Geoff Hudson

THE SECOND ASSUMPTION

All four gospels are really 1c documents, and should be always treated as such.

This sounds like a pretty good assumption to me. The gospels have much core material to support the idea that they were originally the documents of a community within first century Judaism. Those documents were subseqently edited. For example, the text that now appears to be anti-Jewish was originally about opposition from one group of srict Essenes towards the contemplative type of Essenes - the Rechabites or Theraputae.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

THE THIRD ASSUMPTION

The "sacred 7 authentic epistles of Paul" are really authentic.

The third assumption is not too bad either, except that it does not include all the Pauline epistles. They all contain original writings of Paul (Josephus), but changes have been made. For example, Jesus and message of the cross have been introduced, as they have in the gospels. There was no Jesus, only John the prophet.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

There is little debate because he disappears into thin air, unless he was Josephus who lived much longer. The editors would be very reluctant to reveal that "Paul" came back from Rome to Palestine to try and rescue a deteriorating political situation.

Geoff

capnkirk

There is another (and to my mind far more plausible) interpretation to the apparent divergence of the Paulist Christ and an historical Jewish Jesus (one that permits an historical Jesus, and puts Paul in a completely different light.). That is: Paul "invented" Christ! If you can accept (for the moment) the possibility that this Jesus was (in his own vision) the messiah in the traditional context, then Paul's "conversion" on the road to Damascus takes on a whole new character. Remember, Paul never met Jesus...his conversion was after Jesus execution. Paul's new radical interpretation of Jesus' mission brought him into dire conflict with The Church in Jerusalem (peopled by Jesus' disciples and led by his BROTHER James), since THEY still considered Jesus in the context in which THEY knew him and his mission.

This just scratches the surface of the evidence supporting this interpretation. There is much evidence that Paul was NOT a Pharaisee, as he claimed...but that Jesus WAS! Paul (nee Saul) was much more likely a Sadduccee hireling. During the Roman occupation, the Roman governor, erroneously thinking that like with the Romans' own religion the Temple was the heirarchical head of the 'church', sought to suppress any religious rabble rousing by controlling the Temple masters. Upon pain of loss of their power and wealth, he made puppets of the Sadduccees (the rich leaders of the Levites, assigned by Moses to be the keepers of the Temple), and in so doing made the Sadduccees an aggressive and powerful enemy of any messianic candidate. This is why Saul (and others) were hired to persecute Jesus (and any other messiah). The quandries, conflicts, and mysteries begin to evaporate when examined in the context of Jesus as just one of a number of messianic candidates to appear throughout the occupation.

The Pharaisees, on the other hand, were the local ministers, the teachers in the synagogues, the interpreters of Jewish law, the nearest thing to champions that the common people had. Where a successful messiah would spell ruin for the rich Sadduccees (having incurred Roman wrath), the Pharaisees were implicitly supportive of messianics in that, if successful, it would mean an end to the hated Roman occupation, freedom for the people under an independent Jewish nation, and reestablishment of Jehovah's kingdom on earth.

Much of the anti-Pharaisaic bias in the gospels can be traced to Paul's reaction to the emphatic rejection of his heretical contention that Jesus' earthly mission abrogated the Torah and created a new covenant. This was at the heart of Paul's argument with Jesus' disciples and the reason that Paul turned to conversion of the Gentiles. This is supported (recalling that Paul's epistles were available to the gospel writers) by the escalation of anti-Pharaisaic rhetoric with each succeeding gospel. Mark, the first is least biased and Luke the most.

Now go back and look at all the evidence previously discussed in this thread, and watch how it all starts to fall together, from the realization that all of Paul's epistles were available to the gospel writers, to the realization that Paul's Christ had much more in common with the gnostic hero cults of his native Tarsus than with any Jewish.

This subject would make a wonderful thread in itself...if responses in this thread demonstrate an interest, I will start just such a thread where all the evidence can be presented and discussed in depth.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, vtran!

Currently, 99% of our biblical scholars assume that all four gospels are really 1c documents, and should be always treated as such. Why do they assume this? Because it saves them from thinking, I'd say!

As to Doherty, AFAIK he doesn't necessarily himself believe that all four gospels are 1c documents. Perhaps he simply makes this assumption so that he can challenge the mainstream scholars on their own turf.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Geoff,

Loisy does admit that some sort of predecessors to the gospels already did exist in the 1c. But these may have been just bits and pieces of narrative, such as various Passion narratives, some teaching and controversy scenes, some miracles, etc. But _as gospels_, i.e. close to their present shapes, they probably date ca 100 CE, according to Loisy.

Quote:

For example, the text that now appears to be anti-Jewish was originally about opposition from one group of srict Essenes towards the contemplative type of Essenes - the Rechabites or Theraputae. Geoff

Well, this would be quite a separate subject...

As to your theory that Paul was really Josephus, I really don't know what to say about this. Does anyone actually agree with you on this?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Capn!

The idea that Paul invented Christianity is actually quite a popular one (although Paul "inventing" Christ might be something else).

But, myself, I've never bought this. I think that, in a curious way, this position that "Paul invented Christianity" is a mirror image of the canonical Paul, who was supposed to have been Chosen By Christ, Himself, to Spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.

IMHO, both these positions make way too much of the missionary who, in his own lifetime, was probably hardly even known outside of the area where he worked.

It's all myth-making... The Historical Paul clearly couldn't have had any great authority at the time when the real disciples and family of Jesus were still around (assuming there was a HJ).

Quote:

Paul's new radical interpretation of Jesus' mission brought him into dire conflict with The Church in Jerusalem (peopled by Jesus' disciples and led by his BROTHER James), since THEY still considered Jesus in the context in which THEY knew him and his mission. This just scratches the surface of the evidence supporting this interpretation. There is much evidence that Paul was NOT a Pharaisee, as he claimed...but that Jesus WAS! Paul (nee Saul) was much more likely a Sadduccee hireling. During the Roman occupation, the Roman governor, erroneously thinking that like with the Romans' own religion the Temple was the heirarchical head of the 'church', sought to suppress any religious rabble rousing by controlling the Temple masters. Upon pain of loss of their power and wealth, he made puppets of the Sadduccees (the rich leaders of the Levites, assigned by Moses to be the keepers of the Temple), and in so doing made the Sadduccees an aggressive and powerful enemy of any messianic candidate. This is why Saul (and others) were hired to persecute Jesus (and any other messiah). The quandries, conflicts, and mysteries begin to evaporate when examined in the context of Jesus as just one of a number of messianic candidates to appear throughout the occupation. The Pharaisees, on the other hand, were the local ministers, the teachers in the synagogues, the interpreters of Jewish law, the nearest thing to champions that the common people had. Where a successful messiah would spell ruin for the rich Sadduccees (having incurred Roman wrath), the Pharaisees were implicitly supportive of messianics in that, if successful, it would mean an end to the hated Roman occupation, freedom for the people under an independent Jewish nation, and reestablishment of Jehovah's kingdom on earth.

You seem to be assuming above that we know very well just who were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But actually, there are all sorts of disputes about this among scholars. Those pictures of Sadducees and Pharisees in the gospels seem to be quite selective, and questionable as to their accuracy.

Regards,

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,

I discount the passion narratives as being totally unfeasible.

If Loisy allows for some teaching, controversy scenes and miracles, etc. that sounds like quite alot.

How much does Loisy admit to and what language does he say those "bits and pieces" were written in?

Now put those "bits and pieces" in the context of a prophet John who rejects the temple cultus, teaches purification by the Spirit, in Judea, and does signs amongst people who were considered impure and were rejected by their stricter compatriots. They then become a number of powerful stories that one or two of his followers must have told. No doubt they were subsequently changed and added to.

All the best

Geoff

capnkirk

After researching several New Testament timelines, the dates of the letters (epistles) seem to be pretty well documented. The dates of the gospels are not. Dates for Mark range from the '50's to the mid-'70's; for John, from the 70's to the 90's. With that in mind the dates for many of the letters follow:

45-49 James
49 Galatians
51 I & II Thessalonians
55-56 I & II Corinthians
50-63 Colossians, Philemon, Ephisians, Philippians
57-58 Romans
60's Matthew
70's Acts
80's Luke

From these dates, it is clear that most of Paul's letters to the Hellenic states were written well before the first of the gospels and would therefore have been available references for the gospel writers. This observation significantly elevates Paul's influence on the gospels beyond what is generally perceived . To presume that Paul's epistles did not greatly influence the composition of the gospels is not realistic.

capnkirk

Most scholars place Luke at least 10 years after Paul's death in 68CE.


The timelines would indicate that it was the other way around...that Luke had Paul's epistle in hand.