Paul and the Gospels

[Zebra1552]

Than we have nothing to discuss.

Why? Because you want to discuss claims? Claims have no substance unless they are backed. I don't see the point in discussing them. I don't see why you would either.

 

[Zebra1552]

The primary evidence is the gospels themselves and the handful of quotes in the early fathers. The interesting stuff is the reasoning that leads from that primary evidence to date. I've cited one such place you can read the reasons given by one scholar, which is precisely the sort of citation I should be giving. If you aren't prepared to read that and just choose to write him off as biased that's your look out, I'm afraid. If you don't have access to his commentary and would like me to summarise what he says then ask for that. If you need more details to find the commentary then ask for that. If you want mroe citations or citations about a different aspect of the question than ask for that.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't want citations at all, but are simply trying to dodge.

I'm much more direct about my dodges, I'm afraid. Your source is biased. My source is a textbook about the history of the NT. I think I'll trust that over a commentary any day of the week.

Your "refutation" including the assertion that we have copies dating back to the 60s AD - either withdraw that or back it up.

Who said anything about the 60's? Wayseer was talking about original texts written later than the 70's.

If an IVP is a "biased organisation" I have not idea what you think constitutes "scholarly".

InterVarsity is a biased organization just like the Catholic Church is a biased organization. They take the stance of their denomination and its tradition rather than actually looking at the evidence.

 

[ebia]

I'm much more direct about my dodges, I'm afraid. Your source is biased. My source is a textbook about the history of the NT. I think I'll trust that over a commentary any day of the week.

I can quote you from a textbook if it keeps you happy. Do you honestly think textbooks on the history of the NT are substantially more reliable or scholarly than commentaries written by experts on the individual books.

Who said anything about the 60's? Wayseer was talking about original texts written later than the 70's.

He said, IIRC, 68 for Mark, 70s for Luke, 80s for Matthew and 90s for John. We don't have copies of any of those texts anything like as early as any of those - more like 225 for fragments of Mark, 250 for fragments of Luke, maybe as early as 150 for fragments of Matthew and (the only one that comes close) about 125 for John.

InterVarsity is a biased organization just like the Catholic Church is a biased organization. They take the stance of their denomination and its tradition rather than actually looking at the evidence.

If that's your position - that anything that disagrees with you is biased and you aren't prepared to look at it - I'm not going to waste my time taking you seriously anymore.

 

[Zebra1552]

I can quote you from a textbook if it keeps you happy. Do you honestly think textbooks on the history of the NT are substantially more reliable or scholarly than commentaries written by experts on the individual books.

Why wouldn't I? Commentaries are not written to provide background on the book and why, when, how, who wrote it. NT history textbooks are.

He said, IIRC, 68 for Mark, 70s for Luke, 80s for Matthew and 90s for John. We don't have copies of any of those texts anything like as early as any of those - more like 225 for fragments of Mark, 250 for fragments of Luke, maybe as early as 150 for fragments of Matthew and (the only one that comes close) about 125 for John.

That's nice. I'm not interested in a claim war.

If that's your position - that anything that disagrees with you is biased and you aren't prepared to look at it - I'm not going to waste my time taking you seriously anymore.

Don't put words in my mouth. My position is that sources that appeal to tradition for their information are not worth my time because they do not provide accurate information. It's called critical thinking.

 

[wayseer]

One such might be the contrasting of Caesar and Jesus that Paul does all the time ....

... and one that Crossan and Reed (In Search of Paul) follow and demonstrate that Paul uses the 'language' of the Augustan Emperor Cult to superimposes his theology of the 'Son of God' which centered on Jesus as 'Lord and Saviour' and not Caesar. But that could be another discussion all on its own.

I think we do, but such are likely to be subtle and subject to disagreement - we would need to agree on what Paul's theology was and what Luke's theology (say) was before we could begin to look for where one leads to the other. Whatever I might come up with would intrinsically not be clear-cut.

And it is not clear-cut. But my point remains, if Paul was the doyen of the fledging Christian Church it has to be asked - where is his influence within the Gospels?

I don't agree on either point - except in so far as to acknowledge that Paul is pushing the boundaries of where human language goes, and is writing occasional letters not systematic theology, so one is bound to run against difficulty getting one's head around his ideas all the time.

That you disagree is noted but you then seem to confirm the very thing I am saying - that you acknowledge there are difficulties.

I don't think there is an absence of material - Paul's language of resurrection is entirely physical and bodily. But he isn't a narrative writer. The only absence comes from expecting the wrong sort of thing.

I will have to concede on this point.

The Didache is basically a very short manual on how to do church, not a theology or a gospel.

Indeed, but is it a recording of what was happening in the Christian community shortly after the death of Jesus which was written before Mark - and we have few enough. I don't dismiss it so lightly.

No theologian - Mark included - can answer every question all of the time. Mark goes for answering, or rather asking, the discipleship question over answering the resurrection question. Like all theologians he leaves himself open by what he doesn't say, but that comes with the territory.

'By what he doesn't say? By what he left out? Now I made the same claim earlier and you commented that I am expected 'the wrong thing'. Perhaps you might also be 'expecting the wrong thing'.

I would argue that leaving out the 'essentials' might be considered careless but it probably means something else altogether.

As N.T. Wright has show, bodily resurrection would not arise as a theology except that it were based on real experiences of both an empty tomb and the risen Jesus, which could only happen early not late.

But, if as you say Paul was talking about a bodily resurrection, then could he not be using the 'language' of the Emperor Cult? Besides a bodily resurrection was unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

 

[Thekla]

Very often the 'absence' of something is just as important as what is included - and the absence of any material in Paul concerning the bodily resurrection is telling given Paul's zeal and enthusiasm for his project. If Paul had met a resurrected Christ he'd be shouting about such a meeting.

In one of the epistles, Paul indicates there is no need to review the "basics".

The epistles are not unlike the letters of spiritual fathers extant from the interceding centuries up to the present day. Not every letter of an Elder mentions the Resurrection; the instructions of a spiritual father are more concerned with matters arising in daily life.

They are concerned with answering particular questions, troubleshooting, exhortation and advice. How to pray, the particular spiritual trouble at a particular time and place.

For one unfamiliar with the 2,000 year old history of eldership, it seems the form of the epistles would be unfamiliar. But in the EO, these epistles are familiar in content. Even to this day, one may find the parallel in the writings of (from the 20th c.) Elder Epiphanios, Elder Paisios, St. Nikolai, Elder Cleopa, etc. etc. The basics are rarely mentioned, yet all these firmly embraced belief in the Resurrection !

If you search for the writings of EO spiritual fathers, you will discover this form and content, the particular content of the NT epistles, as familiar. The resurrection; this is foundational. Unless it is pertinent to the time and issue being adressed, why would Paul reiterate the foundational beliefs from which one proceeds in their walk ? It is the walking, the continuing in the Way, which occupies the majority of time in the spiritual life, and presents the ongoing struggle.

 

[Yarddog]

How so? If Paul had influence apparent that influence did not extend very far. Yet it is to Paul that Church owes is theology.

And how does the Church owe their theology to Paul? Do you think that because "we" have more written material from Paul that he was the seed of Christianity? The early Church did not put more emphasis on Paul's teachings than they did the others.

The use of names for important documents was a matter of course in those times and reflected on the author's recognition and esteem placed on that 'name'.

This is only conjecture on your part.

The chance of anyone living to 50 years of age was extreme and the chance of any Jew living through the holocaust of 70 AD was probably nil.

Where did all the Jews come from that revolted in the 2nd century if they were all killed in the prior revolt of the 1st. Over a half million Jews were killed in the 2nd revolt according to an ancient Roman, Cassius Dio. The Talmud says that millions died, yet there were still plenty of Jews.

As for the ages of that time period, life expectancy surely wasn't very high but there are cases of people living into their 80's and 90's from that time.

Of course! But that does not mean that the authors of Matthew and Luke were prone to copying off other material.

Matthew had no need of copying from another writer but I would say that Luke very well could have. Since he was not an eye witness to the life of Jesus, he would have leaned heavily on those who had and he tells us that he did just this.

Luke 1:1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

What 'proof' do you seek? Many asked Jesus for 'proof' also.

I'm not the one that is expressing doubt that the writers of Matthew and John were Apostles. That is you.

Your quote:"Indeed. Although Paul was a contemporary of Jesus it appears neither met each other. [/b]But neither were the authors of the Gospels any closer to the action."[/b]

As was Jesus'

No, that would be incorrect. The three main spiritual factions in Israel during the time of Jesus were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two most powerful and maintained control in the Sanhedrin. Jesus was at odds with both of these factions throughout the Gospels. All three of these factions came out of the Maccabean revolt, a few hundred years before Jesus' birth.

Judaism, today, is a reflection of the Pharisees, since the other two factions disappeared during the 1st century.

 

[Thekla]

So that you can see the form (and compare it to the NT epistle version)
here is an example of a 19th century epistle from a spiritual father:

July 17, 1814 Hermitage
My dearest little brother, Alexander Ivanovich, Save yourself in the Lord!
I was delighted to receive your letter proceeding from unforgettable brotherly love. I rejoiced in my heart that you are alive and well. I would be glad to help you with books, but it is a pity that we are so far away from each other now and there are no opportunities for me to do so. But to satisfy your request, which indeed is pleasing to me, along with this letter I am sending you at least a few readings I have copied out. And yet they contain much, and one might say everything necessary for guidance unto salvation. Let your soul make good use of them; nourish it daily with the words of life, with prayer, and with every good work—just as we nourish the body with various kinds of food and drink, by means of which our exhausted strength is renewed and our life is preserved.
If the spirit of piety is growing weaker in you, that is not surprising, because you are found in a social circle where you both see and hear everything that is in opposition to this spirit, and your heart participates in these things either willingly or unwillingly. That is why I feel sorry for you. But, my little brother, you must not entirely neglect your soul. You must somehow kindle that spirit of piety; by a little spiritual reading, or by prayer even though it may be brief, or by remembrance of eternity and by fulfilling the rest of Christs commandments, you must nurture yourself and mature unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13). Remember the publican of the Gospel, who was pursuing such a shameful and pernicious career, but did not leave off going to the temple even though his way of life was completely opposed to that which is pleasing to God. And once upon a time it so turned out that he pleased God much by just a few words of repentance and left the temple justified rather than the Pharisee, that zealous keeper of the entire law. My dear one, do not entirely quench the spirit and do not enfeeble yourself by carelessness and by overindulging the body and dissipating the mind in obsessive imaginings, lest you afterwards suffer the lot of the slothful servant of the Gospel, who hid the talent of grace received at baptism, which absolutely must not remain barren and fruitless in the soul of a Christian.
So as to arouse our heedlessness, here is another consideration that we must always bring to mind: that we are mortal. Our life is fleeting and most perilous on account of the uncertainty of the hour of death. For although we know well that we shall die, what we do not know is when we shall die—today or tomorrow, sooner or later, during the day or during the night? This lot of each person is completely unknown—when the sickle of death will overtake whom, and what condition it will find him in, made ready by good works, or unprepared and full of evil ones. For in whatever it finds a person, that is how it will deliver him over to judgment before God, and by his deeds everyone shall be either glorified or put to shame. And no one will help us in that hour of death, only good works accomplished in God. Here we must discuss both good works and evil works, and the results of each. We know from the Holy Scriptures that we are not created just to eat and drink pleasurably, have a good time and enjoy ourselves heedlessly. We are created for good works, through which in this brief life we attain the eternal and blessed life to which we are all called by the grace of God.
And so our life here is a time of ceaseless bodily and spiritual labors, and the future life of recompense according to our works. But we must find out for certain what kind of works will yield a blessed eternity and what kind will yield a bitter one, so as to shun the one and always hold to the other. Man is twofold, body and soul; his works are also twofold. One is called the outer man, the other is called the inner man. These two, united in the single hypostasis of the man, are as far removed from one another as the heaven is from the earth, and they are so opposed to each other that one who is not enlightened by the grace of Christ cannot come to know himself and cannot steer clear of disaster. For the outer man is a corruptible body, fashioned by God to serve the soul, and it demands its own gratification; the inner man is an immortal soul, created in the image and likeness of God for good works, and it demands its own kind of cultivation and gratification.
Our works are called sowing, and this too is twofold—some unto the inner man and some unto the outer man; and the differing fruits of the two are evident. "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (Galatians 6:8). The sowing and reaping unto the outer man in this life has three aspects—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:16). Unless the inner man meditates upon the law of God and is nourished thereby, unless he is strengthened by reading and by prayer, he is conquered by the outer man, and he serves his master. Hence there are manifested works pleasing to the flesh but hateful to God, such as pride, avarice, gluttony, the fulfillment of all kinds of lusts, idle talk, laughter, amusements, drunkenness, malice, duplicity, lying, envy slothfulness and others. These are the fruits of the sowing unto the flesh, and that is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50). But when the soul meditates upon the law of God and the body is subjected to the wisdom of the soul, then the following works are seen: love for God and neighbor, peaceableness, meekness, simplicity, kindliness, mercifulness toward all, modesty, temperance, chastity, guilelessness, and the rest, and these works are the fruits of the Holy Spirit and are called the sowing unto the Spirit.
Our works in this life are the sowing, and the future life is the harvest of what we have sown. Whatever one sows here, that is what he shall reap there. If one hastens to cultivate the field of his heart, to fertilize it and to sow in it the seeds of immortal grain, he can confidently expect to see a corresponding harvest unto eternal rest and delight. He that sows with tears of repentance shall reap with rejoicing and "shall be filled," says the Prophet (Psalms 16:16 and 125:6), for sweet rest follows upon the labors of piety. But rest and refreshment are denied to him who has not labored in the work of piety—he that is idle should not eat, it is said (cf.II Thessalonians 3:10).
Dear brother, always depict this truth to yourself, that what a man sows in this life he shall reap a hundredfold in the future life. And check yourself daily on the basis of this truth—what have you sown for the future life, wheat or thorns? And having examined yourself, resolve to do better the next day, and live your whole life in this manner. If you have spent the day poorly, without praying to God as you should, without even once feeling contrition of heart, without humbling yourself mentally, without showing kindness or giving alms to anyone, without forgiving someone at fault, without patiently enduring an offense—if instead you have given way to anger and showed no restraint in your speech or in eating and drinking, or if you have immersed your mind in impure thoughts—when you have reviewed all this in your mind, condemn yourself according to your conscience and resolve on the following day to be more attentive to that which is good and to guard more against that which is evil.
And so ever watch over your field, my dear one, and clear it of thorns, and take heed as a true Christian to labor not merely for the food which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life (John 6:27). For what good does it do us if we fully gratify ourselves in this life with honor, glory, wealth and all kinds of pleasures, but empty our soul of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and then appear before God barren as a fruitless tree which is hewn down and cast into the fire (Matthew 3:10)? With your outer man render to Caesar the things that are Caesars (Mark 12:17), but with your inner man always gaze toward God and meditate upon His law, and God will be with you.
More than anything else, I fear lest you be harmed by keeping bad company. A companion who always has women and good times on his mind is a bad companion for sure. For wine and women have destroyed many, the Scriptures say (cf. Sirach 19:2, 34:25). Keep away from such people, for loose and passionate habits take root in us quickly and easily, and it is very difficult to get rid of them. Few are they who have entirely freed themselves from evil habits—most have ended their lives in these passions unto their eternal condemnation, from which may the most merciful Lord spare you and me. I trust that you have the spirit of the fear of God by which you can guard yourself from sin and be guided toward virtue. These readings I am sending you can also aid you in this. Keep these precepts as well as you can, and surely "thy youth shall be renewed as the eagles" (Psalm 102:5).
As for me, I am living in the same solitary place as before. Glory be to God! I am in good health and protected by the grace of God.
Ever wishing you well, I remain your devoted brother,
Sinful Timothy
I bow most deeply before you.

From the hand of Elder Moses of Optina

Two Letters from Elder Moses of Optina to His Brother Living in the World

Perhaps I have read carelessly, but the Resurrection is not mentioned in the Elder's epistle.

 

[ebia]

... and one that Crossan and Reed (In Search of Paul) follow and demonstrate that Paul uses the 'language' of the Augustan Emperor Cult to superimposes his theology of the 'Son of God' which centered on Jesus as 'Lord and Saviour' and not Caesar. But that could be another discussion all on its own.



And it is not clear-cut. But my point remains, if Paul was the doyen of the fledging Christian Church it has to be asked - where is his influence within the Gospels?

You seem to be expecting obvious influences and I think that's unreasonable given the very different sorts of literature that Paul and Luke are writing - any influence would be hard to spot and debatable. I offer one possibility and you seem to dismiss it out of hand.

Indeed, but is it a recording of what was happening in the Christian community shortly after the death of Jesus which was written before Mark - and we have few enough. I don't dismiss it so lightly.

I don't dismiss it lightly - though I'm not entirely convinced it was written that early - but it doesn't strike me as the sort of document that would say much about the resurrection. It's a very short document focused very much on one topic.

the same claim earlier and you commented that I am expected 'the wrong thing'. Perhaps you might also be 'expecting the wrong thing'.

I'm not expecting anything (or at least I don't think I am), I'm saying Mark as it stands is a coherent document about discipleship and that coherence on that topic, which appears to be it's primary purpose, would be compromised by adding a final scene about Jesus walking about. No theologian can talk about everything all of the time, and Mark is no exception. So I don't read anything in to Mark not giving such a description because I can see why he would choose not to for the sake of his main point.

I would argue that leaving out the 'essentials' might be considered careless but it probably means something else altogether.

You assume that Mark (or any other document) is supposed to be a complete summary of the essentials. I would suggest that it isn't trying to be that - it tells the story for a reason, and that reason is to teach discipleship.

But, if as you say Paul was talking about a bodily resurrection, then could he not be using the 'language' of the Emperor Cult?

eh? I can't make any sense of that - the Emperor cult doesn't have bodily resurrection.

Besides a bodily resurrection was unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

Precisely part of the point. It does exist in Judaism as something to happen at the end of the age. But both Judaism and the Greco-Roman world have very good language for describing spirtual experiences, visions, spirits, ghosts, etc. If you used language of bodily resurrection to mean some kind of spiritual event everyone would wonder what the hell you were talking about and why you were being so absurdly inappropriate in your language.

 

[wayseer]

In one of the epistles, Paul indicates there is no need to review the "basics".

The epistles are not unlike the letters of spiritual fathers extant from the interceding centuries up to the present day. Not every letter of an Elder mentions the Resurrection; the instructions of a spiritual father are more concerned with matters arising in daily life.

They are concerned with answering particular questions, troubleshooting, exhortation and advice. How to pray, the particular spiritual trouble at a particular time and place.

For one unfamiliar with the 2,000 year old history of eldership, it seems the form of the epistles would be unfamiliar. But in the EO, these epistles are familiar in content. Even to this day, one may find the parallel in the writings of (from the 20th c.) Elder Epiphanios, Elder Paisios, St. Nikolai, Elder Cleopa, etc. etc. The basics are rarely mentioned, yet all these firmly embraced belief in the Resurrection !

If you search for the writings of EO spiritual fathers, you will discover this form and content, the particular content of the NT epistles, as familiar. The resurrection; this is foundational. Unless it is pertinent to the time and issue being adressed, why would Paul reiterate the foundational beliefs from which one proceeds in their walk ? It is the walking, the continuing in the Way, which occupies the majority of time in the spiritual life, and presents the ongoing struggle.

Interesting. Thank you for such an informed post.

My comment, at this stage, is that I sense you argue the same thing as Ebia - that it is a matter of the literary genre. It is a valid point.

 

[wayseer]

You seem to be expecting obvious influences and I think that's unreasonable given the very different sorts of literature that Paul and Luke are writing - any influence would be hard to spot and debatable. I offer one possibility and you seem to dismiss it out of hand.

That is unfair. I do not dismiss what you have to say 'out of hand'. I only too readily defer to your greater experience.

I don't dismiss it lightly - though I'm not entirely convinced it was written that early - but it doesn't strike me as the sort of document that would say much about the resurrection. It's a very short document focused very much on one topic.

Indeed. But given the paucity of available material any material is important.

I'm not expecting anything (or at least I don't think I am), I'm saying Mark as it stands is a coherent document about discipleship and that coherence on that topic, which appears to be it's primary purpose, would be compromised by adding a final scene about Jesus walking about. No theologian can talk about everything all of the time, and Mark is no exception. So I don't read anything in to Mark not giving such a description because I can see why he would choose not to for the sake of his main point.

You make good points - but - the resurrection is the one central thing to the Christian religion that allows it to claim the ground on which the Church stands - Jesus is risen. How could Mark miss the importance of that central theme?

You assume that Mark (or any other document) is supposed to be a complete summary of the essentials. I would suggest that it isn't trying to be that - it tells the story for a reason, and that reason is to teach discipleship.

I am not debating what the document might contain - I am debating the rather obvious that has been left out.

eh? I can't make any sense of that - the Emperor cult doesn't have bodily resurrection.

But Paul is using the language of the Emperor Cult. That is my point.

My quote -

Besides a bodily resurrection was unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

SORRY - let out one little word there - NOT - not unknown.

Besides a bodily resurrection was not unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

 

[wayseer]

And how does the Church owe their theology to Paul?

It was Paul who introduce the Eucharist and Baptism - not the Gospels - they were written much later.

Do you think that because "we" have more written material from Paul that he was the seed of Christianity?

Certainly Paul is the 'seed' as you suggest the quantity of his written work notwithstanding.

The early Church did not put more emphasis on Paul's teachings than they did the others.

But it was Paul's teachings that survived. We have a letter from James but most of the pseudo-Pauline letters were written well after Paul's death.

This is only conjecture on your part.

Most recognised Biblical scholars note that the authors back then used the names of other people.

Where did all the Jews come from that revolted in the 2nd century if they were all killed in the prior revolt of the 1st.

I said all those killed in 70 AD which was the time when Jerusalem was levelled. Of course there were other Jews spread all over the Roman Empire, and beyond.

As for the ages of that time period, life expectancy surely wasn't very high but there are cases of people living into their 80's and 90's from that time.

Of course 'there are cases'. What I'm suggesting is that it is not very likely for a number of reasons.

Matthew had no need of copying from another writer but I would say that Luke very well could have.

It is not so matter of what you and I might think. Scholarly research has demonstrated that Matthew copied off Mark and Q. You can disagree but I'll go with the scholars.

I'm not the one that is expressing doubt that the writers of Matthew and John were Apostles. That is you.

It is not me expressing doubts.

No, that would be incorrect.

What is not correct?

The three main spiritual factions in Israel during the time of Jesus were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Certainly the Pharisees and Sadducees were present. The Essenes were located well away from the action and kept to themselves and were hardly 'one of the main spiritual factions'.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two most powerful and maintained control in the Sanhedrin.

It was the Sadducees who controlled the Sanhedrin as far as I am aware. They held on to the Priesthood of the Temple through their bribing the Herodian dynasty.

Jesus was at odds with both of these factions throughout the Gospels.

I don't accept your analysis. I think Jesus was a Pharisee and the biased exhibited in the Gospels towards the Pharisees comes at a later date. Part of the job of a Pharisees was to debate the points of the Law. And they had their own body of literature (Mishnah) to which they referred when giving judgement in the courts.

All three of these factions came out of the Maccabean revolt, a few hundred years before Jesus' birth.

The Sadducees were the Priestly cast. The Pharisees rose out of the exile to Babylon.

Judaism, today, is a reflection of the Pharisees, since the other two factions disappeared during the 1st century.

Yes. It was only the Pharisees and Christianity which survived those early revolts.

 

[ebia]

That is unfair. I do not dismiss what you have to say 'out of hand'. I only too readily defer to your greater experience.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that's what you appeared to be doing (to my offered up example - not generally). You seemed to skip what I was saying, agreeing that Paul uses Caesar language, and then (apparently) ignoring my observation that so does Luke, albeit in a narrative way as befits the master storyteller. If I've misread your brevity I apologise, but perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on it for me.

Indeed. But given the paucity of available material any material is important.

Sometimes there just isn't enough material to demonstrate (or not) an hypothesis.

You make good points - but - the resurrection is the one central thing to the Christian religion that allows it to claim the ground on which the Church stands - Jesus is risen. How could Mark miss the importance of that central theme?

I think he takes it as read. He is sufficiently sure his audience know about the resurrection that he can allude to it with an empty tomb and leave it at that, to make the more immediately relevant point. I don't think Mark is written to teach non-believers the basics of the faith, but to teach believers (albeit relatively new ones) the basics of discipleship.

But Paul is using the language of the Emperor Cult. That is my point.

He often does, but he doesn't restrict himself to that.

Besides a bodily resurrection was not unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

According to Tom Wright, yes it was unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

 

[Yarddog]

It was Paul who introduce the Eucharist and Baptism - not the Gospels - they were written much later.

So you say that Jesus didn't actually institute the Eucharist before his crucifixion. You believe that Paul developed this theology and sold it to writers of the Gospels and other Epistles so they could provide stories about something which occurred while he was still a loyal Pharisee.

Certainly Paul is the 'seed' as you suggest the quantity of his written work notwithstanding.

Did Jesus actually live in your scenario?

But it was Paul's teachings that survived. We have a letter from James but most of the pseudo-Pauline letters were written well after Paul's death.

This is a problem with many of the newer Churches or Christians which reject the traditions of the ancient Churches. The ancient Church "knew" that all of the Gospel was not written down but was passed on by word of mouth.

Paul did not create the theology which we share today. He received it from Christ, just as all the others did. They all had the Holy Spirit and when they spoke of what that Spirit had given them, they shared it with the Church and the Church recognized the truth in what was spoken.

Most recognised Biblical scholars note that the authors back then used the names of other people.

There is no doubt that writings appeared that were spurious but "most" recognized scholars do not apply that to the Gospels or Epistles. They are some that doubt the source of some of the books.

I said all those killed in 70 AD which was the time when Jerusalem was levelled. Of course there were other Jews spread all over the Roman Empire, and beyond.

You said: "The chance of anyone living to 50 years of age was extreme and the chance of any Jew living through the holocaust of 70 AD was probably nil."

You were implying that the Apostle Matthew could not have written the Gospel which bears his name because the chances that he could survive the holocaust of 70 AD was about "nil". In reality, millions of Jews survived.

Of course 'there are cases'. What I'm suggesting is that it is not very likely for a number of reasons.

"Not being likely" is not enough evidence to suggest that the Gospel writers were not actual Apostles or their disciples.

It is not so matter of what you and I might think. Scholarly research has demonstrated that Matthew copied off Mark and Q. You can disagree but I'll go with the scholars.

Scholars disagree as well. Mark and Luke could very well have read Matthews Gospel and later written their accounts.

It is not me expressing doubts.

You are the one implying that Matthew and John did not write their Gospels. I asked you for proof that they didn't. It is not I that is expressing doubt in the Gospels, though I am expressing doubt in your hypothesis.

What is not correct?

That Jesus' theology was from the Pharisees.

It was the Sadducees who controlled the Sanhedrin as far as I am aware. They held on to the Priesthood of the Temple through their bribing the Herodian dynasty.

The Sadducees did not have control in the Great Sanhedrin and may have not been included. The Pharisees were divided into two major factions which vied for control of the Great Sanhedrin, the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai. Hillel was more open while Shammai the strict one.

Hillel died about 10 AD and the Shammaites took control and held control through the Gospel period.

I don't accept your analysis. I think Jesus was a Pharisee and the biased exhibited in the Gospels towards the Pharisees comes at a later date. Part of the job of a Pharisees was to debate the points of the Law. And they had their own body of literature (Mishnah) to which they referred when giving judgement in the courts.

I don't accept your analysis either. Maybe you can point to evidence that said that Jesus was a Pharisee. I see nothing Biblical which does that but I do see plenty of evidence in the Gospels that he was opposed to the Pharisees. Paul, himself, rejected the teachings of the Pharisees after his revelation from Jesus.

The Sadducees were the Priestly cast. The Pharisees rose out of the exile to Babylon.

Both factions rose out of the Maccabean revolt according to Jewish sources.
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes

 

[plmarquette]

the imfamous "Q" doctrine....that matthew , mark, luke, and john shared the same outline....problem being, they are similar, not identical....either in presentation , nor in content....

paul preached to the gentiles....matthew, mark, luke, and john to the jews...
parallel , but not unitied until peter and paul hooked up....like catholics and protestants today...."separate, but equal" ....

paul said he went back to talk to peter and james to compare notes, to verify that
what the spirit had taught him was consistant with what peter was teaching
the jews....

 

[ebia]

the imfamous "Q" doctrine....that matthew , mark, luke, and john shared the same outline....problem being, they are similar, not identical....either in presentation , nor in content....

Um 'Q' is not a doctine, its a hypothesis. It doesn't involve John (or Mark). And it's not about outline but about certain details. Specifically it's an explanation for passages of Luke and Matthew that are identical that do not appear in Mark. Your summary could hardly be more wrong.

And all it really says is that Matthew and Luke had at least one shared source in addition to Mark that we no longer have.

Hypothetical constructions of Q are highly speculative, but the idea that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark and from some other shared source is pretty indisputable. When passages are word-for-word identical between separate books that demands explanation, and shared sources is far the simplest and best explanation.

paul preached to the gentiles....matthew, mark, luke, and john to the jews...

That clearly doesn't work either. Only Matthew looks like something substantially written for a Jewish audience.

 

[Yarddog]

And all it really says is that Matthew and Luke had at least one shared source in addition to Mark that we no longer have.

We know from Luke that many people had written accounts of Jesus by the time that he wrote, whether one subscribes to the early date or the later one. Matthew wrote his Gospel, according to ancient sources in Hebrew. We also have ancient sources which confirm that Hebrew does not translate into Greek very well, so, one explanation as to why Luke and Matthew may have been so similar is the translator of the Book of Matthew.
Could Luke have been the one that did this? (Purely speculative, but maybe.)

 

[ebia]

We know from Luke that many people had written accounts of Jesus by the time that he wrote, whether one subscribes to the early date or the later one. Matthew wrote his Gospel, according to ancient sources in Hebrew.

Well, that assumes that the text the ancient souces are talking about is the text we know as the gospel of Matthew and that they are correct. (And for that matter, that when they say "Hebrew" they mean Hebrew and not Aramaic, which is far more likely). All in all, few still think that the Gospel we know as Matthew was written in Hebrew. We certainly cannot say "We know Matthew was written in Hebrew".

We also have ancient sources which confirm that Hebrew does not translate into Greek very well, so, one explanation as to why Luke and Matthew may have been so similar is the translator of the Book of Matthew.

That doesn't actually provide a very satisfactory explanation at all. If that were the route the text came to be what we would expect to get isn't what we actually have.

Markan priority, and some other shared sources that we may as well call Q explain Matthew and Luke far more adequately and simply than what you're suggesting.

 

[TheLong]

And I don't need access to a theological library to simply say, "Your claims regarding the dates of authorship are wrong. You are asserting such, you can back your claims."

Have fun.

I haven't fully finished reading this thread yet and so I don't know how it has all played out, but I feel the need to jump in and tell you that you are embarrassing yourself. The tone of your posts here reek of superiority, pride, and big-headedness. You're making yourself look ignorant and judgmental by being unable to hold a simple, civil conversation. Who cares where you went to school or how clever you think you can be - try being mature.

 

[Yarddog]

Well, that assumes that the text the ancient souces are talking about is the text we know as the gospel of Matthew and that they are correct.

Ancient sources would have a far better understanding than present day scholars who do not have what the early Christians had. The actual writings.

All in all, few still think that the Gospel we know as Matthew was written in Hebrew. We certainly cannot say "We know Matthew was written in Hebrew".

To say that few believe that Matthew was written would be incorrect or just an opinion on your part because many, many Church scholars believe that it was written in Hebrew. We also have testimony of ancient writers that it was, giving more weight to Hebrew than not.

That doesn't actually provide a very satisfactory explanation at all. If that were the route the text came to be what we would expect to get isn't what we actually have.

And why not? Luke having translated or helped to translate or read the translation at a time prior to his writing the letter to Theophilus would explain why his Gospel is so similar.

Markan priority, and some other shared sources that we may as well call Q explain Matthew and Luke far more adequately and simply than what you're suggesting.

Well, all these really are speculation as is mine.