EarlDoherty

This mythicist is not hell-bent on anything, nor do I reach conclusions to suit some assumptions. Whether I agree or disagree with various traditional scholarly positions, I examine and argue everything. I read the evidence as making the best case for the Pauline cultic expression not only to enjoy some independence from the Gospels, but also to precede the Gospels, and I have laid out that evidence in depth. And just how is the "JC story followed by the Paul story" something that "is given"? Because the Gospels precede the epistles in the canon? When you can provide a comprehensive case for your pontification, maybe then you can make your declarations with some degree of legitimacy. So far, I haven't seen one. (And please don't borrow any of it from aa; his claims about evidence and the conclusions he draws are for the most part risibly simplistic and amateur.)

Earl Doherty

la70119

So there was no 'Petros,' just 'Kephas.' But people didn't understand 'Kephas' so someone who knew both Aramaic and Greek explained it meant 'Petros.' Now people think the guy's real name was Peter! Ai-yi-yi! Why couldn't the early Christians have just left well enough alone?

MrMacSon

Is it possible the Pauline expression was originally independent to the synoptic expression and the Pauline expression was co-opted (and edited & embellished) to align with the synoptic expression?

How do you critique the Dutch Radical criticism of the Pauline epistles?

Steven Carr

Son of God is the same as Messiah?

Christians thought Jesus was not the Messiah yet? Why does Paul keep referring to Jesus Christ?

Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't say "Christians," I was talking about his original, direct followers. Paul was not a direct follower, and none of the direct followers ever became "Christian."
Because he wasn't talking to Jews, he was talking to Gentiles. For Gentiles (and probably to Paul, for all practical purposes)the distinction between "he will return as the messiah," and "The messiah is waiting in Heaven" was pedantic vanishing to meaningless.

Vorkosigan

Probably because in chronological and literary order, the gospels and Acts come after Paul. That is the actual order of things based on the evidence of the texts themselves, and anyone interested in evidence has to go in that direction. Apparently many people have an ideological commitment to some other order. Can't think why.

Vorkosigan

Adam

You're attacking the Jesus Seminar for preferring a Cynic Jesus based on Q1? You also think the Passion Narrative was not early? You think both are fictional spin-offs from Pauline Theology? And that anyone interested in evidence would have to agree with you? I would think evidence can be cited that both Q1 and the Passion Narrative are early.

Your statement does not limit intelf to HJ, so are you also saying that Casey, Crossley, and Allison are wrong about apocalyptic prophecies preceding Paul? They have no interest in evidence? Or did you misstate yourself here in a way I misunderstood? I'm thinking the problem is the same as I have with spin, that you guys deal only with the finished gospel product and not with the underlying sources. That's a common failing here on FRDB, carried to farcical extremes by aa and tanya about partial-verse redactions.

DCHindley

I screwed up that chart. It did not translate well in the "text to table" conversion. Here's a better one:

Verse	GNT	TR	KHFAS	PETROS
1 COR 1:12	KHFA	KHFA	ALL
1 COR 3:22	KHFAS	KHFAS	ALL
1 COR 9:5	KHFAS	KHFAS	ALL
1 COR 15:5	KHFA	KHFA	ALL
GAL 1:18	KHFAN	PETRON	p46, 01, 02, 03	06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:7	PETROS	PETROS		ALL
GAL 2:8	PETRW	PETRW		ALL
GAL 2:9	KHFAS	KHFAS	01, 03, 04, 018, 020	p46, 06, 012
GAL 2:11	KHFAS	PETROS	01, 02, 03, 04, 015	p46, 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:14	KHFA	PETRW	p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015	06, 012, 018, 020

DCH

aa5874

It is the other way. Kephas is the correction for Petros.

If you examine the Gospels you will see that it was the Last written Gospel in the Canon, gJohn, that first mention the name KHFAS.

The authors of the Synoptics did NOT know the Aramaic for "Rock" because if Jesus did live and was Jewish then he would most likely NOT call Simon "Petros" if he spoke Aramaic.

And further because the authors of the earliest Jesus stories did NOT use KHFAS it can be logically deduce that they were NOT Jewish and NOT familiar with Aramaic.

maryhelena

Chronological order? Is that to do with dating manuscripts? And a new gospel manuscript gets found tomorrow that can be dated prior to any dating of 'Paul's epistles(for argument) what then for those mythicists who have put all their eggs in a Pauline basket?

It's not just the HJ assumption that requires that 'Paul' knows the gospel JC story - i.e. that the gospel story precedes 'Paul'. 'Paul's' own story, that he is the last of the apostles, requires that he has knowledge of what the Jerusalem 'below' held to be meaningful. If Christianity is based upon 'Paul's' imaginary Jerusalem 'above' - it would have been a very hard sell indeed. Easily outdated by the latest in intellectual/spiritual visions etc.

Without a grounding in history, in real time, 'Paul's' Jerusalem 'above' theology/philosophy is meaningless. Something George Wells was keenly aware of: