Peter Kirby

Good stuff--my hypothesis was not falsified when it might have been. Paul does not call Jesus "the Word" in anything approaching the Johannine sense. Are you sure that there are arrows in that quiver?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

No big deal. The idea of Jesus as the pre-existent Word, that is by whom, or through whom, or because of him, the worlds, or all things were created (at the beginning of times and with God) is well expressed in 1Corinthians, Hebrews ("Word of power" appears in Heb1:3) and Colossians. "John" decided to use the term 'Word' for the preexistent Son/Jesus in expressing the same idea (maybe he also knew about Philo's or 'Hebrews'!).
The wording might be different, the idea is the same.
Philo: "Now **the image of God is the Word**, by which all the world was made"
Hebrews: "Son, whom he has established heir of all things, **by whom also he made the worlds**"
Paul: "one God, the Father, of whom all things, and *we* for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, **by whom [are] all things**, and *we* by him"
Colossians: "who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; **because by him were created all things**"
GJohn: the **Word** was with God, and the **Word** was God. *He* was in the beginning with God. All things received being **through him**"

HUMM, I just noticed "all things", in the quoted passages above, appears in Hebrews, 1Corinthians, Colossians AND GJohn, but not in Philo's. What a coincidence!
I also notice Philo's: "the world was made" and Apollos' "he made the worlds". Another coincidence?
And then the "by whom" in 'Hebrews' and Paul's!

Philo made popular the idea of another divine entity as a co-creator, which, as interpreted from Genesis, is the Word. This second deity also acts as a ruler afterwards. That divine entity, in the same role, (pre-existent Christ/Jesus/Son) appears also in Paul's, Hebrews and Colossians, all written before GJohn, implying Jesus was also promoted to be the "Word" of Philo. The author of 'Hebrews' used 'Word', but not as directly as in Philo's works or later in GJohn. But Paul did not dare (or wanted) to, nor the author of Colosssians who pretended to be Paul (even if the Christology here is at its highest).

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

I think that you've demonstrated that Christians took Jesus in many ways, and this could include making him pre-existent in heaven in different expressions. So what is it that makes us think that the pre-existence thing got started by the historical Paul and was borrowed from him by everyone else? (In fact it must not have--pre-existence was a cultural concept that the Christians borrowed--and as such could be applied more than once.)

I never did get to see the verse you were talking about where Paul calls Jesus "the Word" in the Philonic or Johannine sense.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

If you want to think that "John", some 30-40 years after Paul's times did not know about Paul's main christology, so be it. I tried to show you he was far from being isolated, but of no avail (not even a comment). That went in the garbage, I guess.
Never mind if around the same time "Clement", the author of Colossians, the one of Ephesians, the author of 'Acts' knew about him. "Clement" also knew about 'Hebrews'.

Actually the preexistence was started by Apollos, who got it from Philo. That's what I showed on my website, which I know you made a point to ignore. Even if other atheists did not:
"Jesus, A Historical Reconstruction" http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml _ Excellent site for learning about who and what the real Jesus might have actually been.
"Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy", Farrell Till

What's that? When did I say that Paul calls Jesus "the Word"?
I wrote: "Yes, Jesus as the Word, was simply something he mumbled once and probably did not like"
And "The Word, even if it is just spurted only once (In 1Cor)".
I never said Paul used "Word". I knew then he did not. That's why I said "mumbled" and "spurted", because what he expressed (vaguely) was similar of what Philo, 'Hebrews' and GJohn did, that is the divine co-creator other than the Father, which is known as being the Word, according to Philo, 'Hebrews' and GJohn,

What do you call Philonic?
"Now **the image of God is the Word**, by which all the world was made"

What do you call Johannine?
"the **Word** was with God, and the **Word** was God. *He* was in the beginning with God. All things received being **through him**"
Jn1:13-14 "... of God. And the Word became flesh"

Does these Paul's writings not express the same idea:
"one God, the Father, of whom all things, and *we* for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, **by whom [are] all things**, and *we* by him"
Romans8:6 "God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin"

Well, you can keep your theory of the month, ignore most of what I wrote on this thread, ignore the relevant part of my website I invited you to read, if it is what you are interested.
Bye, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Bernard, I did not ignore what you wrote because I didn't critique it. I think that discussion doesn't come from volleying lines back at other lines, but at selecting the most important points out for discussion. And I don't think that anyone is ever required to do external reading to understand someone's argument, whether that reading be in print or on a web site.

For example, you made an argument about the development of Paul's thought from adoptionism to pre-existence through his letters (I think it was). I guess that is possible, I haven't looked into it. But I only advanced the contradiction between the two verses as an indication that some redaction of Paul's letters may have gone on, not that it necessarily did. What evidence do we have that 1 Cor 8:6 was written by the historical Paul?

I didn't wrangle over the issue because it sets up a false argument:

1. Paul held that Jesus existed before birth, sort of like Wisdom in the Old Testament.
2. John held that Jesus existed before birth, sort of like Word in the work of Philo.
3. Therefore, John got the idea that Jesus existed before birth from Paul.

What we need is some kind of "Pauline fingerprint" to show that Paul invented an idea and that everyone else who believed it ultimately derived it from Paul. That you have not shown.

On the other hand, the OP in this thread explained in a reasonable way how the authors of the Gospel of John might have come to the belief that Jesus was fully divine. While you are annoyed by others who ignore the theories on your web site, when someone else presents a theory of the subject, you stick to your own theory and say "I frankly do not care how all of that fits with [the other guy's] theories."

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

To put it this way, I do not have anything against.

a) As I said before, the wording is mumbled. Paul seemed not to want to be too clear. An interpolator would have been more precise if he wanted to add a tenet which was missing in Paul's letters. I found interpolations in Paul's 7 letters (as a matter of fact, all the canonical letters were interpolated, except Philemon), but they are very obvious and usually long too. Mostly, they are an awkward concentration of clear-cut items, missing in the epistle (or all of them), but important in later Christian theology/Christology around 100CE. Of course, it's in my website, with a series of arguments for each one of them.

b) The other reason is that I am sure Paul wrote that part of 1Corinthians (1Corinthians is actually 3 epistles combined in one around 100, when interpolations were made) after 'Hebrews' was written. Many things from 'Hebrews' appears in that epistle when the Christology of Paul before that is rather non-existent (no Son, no preexistence and a mystery why "Christ crucified" would have salvation value). Again it is documented in my website (HJ-3b).

c) I also said, it seems Paul wanted to set the record straight, because the parallel of 'Hebrews' (1:1-3) almost takes God out of the creation. That would be the motive (too much of a departure from the OT). In the same epistle, he adopted preexistence in a vague form: Christ during the exodus (1Co10:2-4). So a mumbled preexistent Word-like entity would not be out of question.
But Paul was reluctant to accept "Son of God", which he did late (possibly because that was breaking up monotheism) (HJ-3b).

d) Then Colossians amplified 1Co8:6. Because this epistle was likely written around 65, I think that was done from what Paul was known to have written (or said) (as a starting point).

That's all that come up from my mind now.

Well, I showed the progression in my website (HJ-3b), with plenty of evidence.
Plus 1Corinthians, 'Hebrews' (if you accept at least a pre-70 dating) and Colossians all show the Word-like entity (Heb1:3 has "word of power").
Then Paul had an associate, Apollos of Alexandria, the same city where Philo lived (died around 45-50). I showed in my website (HJ-3b) that Apollos was the author of 'Hebrews', from many angles. Anyway, the concept was well in place before 70 and I cannot imagine anybody in Christiandom not aware of these beliefs, regardless if they were accepted by some or rejected by others (such as Ebionites & Jewish Christians & Thomassans & Cerinthus). According to 'Acts' & Paul's epistles & 1Clement, Paul had enemies from Greece, Syria, Asia & Galatia and converts in Greece, Macedonia, Asia, Galatia & Rome. So his main concepts must have been well known all over, in different groups, even 30-40 years later.
Furthermore, there are clues (such as the "beloved (alleged) disciple" being presbyter John (the author of revelation), the presence of a JB following), plus "traditions" of "John" in Asia from tales, that GJohn was written in Asia Minor. And Asia Minor was the stomping ground of Paul and Apollos, likely the headquarters of Pauline/Apollosine Christianity (preexistent Son of God), explainning the Christology in Colossians, and of course 1John & GJohn.
And again, there is "all things" showing in the Word-like segments in Hebrews, 1Corinthians, Colossians and GJohn, but never in Philo, as far as I know, from about half a dozen of "Word" passages I found.

Bernard

Bernard Muller

Yes, I am annoyed by quickly postulated ill-substantiated theories, which are coming out more & more those days. After working on my site for years, guided by the evidence and getting to a coherent result, I do not have any reason to change my views: that's why I do not embrace any new theory which comes along, nor I am particularly interested. I studied scholarly works before, and after checking them out with the primary evidence, I am not impressed. Even if, sometimes, they may come up with some good ideas or pointers.
Please note my so-called theory is so documentated from start to finish (including addressing counter evidence) that I am not calling it a theory. I challenge anyone to come up with a more substantiated history of the very beginning of Christianity, addressing (and answering) the major issues clearly. I did all that in a website the size of a mini book.

I value feedback from my readers like these:

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

On a subject so controverted, and for good reason, I am not impressed by the fact that you consider only your beliefs to be interesting or substantiated or thorough.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

What do you know? Did you read my website?
Beliefs? I do not have any now, only facts I found from my work. I had beliefs before, but my analysis on very early Christianity dissipated them.
Maybe the subject is so controverted because many are on wrong paths, or going in circle, and making a mess of the topic.
Is it wrong to have made sense out of it?
Please note that, according to what I read from the web, from lists, from debates, from my readers, from my own thinking, I make additions, corrections, touch up all the times. So I am not so rigid.
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

I have read a bit of it, and it contains a lot of quotes from the ancient sources and inferences from the quotes, sometimes agreeable and sometimes not so convincing. What I am saying is that I have read a lot of books and there are definitely other bodies of work that are interesting, substantiated, and thorough and contradict yours--which doesn't mean that yours is wrong, only that I don't understand your presumption that only you have found the right way to approach the subject. It is good that you are not rigid--but how much critical review has your work received? Perhaps you should attempt to publish something in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus or The Journal of Higher Criticism or New Testament Studies to submit it to the criticism of those who study the subject seriously.

best,
Peter Kirby