the way of Marcionite insertion of their own agenda, such as making Paul condemn the Jewish God and portraying Jesus as preaching the gnostic Higher God. (At least I don't recall any, it's been a long time since I read "Against Marcion.")

I do not tend to see as much "breakaway" of sects as you are querying. It's just a lot diversity jockeying for position and condemning rival forms of belief. The 'breakaway' idea developed among the orthodox stream once that expression began to see itself as the original (based in the Gospel story) and reinterpreted everything else as heretical deviations. Some of the gnostics (the so-called "Christian Gnostics") largely fell into the same trap and accepted the existence of the Gospel Jesus but saw themselves as holding the proper interpretation of him (docetic and preaching their own theology, and according the same to Paul), regarding the orthodox as erroneously treating Jesus as literally human.

I'm not sure you can identify any "heretical group" in the 2nd century as closest to interpreting Paul as faith in a sacrificial spiritual Son of God operating entirely in the heavens. Most of the 2nd century apologists do not, as they have no sacrificial aspect to their Logos. Again, this is a parallel stream of development which differentiates from the Pauline style in that very aspect. As anti-mythicists are always keen to point out, heresiologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian do not address heretical expressions that correspond to my interpretation of the canonical epistles, but that is understandable. It is now too late. The latter have been reinterpreted and subsumed into developing orthodoxy, and besides, for those heresiologists to recognize such a previous phase of their own faith would require them to realize that Christianity began with a non-earthly Christ.

The earlier stream that represents Paul is contained in the pseudo-Paulines and other canonical epistles, some of which extend into the 2nd century. One of the non-canonical witnesses to a later stage of Pauline-type faith is, ironically, the epistles of Ignatius (even if not authentic to him), which give us a picture of the evolution from the Pauline phase to Gospel orthodoxy. I have spotlighted Ephesians 19 as opening a window onto the pre-"Jesus born of Mary crucified by Pilate" stage of the faith. In these letters we see the transition from one to the other.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

Doesnt this flat ignore we are talking about two different cultures here, and a breakaway is the beginning of another form of the evolution of the roman version of Judaism starting a new religion.

The breakaway started before the messainic figure.


We have a combination of Judaism and Roman/gentile religions, and Judaism not wanting anything to do with their oppressors version of Judaism, and Roman/Gentiles not observing al the laws within Judaism such as Paul and all he writers with scripture left.

EarlDoherty

I doubt that either of them is right. We can hardly rely on late writings like Clement or late Christian reports of what the Marcionites said, to create an accurate picture of what Paul (or even earlier forgers of 'Paul') actually wrote.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Well...naturally. Where in the actual Pauline texts does it even imply that Paul regarded himself as 'coming after' Jesus in an historical sense? Why would I put any stock in alleged Marcionite interpretations of Paul as the Paraclete? What position are YOU arguing from? It's almost as though you are suggesting that these later interpretations of Paul or of Jesus need to be taken seriously.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at, or how it relates to what I said.

Earl Doherty

Toto

more splits

maryhelena's question to Earl and responses