Paul Baxter

Geoff,

I think I more or less understand your point of view (probably less than more, but what can we do?), but the timing seems rather difficult for me to accept, not to mention that it seems to jettison the existing evidence (the NT texts as we have them) in favor of something entirely hypothetical.

The critique of your general outline with which I am familiar is the one by NT Wright in his series on the NT and Xian Origins. I'll refer you to those works if you want someone much more informed than me to interact with.

My point is simply this.

1 Standard chronology places some of the Pauline epistles as the first extant xian writings.

2 The Pauline corpus, in stating "Jesus is Lord", is making a rather obvious point that Caesar isn't. This mesage is sometimes hidden just a bit, as it was undoubtedly dangerous.

3 The book of Mark seems to pick up on this same political theme.

4 2+3= Mark picking up on the same train of thought as Paul on this point, whether he read Paul or not.

5 So where is there room for an intermediate theme or 'gospel' between the life of Jesus and Paul and Mark?

Of course I'm leaving a million things out, both for and against, but this is the essence of why I'm unpersuaded. It just seems more likely to me that the texts, more or less as we have them, should be allowed to speak for themselves as a testament to "what happened" in the first century of xianity.

Paul Baxter

Looks like we were writing at the same time, Geoff. As an aside, I don't mind name dropping. I don't have any names to drop myself, though if I had to, I know where E P Sanders office is and I could go pound on his door til he answered

Back to the points. For myself, I don't especially care if the gospels or the epistles came first. It's just been the standard way of dating, so that's how this sort of thing usually gets presented.

And to the main point, and I hope you aren't offended by this, but your method strikes me as something like taking a dinosaur skeleton from a museum and rearranging it to make some different creature. Then, once it's rearranged, noticing how it doesn't fit so well together. Then, perhaps, proposing that we are missing most f the bones, or perhaps these are bones not from one creature, but maybe from three or four, most of which have been lost.

Of course we don't have lots of information from the 1st C which we might like to have, so I have to grant you that your theory might be correct. It just seems to make much less sense of the evidence we do have than the more "traditional" way of putting things together. Why would "Luke" transplant his stories to a new locale? Of course it is technically possible, but it also seems intentionally misleading. Whatever the motivations of ancient historians were, one has to assume that to some degree they are trying to tell their audience "what happened". One doesn't, for intance, take a passage from Josephus, one which is neither confirmed nor refuted from any other sources, and then assume that he is intentionally being misleading, and from there try to reconstruct what "really" happened. You have to give the benefit of the doubt to the historian. He was a lot closer to the events than we.

Geoff Hudson

Paul:
I think I more or less understand your point of view (probably less than more, but what can we do?), but the timing seems rather difficult for me to accept, not to mention that it seems to jettison the existing evidence (the NT texts as we have them) in favor of something entirely hypothetical.

Geoff:
The texts have been criticized for years. The form critics run round in circles chasing their tails speculating about hypothetical sources such as Q. Have you read Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels?

Paul:
Standard chronology places some of the Pauline epistles as the first extant xian writings.

Geoff
The corpuscular theory of light was once a standard.

Paul;
The Pauline corpus, in stating "Jesus is Lord", is making a rather obvious point that Caesar isn't.

Geoff:
But at what stage in the development of the text did that become applicable?

Paul:
So where is there room for an intermediate theme or 'gospel' between the life of Jesus and Paul and Mark?

Geoff:
I am saying there was a primary theme before Jesus. For example, in the second century, Tertullian said to be the first Christian theologian, in his Apology, hardly mentions Jesus and that only in one highly suspect passage.

Paul:
It just seems more likely to me that the texts, more or less as we have them, should be allowed to speak for themselves as a testament to "what happened" in the first century of xianity.

Geoff:
Absolutely, but I can't resist interpreting what I read, whereas I used to blindly accept what was there.

Paul Baxter

to try to drive this forward just a bit (if possible),

what does your theory have to commend itself over mine? What questions does my theory overlook which yours answers? or, what is simpler about your theory? or, what evidence does your theory include which mine ignores? (or whatever other criteria you like).

ps if you are going to claim Tertullian as pre-dating Paul I'll have to treak you as a crank. Sorry.

Geoff Hudson

Paul,

The point is that Tertullian comes well after "Paul", but Jesus is not in Tertullian's theology, (at least, that is, not in his Apology). Here, the first Christian theologian in the second century doesn't know about Jesus.

In fact Tertullian, becomes a "heretic", and goes off to join the Montanists - surprise, surprise, a Spirit based sect.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Paul,

There are so many parts of Josephus' works that are obviously fraudulent, particularly in the areas that overlap with the NT.

Geoff

Paul Baxter

I'm nothing resembling a Josephus scholar. _The Jewish War_ is the only work I've read. But the idea that MUCH of Josephus is fraudulent is news to me. The Penguin edition I have, in the intro by E. Mary Smallwood (whoever she may be) says, "Much of the long history written by Dio Cassius early in the third century survives only in excerpts and epitomes, and the only passage of any length on the Jews, three pages pn the seige of Jerusalem, does not provide a check on Josephus. Thus not only for the war of 66-70 but also for the history of the province of Judaea, and for the story of the reins of Herod the Great, his sons and his grandson, Josephus stands virtually alone, and must be judged on his own merits."

I am pretty certain, as is, I would imagine, the great majority of reasonable people, that the little lines in Josephus making him out to be a Christian are later additions. Also, like all writers, he had a particular motivation and agenda for his writing. But for one to just say that all the primary sources on 1stC palestine are fraudulent seems like historical solipsism.

In other words, if you rule out the NT and Josephus as basically truthful sources, what are you left with? Philo?? Papyrii?

And shouldn't evidential priority be given to earlier rather than later sources?

Steven Carr

It is very well hidden in Romans 13:1-7


1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. '

Why is the message that Christians must submit to the governing authorities subversive?

Steven Carr

Which bits and why are they obviously fraudulent?

Geoff Hudson

Stephen,

I somehow think that the original was distorted by those very authorities who wanted their inferiors to "toe the their line", rather than obey the Spirit. You have picked a perfect example that illustrates my earlier point about manipulation by the establishment. I have not fully worked out the following but its not far from complete. It originally had nothing to do with "the authorities":

Romans Chapter 13:1-10

HE WHO OBEYS THE SPIRIT FULFILLS THE LAW

(1)Everyone must submit himself to the [governing] {Spirit’s} [authorities] {COMMANDS}, for there is no [authority] {COMMAND} except that which God has established.

The [authorities] {COMMANDS} that exist have been established by God.

(2)Consequently, he who rebels against the [authority] {COMMANDS} is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves.

(3)For [rulers] {the Spirit} hold{s} no terror for those who [do right] {obey his commands}, but for those who [do wrong] {disobey}.

(4)Do you want to be free from fear of the [one in authority] {the Spirit}?

(5)Then [do] {obey} [what is right] {his COMMANDS} and he will [commend] {purify} you.

(6)For he is God's [servant] {Spirit} to [do you good] {purify you}.

(7)But if you [do wrong] {disobey}, be afraid, for

[he does not bear the sword for nothing. ]

(8)he is God's [servant] {SWORD}, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the [wrongdoer] {disobedient}.

(9)Therefore, it is necessary to [submit] {obey}
[to the authorities] {the Spirit},…
[not only]
…because of possible [punishment] {judgement.}
[but also because of conscience.]

This is [also] why you [pay taxes] {obey the COMMANDMENTS}, for the [authorities] {COMMANDMENTS} are God's{.}

[servants, who give their full time to governing.]

(7)Give [everyone] {him} [what] {the obedience} you owe him:

[If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.]

(8)Let no [debt] {COMMAND} remain outstanding, except the continuing [debt] {COMMAND} to [love one another] {obey the Spirit}, for he who…
[loves his fellow-man]
…{OBEYS THE SPIRIT} HAS FULFILLED THE LAW.’

(9)The COMMANDMENTS, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other COMMANDMENT there may be, are summed up in [this] {THAT} one rule{.}

[:“Love your neighbour as yourself”.
(10)Love does no harm to its neighbour.] (NOT THIS RULE)

Therefore [love] {obedience of the Spirit} is the fulfilment of the law.

Geoff