Sheshbazzar

But the early writers of the -'Jesus' born and crucified on earth- Gospel stories DID influence the content of the Pauline writers.
Which has been demonstrated.

The speculation that the Pauline epistles (in their present form) were written before the Gospels does NOT stand up under examination.

'de-christianized', there likely were early Jewish writings to the Jewish synagogues of the Diaspora, written by the Jewish writer now known as 'Paul'.

EarlDoherty

I wish you could present your ideas in clearer fashion, because they don't make much sense to me. First of all, what do you mean by "Christian"? If you are denying that you say "the Gospel story existed first in the minds of Christians of the 2nd century," where did the story found in the Gospel of Mark come from? Out of the blue? He simply invented a whole sectarian movement complete with founding preacher, Cynic-like teachings mixed with apocalyptic prophecies, a coming Son of Man and imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, based on absolutely nothing? Then other writers and other communities found that invented story so compelling that they reworked it and added things to it, for what--to entertain themselves on a Saturday night? People reacted to that non-existent story so strongly that they were "converted" to that non-existent sect and became "Christians"? Does that really make sense to you?

Why is that so difficult to believe when you have an entire body of literature as represented by the epistles (including some non-canonical) which present us with exactly that picture: belief in a "vague and undelineated Jesus Christ" in the sense of a non-historical savior but a divine heavenly figure, one closely resembling the savior gods of the prominent religious trend of the age, namely the pagan mystery cults. Why is it so difficult to believe when we can see in Jewish sectarian writings parallels to such a heavenly Christ in figures like the Messiah in heaven of the Similitudes of Enoch or the Beloved Son emanation of God in the Odes of Solomon, or even in the philosophical Logos of Philo. Paul is right in line with major trends of the age. Why is it so difficult to locate that body of literature in the first century when it is so difficult to find a place for it in the later second century?

This is one of the great disadvantages facing those who reject Q, usually on the simplistic basis that "oh, it's not needed--and we can just ignore all the problems in the alternative Luke used Matthew," or that it's became radically fashionable to dismiss Q. You deprive yourselves of a major asset in understanding where the basic Gospel of Mark came from: it reflects that Q community, something which Matthew and Luke subsequently picked up on in more direct and literary fashion when they came to enlarge on Mark, all of them coming out of that sectarian movement reflected in Q.

In other words, no one "cooked up" a Gospel story. It is a direct representation of that kingdom-preaching sect recorded in Q, also reflecting a belief in a founding sage who preached its content. It doesn't matter at this point whether that founder really existed or was developed through the course of the sect's evolution (which I maintain). The point is, it explains the development of the ministry portion of the Gospels, and it does it very well.

Just why Mark chose to create that story to embody his sect's traditions, and at the same time to introduce a new dimension that was not present in the Q tradition, namely the death and rising of that founder, now identified as the Christ/Son of Man, is not so clear, but it is an easily understandable extension of Q's prior impulses in a narrative and biographical direction. My own judgment is that Mark was in the process of syncretizing the Q tradition with the cultic Christ tradition reflected in Paul (though not necessarily directly from Paul himself, there were other strands of that preaching movement going on throughout the empire, Paul hardly governed them all).

Well, I'm afraid that you are arguing it with me, because if you put forward theories which are demonstrably flawed, then you will get an argument from people who don't agree with you. As I said above, there is not much sense to be found in thinking that Mark arose out of the blue with no precedents and this completely fictitious story somehow generated a new sect. Especially when that new sect bears strong resemblance, on the one hand to a seemingly widely established kingdom-expectation movement reflected in several Synoptic communities as well as in the Didache, and on the other hand to the whole cultic Christ movement reflected in the epistles. The Gospel of Mark adds a dimension to the dying and rising Christ by placing that event on earth (one reason why the christology is not as high), whereas it makes little sense that the epistles would be developed subsequent to the Gospel story and yet ignore and exclude the historical and earthly dimension for its dying and rising Christ, treating its Christ Jesus as an entirely heavenly figure who was never on earth. (And there is reams of evidence within the epistolary texts that their Jesus had not been on earth). Your order of earthly Gospel story followed by heavenly high Christology simply doesn't make sense.

So that's it? That's your evidence that Paul knew of a story of Jesus on earth? One passage that resembles something contained in the Gospels trumps all the other indications that he and all the other epistle writers knew of no such thing? 1 Cor. 11:23-26 is unmistakeably drawn from the Gospels? I beg very much to differ.

First of all, Paul introduces that passage with a phrase which you yourself have quoted above: "For I received from the Lord..." Paul is directly telling us that he got this information, this scene of the Lord's words at what he calls The Lord's Supper," FROM THE LORD HIMSELF! Where is his source in the Gospel story of Mark, where in the oral tradition of reputed historical events? You scoff: "...unless you wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven." Well, that is exactly what I wish to believe, not from a "dead Jesus" in the sense of one who had been on earth, but from a Jesus who resided in heaven, died and rose there, and was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians. That communication is spelled out all over the epistles, the Son NOW revealing himself and sending his spirit into the hearts of believers, a Son who "is come [present tense] and given us understanding," and so on. The so-called "words of the Lord" as in 1 Cor. 7:14 and 9:10 are regarded by a significant thread of traditional scholarship as communications Paul has received from Christ in heaven, not through oral tradition of an earthly Jesus' teachings. (Paul in 1 Thess. 4:9 cannot even tell his readers that Jesus "taught us to love another" but ascribes that teaching to God!)

Sorry, but that is sheer ignorance. Are you not aware that critical scholarship almost universally recognizes that the Last Supper scene in Luke is almost non-existent in its original form, and did not contain most of Paul's words in his Lord's Supper scene in 1 Corinthians? Some manuscripts actually contain only "This is my body." The additional parts are missing and there is a general consensus among mainstream scholars that those parts are secondary, added by a later editor to bring Luke's text into line with fuller accounts, cribbing from other Gospels and perhaps even from Paul. Note that Luke in the previous verse has already dealt with the cup, though not giving it any sacrificial import, so the repetition of the cup in verse 20 betrays itself as a later addition.

Pauline dependence on simply "This is my body" is hardly demonstrable. Moreover, Paul fails to include reference to "disciples" or an audience for these words. As for the reference to "night" which you make so much of, you evidently are not familiar with too much mythology, which is quite capable of introducing time and other references which do not refer to specific history. You are also not familiar with the fact that mythology will reflect parallels with the rites which represent them. If Paul (as he suggests) regards Jesus' sacrifice as related to the Passover sacrifice (not historically, which he never mentions, but in spirit), then he will quite likely set his original myth scene which established that Passover rite "at night", since the rite itself takes place after sundown.

You are basing your convictions on incomplete knowledge and understanding of a lot of things. Besides, if 'Paul' chose to incorporate this scene from the Gospels into one passage in his many epistles, why do we find a total void on anything else from those Gospels in everything else he wrote? Why an ignorance on just about everything we would associate with those Gospels? Does that make sense to you--especially in a late 2nd century context?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

I am extremely delighted that you admit that Acts of the Apostles is placed in the 2nd century by most critical scholars and contradicts much of Paul's beliefs, activities and relations with the apostles.

Your statement helps my argument that early Paul is highly problematic.

Early Paul is therefore virtually WITHOUT any corroboration both chronologically and theologically because Acts is the only source that mentions the beliefs and activities of Paul in the Canon.

Even if Paul was early then the author of Acts had very little knowledge of him.

But, how could that be?

What advantage--What benefit was there to the UNKNOWN author of Acts to contradict the Pauline beliefs, activities and relations with the Apostles?

The Pauline letters should have been in circulation at least 40-50 years before Acts of the Apostles composed in the 2nd century

People of antiquity in the Jesus cult of Christians should have known about the Pauline beliefs, and activities.

Your own admittance that most critical Scholars place Acts in the 2nd century and that Acts contradicts Paul also LIKELY means that people of antiquity did NOT know of Paul's beliefs and activities.

It should be most obvious that if someone writes bogus information about Paul and such fiction is accepted as credible then Paul had no known history.

There was simply no Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem in the 1st century--and No Paul or Pauline letters.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, my view makes perfect sense to me, whether I can get past your preconceptions and misconceptions or not.
There were many religious ideas and views floating around among the various sects in the era leading up to the 2nd century CE.

The author of 'Mark' collated those ideas and views and produced a fictional religious drama set in the past, in which the the chief protagonist was 'the Son of God', The Anointed One.
Many upon reading or hearing the tale believed it as being a historical account. Other writers quickly capitalized on it's popularity, producing their own expanded variations, introducing additional elements in response to the public's demands for ever more details.

Although the story -setting- is 1st century, There is no evidence for the Gospel stories having been written or known to anyone in the 1st century.
Writers living and in the 1st and early 2nd century evince no familiarity at all with any such writings, nor with any 'Jesus of Nazareth' as a crucified God/Messiah.

So people had read or heard the gospel story of 'Mark', formed a fan club/religious community of 'Jesus' believers. To which Matthew and Luke were able to peddle what these fans wished to hear.
I disagree. It took the production of a manuscript first, to tie all of these various 'Q cult' religious factions and views together in support of a common gospel

A lot of words to say that we are not that far apart.
Ideas were floating around in a messianic expecting community, perhaps some claiming that the Messiah had already been born.
The author of 'Mark' composes his work incorporating many of these elements. No one has ever seen or met this mythical Son of God Messiah.


But I made no claim that there were no precedents. That is your personal interpretation, and an addition onto to what I actually wrote.
Certainly there were precedents of thought. ... but given what you write later in your response. I'll address this further on.

Sorry Earl, I do not share your religious convictions. and this is an Atheist Forum for discussing the texts, not your personal religious convictions.

I hold that the source of the Pauline writers statement in 1 Corinthians was drawn from the mundane and earthly source of Luke 22:17-20 with which the writer was familiar.


You lost me. Perhaps you can convince others here of your voices from heaven source theory.

And you are basing your views upon your admitted religious convictions .....Yet some very weird religious convictions they apparently are.
You believe 'Paul' actually received words of instructions from heaven from a resurrected 'Jesus' as you state above.
... but attempt to present that a 'Q cult' contrived theological/philosophical origin for the Gospel writings, sans any actual historical Jesus of Nazareth ever being born and living on earth?

'A Jesus who resided in heaven' ... with there never having been any 'historical' earthly 'Jesus'? A 'Jesus' that was nothing more than the collected ideas of a 'Q cult' yet really lived in heaven, 'ressurrected' (from what?) where? and when??? and this 'Q' invented character actually communicated with Paul' from heaven ??? Nuts!

This is no teaching from Christianity. We are aware of what Christians teach. What weird cult do you belong to? Does it have any members other than yourself?


Yes, it does make sense to me. Christianity in the late 2nd century, STOLD the writings of a genuine early JEWISH author and edited and reworked them to fit their lying religion.
Which you believe. ....or don't believe, ....or believe whatever it is that you believe. pathetic.



.

avi

Thanks for this thought. I have long wondered how it would be possible for Paul, or anyone else, to send a "letter", i.e. an "epistle" in the Roman Empire. Did they have regular postal delivery?

First century authorship of Paul's letters seems nonsensical to me. Apart from the problem of finding a reliable courier to transport the letters, who would have been foolish enough to commit blasphemy in the provinces? Surely the nascent Christians, if any existed at all, in the first century, would have been profoundly outnumbered, by militant, orthodox Jews.

Do we have, from roughly the same time period, letter correspondence between a private citizen and a religious shrine or temple?

Sheshbazzar

Yes in fact they did.
The 'Christians' (and not all Christians' of that time believed in a 'Jesus') that did exist were mostly gentiles living in places like Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome, creating their own religious sects out of a syncretized mixture of Greek Philosophy, OT prophecies, and 'pagan' folk religion.

Most religious Jews were concerned with their own peoples religious affairs and could hardly be expected to be able to police the imaginative religious inventions of the countless gentile religious sects scattered across the Empire.

The problem of 'blasphemy' in the mails was not much of a problem until the rise of The Roman Catholic police state, then every piece of private mail would have been searched for any 'heretical' communications.

I would expect that some such such survive, and of course a great many 'pagan' inscriptions to the various gods have been recovered.
There is an early account of an Emperor having private prayers left in the Temples collected and examined, to seek out anyone that might be invoking the gods against his rule. It was not a healthy practice to leave ones pleas, or religious communications, if they were the least bit political in nature, lying around, and it didn't matter if one called themselves a 'Christian', a Jew, or a Buddhist.

That said, I would expect that the real 'Paul', (the pre-'christianized' one) would have dispatched his writings to the synagogues by his Jewish associates serving as his couriers, or when traveling, delivered the letters himself, taking opportunity to further expound his views in the synagogues in person.



.

aa5874

I cannot even believe my eyes? How in the world can Doherty imply that the Jesus story in gMark came from out of the blue?

Where did Doherty get his story that Jesus of the NT was never on earth and was crucified in some heavenly realm?

It is Doherty's Jesus that came out of the "blue" and was crucified there.

We know EXACTLY and fundamentally where the author of the short gMark got his story.

The author of gMark fabricated his story from books of the Prophets in Hebrew Scripture/ the Septuagint and the Works of Josephus.

1. We can show you that Jesus in gMark as the Son of Man is from the book of Daniel.

Mark 1 KJV
Daniel 7 Now Examine gMark.

Mark 14
2. We can show that the author of gMark fabricated his Jesus story from the book of the Prophets called Isaiah.


Mark 4Examine the words of Isaiah

Isaiah 6:9 KJV3. We can show you that the author of gMark used the book of Daniel to fabricate his story that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

Mark 13:14 KJVNow examine the book of Daniel.[/b]
Daniel 11:31 KJVThe Jesus story in gMark was lifted from the books of the Prophets and the works of Josephus.

Doherty's Jesus crucifixion in the "blue"[sub-lunar] came from out of the Blue.

Who claimed Jesus was crucified in the "Blue" and was Always in the Blue before Doherty?

There were no Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem at all in the 1st century--- we have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Recovered dated NT manuscripts.

MrMacSon

a lot of this took place during or after the Jewish-Roman Wars that fragmented & dispersed the Jewish peoples.

maryhelena

That ordering, gospel story followed by the high Christology of the Pauline epistles, has stood for going on two thousand years. By that reckoning, this method of ordering the NT story has, and does, make sense to an awful lot of people - including NT scholars.

Earl, it's your ordering of the NT story that does not make sense to many people. And that means that your ahistoricist/mythicist theories don't even get past the starting line as a means to understanding early christian origins.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the gospel story was written hundreds of years after the time period in which that story is set, the historical setting of that story still has to be considered as relevant to the later theological/philosophical developments. (blindfolded and putting the tail on the donkey for choosing the gospel time frame would simply be an attempt to avoid the question of relevance of this time period to the gospel writers).

The gospel time frame, at the very least, indicates that history, historical Jewish realities, were of relevance to the creator of the Jesus story. The Jesus story did not have to be dated. That it's creator choose to date the Jesus story has rooted that story in a historical time frame. If the reason for this is an interpretation of OT messianic prophecies - then, Earl, lets have your application of these OT prophecies to historical realities. Historical realities on the ground - not up in the blue sky with the Pauline writer.

Spiritualizing OT prophecies as though they have relevance in some imaginary world (or theological or philosophical context) requires that the Jerusalem 'below' is also involved. The 'spirit' and the 'body' are one. One can't have one without the other.....The Pauline writings and the gospel story reflect two very different contexts. The 'spirit' of the Pauline writings does not negate the 'body' of the gospel Jesus story. And no, that 'body' is not a historical JC (of whatever variant). That 'body' is historical reality, Hasmonean/Jewish political reality.

Earl, the branches of christian theology/philosophy might indeed reach for the blue sky - but these branches belong to a tree that has it's roots deep within reality - deep within Hasmonean/Jewish political reality. Ideas are plenty - some come and stay awhile - and others never see the light of day. To get off the ground, so to speak, the Jesus story had to have roots secure in historical realities. That requires that the gospel Jesus story was primary. The NT story does not work the other way around. One cannot put down historical roots for an imaginary spiritual, otherworldly, story. Such 'root's would be arbitrary and easily rejected. This was never the case with early christian writers. The JC story was believed to have had historical roots.

The gospel JC story is primary. It did not, it does not, require the Pauline writings. The gospel JC story can stand on its own two feet - Hasmonean/Jewish history.

While interpreting the Pauline writings is, of course, relevant, these interpretations are never going to be an adequate response to the gospel JC story. It's the gospel JC story were it's at - because with that story we have to deal with historical realities rather than with the Pauline imagination.

Earl, I think, over the years, I've said this many times - you have, in your theories, only half a story about early christian origins. You have a theory re the Pauline writings. You don't have a theory on the gospel JC story that can be demonstrated to have historical relevance. i.e. you only have a theory on half of the NT story. You have an interpretation of 'Paul's interpretation of the Jesus story. Your interpretation, via 'Paul', is thus second-hand down. What is necessary is to deal with what the Pauline writer had to deal with - the story that proceeded him: The Jesus story - a story that is now preserved in the gospels.

aa5874

Doherty has gone beyond the evidence by accepting the Pauline writings as credible when he himself has argued that Pauline writings regarded as authentic are interpolated.

It is completely unacceptable for Doherty to argue that the Pauline writings are manipulated as we have them today and then INVENT his own sequence of events.

Effectively, Doherty's position on early Christianity is actually based on a known and admitted discredited source--the Pauline Corpus.

The earliest story of Jesus, the Son of God, in the short version of gMark tells us that Jesus was on earth, and was baptized by John, did miracles, walked on the sea, transfigured was crucified under Pilate and resurrected.

There is nothing AFTER Jesus resurrected.

The history of the character called Jesus would have been easily recognized as fiction if the Pauline letters were not composed.

The Pauline letters were composed to HISTORICISE the Resurrection of Jesus.

Only the Pauline writer in the Canon claimed he was a Witness of the Resurrected--No other author claimed to be a Witness.