stephan huller

Sometimes I feel like this is a special ed class. It's really simple. Christianity was built around the gospel but like any monotheistic tradition different schools of interpretation developed with respect to the proper exegesis of scripture. If you are a Catholic Paul did not write a gospel. He apparently dictated a gospel or had a disciple who wrote a gospel associated with his authority. That disciple is now held to be Luke by the Catholic tradition. I am not sure that this was the original understanding but its the official understanding. If you are going to try and argue that 'scriptures' here means 'gospels' you don't have any ancient witnesses to support your claims (at least that I know of). From my understanding though, you don't believe that there were any authorities in the first, second or for most (if not all) of the third century. That's why you want to make 'scriptures' read like 'gospels' (i.e. because Constantine or some other jackass invented the gospels all at the same time according to som master plan that you and Pete can never explain in a sensible way other than each other and members of the Da Vinci Code Yahoo Group).

The difficulty with your model is that the evidence plainly contradicts your presumptions. Despite the fact that Irenaeus undoubtedly had a hand in reshaping the canon, he couldn't completely transform the original literature to make references to 'the gospel' read 'the gospels.' Not in the New Testament nor in the writings of the earliest Fathers. Indeed the names of the gospels (or at least some) only appear in the longest version of the Epistles of Ignatius (they weren't there in the short or long recensions).

Why couldn't the final editor of the New Testament completely reshape the tradition at will? Because it wasn't invented from scratch . Because there was a real tradition and real believers, real churches etc. before the reengineering and reshaping of the Christian tradition. I am not even sure that all of this reshaping would have necessarily come as part of a top down 'Imperial conspiracy' any way. I think Polycarp attracted a lot of new people to the faith (because of his fame) and many of those who hadn't received complete instruction in the old faith.

The average person never got his hands on a gospel in the first place. The liturgy was probably developed from something like a Diatessaron in most places regardless if the gospel was later divided into four 'gospels.' This is a very complicated procedure. The basic narrative of Jesus coming to Capernaum, engaging human beings, healing some people, teaching others and then announcing he was going to die in Jerusalem was consistent throughout out time and that message was always identified as 'the gospel.'

The only time that 'gospels' was conceived in the plural was in a much later period where this original story - an original story increasingly identified as an 'oral tradition' known to Paul, Peter and the rest - was conceived as being 'confirmed' by a number of witnesses (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Given the fact that even at Nicea Diatessaron-based cultures sat at the table alongside fourfaced gospel cultures it wasn't even necessary to be Catholic and accept the fourfold gospel paradigm or perhaps better - to accept the fourfold gospel paradigm for one's flock. This came in the fifth century.

I think the fourface gospel was original conceived as a means of establishing a new ecumenicism in Christianity and it probably happened gradual spreading out from Rome in the late second century. Again the fact that Nicea didn't mandate the fourfold gospel speaks volumes.

avi

Thanks for the detailed and well written comment, Stephan, much appreciated.

Your initial sentence, re: "special ed" is not misplaced.
What are pupils with "special" needs? Aren't they often dyslexic, many with physical infirmities, including brain injuries?

With respect to a forum devoted to a study of biblical origins, wouldn't one imagine that fluency in both Hebrew and Greek was a prerequisite to commencing? Then, one could add Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, Arabic, and certainly, middle Persian, competency as prerequisites to post.

Inability to read Egyptian Hieroglyphics--> back to the classroom, not yet ready to submit a message to the forum....

From that perspective, yes, I am a special education project, and so too, I suspect, may be, some other forum members.

Returning to this very interesting quote of yours, above:
The reason why I personally find this comment very useful, is because I see it opening the door to a real discussion.

1. "my" model;
2. "the evidence"
3. "plainly contradicts"

1. "my" model: This is surely only a quibble, but, I doubt that I have written more than an hypothesis (nothing so sophisticated as a "model"). That hypothesis, not model, is this: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4-5 suggests that Paul's epistles, date of composition of which is absolutely unknown, as far as I am aware, (I propose, without evidence, mid to late second century,) could have been written after composition of the "gospels". Why do I offer such an hypothesis, in harmony with aa5874's original thesis? That brings us to the next point.

2. "the evidence"
a. At least in terms of this thread, the text of Paul is the principal evidence in support of this hypothesis. What would be useful, in my opinion, Stephan, would be for you to explain how the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4-5 points to ancient Hebrew texts, aka "old testament", rather than the more contemporary gospels, as I assert. When I write this, I am not proposing that you summarize evidence from 15 patristic sources refuting me, though, if you preferred to do that, I would learn something. No, I am simply inquiring, here, how it is, apart from popular tradition, that someone, anyone really, can read this text and NOT conclude that Paul is referring to the material written in the gospels?

At the same time, in addition to an explanation of how the text of this epistle can not relate to the gospels, one also needs to point to specific text in the "old testament" addressing the points made by Paul in verses 3,4,5. Can you, as one intimately familiar with the original Hebrew text, point to such a claim from the ancient Jewish texts?

3. If you have some evidence, any type, which "plainly contradicts" the notion that verses 3,4,5 refer to the gospels, rather than the ancient Hebrew scripture, I need to read it. Can you propose a link to a source which "plainly contradicts" the notion that 3,4,5 refer not to material from the gospels, but rather to the Hebrew texts of yore.

:notworthy:

avi

Doug Shaver

There is nothing to explain until we have reason to suppose that Paul could not have known anything about Cephas or The Twelve except by reading about them in a sacred text. The context, I would suggest, provides a few clues pointing to at least one alternative source of his information.

If you cannot come up with even a wild guess as to what that alternative is, then I'm pretty sure nothing I can say will help you solve this mystery that you think you see.

gurugeorge

Well the first thought would be obviously that there's nothing in the OT that looks like the report of an event near-contemporary with the time of the supposed Paul and prior, that looks like the crucifixion of a preacher from Nazareth who turns out to have been the Messiah.

So the gospels look like what's being referred to.

But that's anachronistic since the consensus dating for the gospels is after the Pauline writings.

This would tend to support the idea of falsified Paul, or at least an evidently falsified portion of Paul.

However, there's another way to look at it. Supposing the writing is genuine, then the only reference it could feasibly have is the OT.

This would mean that as a piece of genuine writing, it passed orthodox muster, and was not tampered with or interpolated (as it could easily have been - e.g. by adding the gospel names) precisely because the orthodox collators of Paul made the same assumption as everyone else makes. (And interestingly, later, you get some people noticing the discrepancy and thinking "oops, no that can't be right", and trying to read prophecies of the gospel-story-Messiah into the OT.)

This points to the collation being relatively later (something done once written gospels were already in circulation).

However, this leaves open the question of what Paul actually meant.

I propose that the interpretation of "kata tas graphas" should be "according to the writings" (not "in accordance with the writings") - i.e. Scripture is being looked upon by Paul as a major source of the Christ story (along with visionary experience, his own and others')

But this leaves me with a problem of what on earth, in the OT, could have been interpreted as a "Christ story"? However, I'm not under the burden of the story in question having to be the rather complex one we know about the preacher from Nazareth, but rather something very simple - in fact, just as simple as it says on the tin.

IOW, all we have to find in the OT, is something that could feasibly be construed (by hopped-up mystics and visionaries, of whom Paul is obviously one), as a coded prophecy of the Messiah not in fact being one to come, but one having been and gone. For that is the burden of Paul's message.

i.e. Paul is saying that the Messiah everyone was waiting for had already been and gone, and that instead of being a kingly military victor like everyone had expected, he had in fact (i.e. according to the scriptures, and according to his own visionary communication with the entity in question) at some unspecified time in the past, 1) died for our sins, 2) been buried and 3) resurrected on the third day.

IOW if the writing is genuine, then the only meaning it can reasonably have is that the content of Paul's message is a revisioning of the very concept of the Messiah, based on an understanding from his parsing of Scripture and his own visionary experience of an entity telling him the same.

i.e., it is NOT a report of a recently-deceased putative Messiah claimant, but rather a revisioning of the concept of the Messiah, such that the Messiah is no longer one to wait for, but one of whom one understands (from Scripture and from communication in visionary experience) that he has already been, and won a great spiritual victory instead of the great military victory everyone was expecting.

But where in the OT could the simple story "died for sins, buried, rose on third day" be found? Is it just an odd, strained reading of a familiar passage? Or perhaps the great truth is divined through (some early equivalent of) Qabalistic exegesis? Perhaps even based on ancient Greek rather than Hebrew? (Didn't the Greeks use numerological analysis of words long before the Hebrew Qabalah? I seem to recall reading that somewhere but I'm not sure.)

Another way to put all the above: people aren't taking seriously enough the force of the first article of the creed: THE MESSIAH DIED FOR OUR SINS. Picture this being told to someone who had the more traditional idea of the Messiah in mind (as a somewhat spiritual but mostly military, kingly leader who would eject the Romans and lead the Jews to global victory and world peace). The force of Paul's message is against that received opinion. "Don't look for this great king to come - for he has already been, and not in the way you expected". And where does the impetus come from to speak of the Messiah as one who has already been, and whose biography turned out to be not as expected? From Scripture and visions.

avi

Are you referring to oral tradition?

I will attempt to rephrase my query.
We agree that Paul had access to oral tradition.
We may or may not agree that Paul had access to some sort of "gospel(s)", perhaps something akin to Justin Martyr's citation, Memoirs of the Apostles, or Tatian's Diatessaron, or something else.
I am sure we agree that the contents of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 are found in the gospels.
I think further that we also agree that kata taV grafaV refers to written documents, perhaps sacred documents, but not embracing oral tradition.
Then, if I have understood your post today, you doubt that Paul intended to lump "Cephas and the Twelve", with the bit about dying for our sins and reincarnation. I disagree. I think that Paul's method of writing indicates contrarily, that Paul regarded "Cephas and the Twelve" as included within the scope of the contents of "sacred texts". Perhaps I am looking at the text of two millenia ago through spectacles made today. That little conjunction, "kai" would not have been necessary, would it Doug, if Paul had intended the readers to understand that "Cephas and the twelve" were not found in the "written texts" ?

At some point in time, the gospels acquired the status of "sacred texts". Why could not that point in time correspond to the time when Paul put quill to papyrus?

avi

avi

Hi GuruGeorge,
thanks for this interesting post.

"Consensus dating"

Hmm? And upon which method would that dating depend? So far as I am aware, according to Trobisch, our oldest extant copy of Paul's epistles is found in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The whole point of this thread is to challenge "consensus dating". I find the traditional view, of the date of appearance of Paul's letters, utterly nonsensical. Dating and Christianity don't have a remarkably strong association.

On the contrary, the history of the church is to suppress, even to the point of murder and assassination, anyone who challenges papal supremacy on all matters of doctrine, including, of course, assignment of the dates of appearance of various documents.

I think you have discounted the alternate explanation, without seriously evaluating its merits: Paul wrote his epistles AFTER the gospels had been created. According to this hypothesis, formed by aa5874, one does not need to invoke a "falsified" Paul, simply a Paul who wrote late in the 2nd century, after the gospels had already been accepted as scripture.

avi

maryhelena

Why not indeed! Sure, the final form of those gospels was probably not there yet, ie updates being possible until someone decides to ‘canonise’ the writings. As I’ve often said, I don’t think it all came out of Paul’s head.

Paul’s statement:

[T2]1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (New International Version )

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.[/T2]

And if this statement was the first to mention the third day according to the Scriptures, why do not the gospel writers make sure they included this important point in their own storyline? Only Luke follows Paul: (as far as I can check...) - or maybe Paul is following Luke....

[T2]Luke 24:45-47 (New International Version)

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.[/T2]

And, since there is no OT prophecy regarding this wait for a 3 days resurrection, it looks to be something between Paul and Luke. Sure, bits and pieces of the OT can be put together - add Jonah’s three days in the belly of the whale - for one hodgepodge of an argument!

And really, when one thinks about it - was god a bit slow on the uptake here? - and with his only begotten son to boot!. Paul elsewhere, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, indicates that when god sets his mind to such things - well now, it can all happen in a “twinkling of an eye”. :constern01:

Obviously, without a historical JC, this is all academic re the 3 day wait for resurrection. However, other possibilities can be looked into regarding this rather strange 3 day storyline.

But back to your OP. The Jesus storyline preceded Paul - by his own admission. “For what I received I passed on to you”. What Paul does on his own - is up the game. Takes things to a new direction - sin offering etc. The whole crucifixion story is not a dead-end but a glorious pathway to salvation. That’s Paul’s good news, his very own gospel.

A proto-type of the gospel storyline - Slavonic Josephus. Wonder-worker crucified and his body can’t be found and his followers begin to think he is risen. Once Paul comes up with his crucifixion as a value instead of as a negative - then the storyline proto-type gets updated - and so on and so on....

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

Dating Paul early is a historicists position - mythicists have no need to follow the pre 70 ce gospel time frame for Paul's story. In other words - 'Paul' has been backdated into, to follow on, the gospel time frame re JC.

Vivisector

Even so, this is how the basic process works, according to the Christians.

To be true, a hypothesis that Paul had in mind the canonical gospels when he wrote "according to the scriptures" requires one of two things (unless the argument is to move even further away from the mainstream):

1. The gospels were written (considerably) earlier than thought, or
2. Paul wrote (considerably) later than thought.

The interesting point, as I see it, is that 1. is the easier of the two, especially considering Paul's pesky reference to Aretas. By happenstance, it is the one that (I'd guess) Christians would find more comforting. They've had a long, long time to pursue this possibility - to do our work for us, so to speak. And yet, notwithstanding Robinson, this is very far from the most popular position within scholarship. I just have to suggest that there's a reason that so few people take seriously the idea that Paul wrote after the gospels were written, circulated, and came to be regarded as authoritative on par with the Jewish scriptures.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena

The Aretas reference is ambiguous of course, ie not identifying which Aretas is being referenced. There was no Aretas ruling Damascus during the NT time frame. Hence this reference cannot be used to date Paul. Gallio? Well, that's just Acts doing it's fanciful reconstruction of early christian history.
So, it's all down to dating early manuscripts and the historicists wonderment as to why Paul does not go into detail re the gospel JC storyline...

Dating, in and off itself, is great - but what if a gospel manuscript turns up tomorrow that can be dated earlier than one of Paul's writings? Not such an easy way out for the historicists then - Paul knows the gospels but fails to pay homage to all the wondrous details of the life and times of JC! It suits the historicists just fine to keep things the way they are with the present manuscripts and their dating re Paul writing first - they can let Paul off the hook this way!

stephan huller

We should always resist the tendency to 'figure things out' ourselves when it comes to the scriptural proofs that early Fathers used to justify the official understanding of Christianity. Here is one 'scripture' that Tertullian (or his source here) used to prove that the Creator 'predicted' the resurrection after three days:

The bottom line is that Catholics did point to scriptural proofs for key points in their doctrine. It doesn't make sense whether or not we agree with them. This is what is meant in the Pauline passage.