Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

Glad to be of service. Sometimes it is easier to let others speak for themselves, especially on a subject as complex and divisive as this. I put my summaries to show the conclusions I arrived at...no doubt others will draw their own conclusions. I have long thought the life and times of Jesus should be placed into an historic context in order to better understand and interpret what was actually meant. There is a great deal of Church history I glossed over, while related it is not directly of concern regarding the political turmoil during the Roman transition from Pagan to Christian.



There is one more caveat: translational issues from Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee into Elizabethan English (King James Version) or some other English translation. But that too is aside from the purpose of this thread.

[juantoo3]

With my thanks to Dream for providing an interesting new direction to pursue;

Antilegomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antilegomena (from Greek ἀντιλεγομένα, contradicted or disputed, literally spoken against[1]), an epithet used by the Church Fathers to denote those books of the New Testament which, although sometimes publicly read in the churches, were not for a considerable amount of time considered to be genuine, or received into the canon of Scripture. They were thus contrasted with the Homologoumena (from Greek ὁμολογουμένα), or universally acknowledged writings.
The term is sometimes applied also to certain books in the Hebrew Bible.[2] There are records in the Mishna of controversy in some Jewish circles during the second century C.E. relative to the canonicity of the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Some doubts were expressed about Proverbs during this period as well. The Gemara notes that the book of Ezekiel had also been questioned about its authority until objections to it were settled in 66 C.E. Also, in the first century B.C.E. the disciples of Shammai contested the canonicity of Ecclesiastes because of its pessimism, whereas the school of Hillel just as vigorously upheld it. At the school of Jamnia (circa 90 C.E.) there was further discussion, see Development of the Jewish Bible canon for details.
The first church historian, Eusebius[3], circa 303-325 AD, applied the term Antilegomena to the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews:

Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth century text, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.
The original Pe****ta excluded 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Some modern editions, such as the Lee Pe****ta of 1823, include them.

Development of the Christian Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[2] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[3] He also quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.[citation needed] By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[4], see also Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[5] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[6]
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[7] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[8] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[9] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[10] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[11] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[12] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[13]
Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[14] and by the fifth century the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[15] However, the official finalization of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[16] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link includes the same quote and expands on the subject a bit.

Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surviving manuscripts of the whole Christian Bible include at least some of the Apocrypha as well as disputed books. After the Protestant and Catholic canons were defined by Luther and Trent respectively, early Protestant and Catholic editions of the Bible did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.

A sidenote of interest I did not see mentioned, is that the original 1611 edition of the King James Bible included the apocrypha, or more precisely the intertestamental apocrypha, from around the time of the Hasmonean rule in Palestine, right around 100 BC. 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Bell and the Dragon, Song of Susanna, and several more were translated and included in a very Protestant translation. At some point not too long after, these were dropped for some reason I haven’t been able to determine. I accept that inclusion does not expressly indicate canon, but it does suggest at least some acknowledged value. Considering the nature of the texts, I would think that value to be spiritual and / or moral, even if not deemed expressly “Divine.” For those to whom “the King James is the *only* Bible for me,” these books are an original part of that collection.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there were quite a few books circulating early in the Christian era, many of which books were acknowledged and read even after the canon was formalized. The Catholic Bible contains a few different books the Protestant Bible does not, such as Siruch. The Gospel of Thomas is often trotted out as evidence of Gnostic scriptures that date back to at least the first couple of hundred years of Christianity. Certain other Bibles also include various books that are not expressly canonical. A large assortment of extra-Biblical books that were available to the earliest Christians are still around and available simply for the seeking on the internet. Brian hosts a wonderful collection of apocrypal works from the New Testament era here at this site.

[juantoo3]

Some more interesting info to consider:

Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Testament has been preserved in over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, chiefly in that it makes stemmatics impractical. Consequently, New Testament textual critics have adopted eclecticism after sorting the witnesses into three major groups, called text-types. The most common division today is as follows:
The Alexandrian text-type constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
The Western text-type is also very early, but its witnesses are seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions.
The Byzantine text-type is a group of around 95% of all manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition.
The New Testament portion of the English translation known as the King James or Authorized Version was based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text prepared by Erasmus based on a small number of late medieval Greek manuscripts. For some books of the Bible, Erasmus used just single manuscripts, and for small sections made his own translations into Greek from the Vulgate.[26]

In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, modern textual critics have identified several significant sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. Previously, translations of the New Testament had mostly been based on Erasmus's redaction of the New Testament in Greek, the Textus Receptus from the 1500s.
These possible later additions include the following:[29]
the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43-44).
the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae.
Jesus referred to as "unique Son," rather than "unique God," in John 1:18.
the ending of John, see John 21.
an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.

Other disputed NT Passages
1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Epistles (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Epistles. Some manuscripts place these verses after 40[30]
1 Thessalonians 2:13-16. These passages have often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. The following arguments have been based on the content: (1) the contradiction between Romans 9-11 and 1 Thess. 2.14-16. (2) The references to what has happened to Jews as a model for a Gentile Christian church. (3) There were no extensive persecutions of Christians by Jews in Palestine prior to the first Jewish war. (4) The use of the concept of imitation in 1 Thessalonians 2.14 is singular. (5) The aorist eftasen (has overtaken) refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is also sometimes suggested that 5:1-11 is "a post-Pauline insertion that has many features of Lucan language and theology that serves as an apologetic correction to the Pauline expectation of the parousia and thus already reflects the problem of the delay of the parousia[31]

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thank you Greymare.

I suspect my view will meet with little fanfare because it rocks too many boats.

I decided long ago that it was more important to me to pursue the truth as the truth is...rather than accept a pre-canned truth that was evidently not quite fully true.

I am torn on the issue of whether Jesus was a supernatural G-d/man. I want him to be. I really do. But I just don't see it. Even more, I don't see where it matters to salvation whether he is or not. If the goal and purpose of Judaism- and by extension Christianity- was to deliberately put distance between themselves and Pagan influences, then it troubles me to see just how Pagan modern Christianity really is. When I point these things out to the "average" Christian I tend to get all kinds of excuses in an attempt to justify this or that, or the strange looks as if I'm some kind of kook.

Yet the muslim and the atheist detractors get it...except that I undermine their ulterior motives. They tend to point to the same things generally that I do, but with the intent to discredit Christianity. So it kinda pisses them off too that I get where they are coming from, I just don't agree with their conclusions. The JW's don't know what to make of me because I can show where they are only half right, picking and choosing just like all the other denominations.

I struggle with this stuff daily. I struggle daily for years now. I don't make extravagent claims for the sheer notoriety or ego trip- hell, I'm scared $hitle$$ that I might be barking up some tree that's gonna get me spanked for eternity. I pray constantly for the head honcho upstairs to set me on the straight and narrow.

One thing I am no longer afraid of, is what any earthly "authority" can do to this body. They can burn me, filet me, break my bones, but they'll not break my spirit. For that I praise G-d Most High! I thank Him daily for a mind to think with, eyes to see with and ears to hear with.

because the christINsanity (rome in transition) you see, is not what the Christ is at all & you discovered it on your own.

That is why the JW & RCC hate each other so much, they are two peas in a pod picking & choosing, editing, adding, deleting- except for the JWs dont pull out guns & swords.

You can rock the boat instead of rowing it, just keep your life jacket on for when they throw you out or your jump out on your own

the muslims, jews & atheists DO get it, but I also reject any ulterior motives.
as for the various pagan god man(s) & the adopted jesus one, you can pick any one you want and slap any name on it just to agree, but there will be bloody daggers & fangs when you don't agree and/or get out from it. You can call Ceaser god as that is what they believed, until the people wised up. I am glad I took myths & legends in school, that really was a great class that went through all of this stuff thoroughly, only from a different approach as in art & literature, but you still figure the adopted hoax/myth part out. but I am of course not suggesting that all of the christ story is myth, just the adopted parts of paganism.

I do not struggle with any of it. One thing I am not afraid of is to shut the car door on peoples fingers, I mean the religions, and just say "ooops". *snickers*

When I went to vote in the primary it was at the greek orthodox church. after voting I went down to the first pew to pray & meditate, wondering why there are never any good honest leaders to choose from, & that was ok i guess, then as I looked around the building & saw all the statues, paintings, bloody crucifix it gave me the creeps & the glitter with candles was like a death wish to me. Then over heard two people fighting like dogs behind the altar, (they must not have known they had a visitor) I realized that I did not need to be in such a terrifying place. It reminded me of a fun/horror house with dress up dolls & clowns, kind of like Chuckie or Puppetmaster.

How some can adopt so much (if you can't beat em join em i.e. rome in transition) then condemn & kill others for believing the same exact stuff, attempting to destroy the same stuff they adopt...there are BIG probelms with that. *shakes head*

I would not let it bother you too much as the entire globe is figuring it out, slowly but surely. You can have the Christ without the religion. After all, it was Christ who rebuked the religions of his day, or so that is how the story goes.

[Dream]

Thanks for the honorable mention. I'm not caught up in this thread, yet; but I'm working may way back through it. Don't the threads just seem to explode? Did you notice the Santa thread?

[juantoo3]

OH yeah!

And Thanks Bandit! It's really good to see you back around.

[Dream]

Ok, I'm caught up. Here are some highlights you may enjoy from earlier in the thread. I may have some input about the Baptism of John the Baptist later on. I still want to go through some of the resources mentioned, first especially the bits from Josephus and the Easter vs. Passover entries.

Originally Posted by post #4

There is no pristine, original point Christianity. You can't isolate the original artifact. It grows out of a soup of syncretic activities and sometime later is standardized and codified, labeled, organized, and institutionalized. It's mythology is polymorphic, and it's theology is equally multi-adaptive. It's philosophy and ethics are divinely Greek, but the storyline is Jewish. It became the perfect ideological meme for the conquests and crusades to follow, and it still works like that today.

Originally Posted by post #16

I think that the story line is all wrong. There are lots of little hints in the Gospels of some sort of zealot movement providing the main cast of characters in the story. Layered on that is a kind of proto-Gnostic ideology that comes out clearly in the beatitudes.

Originally Posted by post #17

Look at the whole "clean meats" argument that made Peter bristle. Paul was taking the whole show into a new direction. And comments about food that had been offered to idols as being acceptable because the idols were non-entities, but that if it caused a brother or sister to stumble to refrain from such foods.

Originally Posted by post #18

Of course, it is a bit complicated.....How justifiable is it to believe G-d has a hand in the worldly affairs of humans? Is the same G-d that gave us all of the glories of the Christian faith also responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades?

Originally Posted by post #19

The Gospels exhibit a set of influences in the process of creating the liturgical Christ. First is the zealotry. But somehow the zealots are preaching pacifism. Now that's a weird mix. With that is a sort of Pythagorean mystery school kind of gematria that shows up in the parables. And layered upon that is a very Greek avatar concept. With Paul we get obvious tie-ins with Stoicism and Cynicism. And all of that is primitive. So it's obvious that it was never so simple as Paul and Peter: A gentile movement and a central Jerusalem church.

Originally Posted by post #22

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

....was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed.....Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to create creeds and canons.....

Originally Posted by post #23

Separation of Easter from Jewish Passover

...."The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[27]

Post #24 summarizes the first seven ecumenical councils.

Originally Posted by Post #27

No grand theory here Juan. Just some observations.

The zealotry is clear in the cast of characters. The core group of disciples are either zealots, or recently ex-zealots. We know that Peter is still carrying a sword at the very end. We know from the story that they are Galileans with ties to Nazareth, so they're from a famous hot bed of zealotry. It's unclear whether John the Baptist's movement was more militant. As a matter of fact, it isn't at all clear who John the B. really is, and the logistics of his group's merger with the Jesus group is very murky.....

....The (sort of) Pythagorean mystery school stuff is a combination of what's commonly referred to as sacred geometry and Greek gematria. Sacred geometry is an expression of the perfection of ratios discovered by Pythagoras and others. In that sense it's the geometry of the Logos. In the parables, most particularly the stories of the miraculous catch of fish and the feeding of the five thousand, underlying the text, is a metaphysical grid of this geometry. That's what the numbers relate to.....

Paul is all about ethics. Reading his thesis in Romans; it's not just about the law, it's about discipline and how to control one's self. He's trying to fuse his message with Greek ethics. This is also self-evident from the text.

So, already in the primitive materials, the Gospels and Paul, the earliest stuff, we can see this variety of influences. And there are no clear cultural boundaries because within Judaism there were mystery schools dealing with Pythagorean mathematics. Everybody with scholarly aspirations was interested in that stuff. It was like the quantum physics of the day. Similarly, there was no cultural chasm between Judaism's dialog about ethics and that of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans of the day.

Originally Posted by Post #28

Back to this question: How do zealotry and pacifism mix? Thinking about Judaism as a continuum, it's hard to to find any roots of turn the other cheek- ism. There is a prolonged discussion of ethics that, basically, starts at the beginning and hasn't stopped. That is: what is it to be righteous (so God won't keep whacking us)? But there's no loving one's enemies.

Originally Posted by Post #32

We know that the material has been redacted....it's less important to have answers than learn the ability to construct the right questions....Before we ever get to the point where we question the literalness of the narrative we should be asking all these questions about practical origins.

Originally Posted by Post #43

I don't know if you're familiar with the Society for the Creative Anachronism. It's a bunch of people who enjoy dressing up in period wear and pretending to be knights, and ladies, and such. They have these week long camporees where they stage mock battles and such. There's no way of knowing what it was to be the earliest "Christians", just like there's really know way of knowing what it was really like to live in the medieval era. We have these impossibly idealized, iconically simplistic notions of what Judaism of the day might have been. But it's a lot like how kids think that all Eskimos live in igloos. It's mighty disappointing to find out you've been punked by first grade sociology. Especially after you've built the sugar cube igloo!

Originally Posted by Post #54

....I am wondering regarding baptism though, as far as I know that is not a traditionally Jewish ceremony. Now, washing is. The Jewish priest would ceremonially wash in preparation for various religious functions. And one of the proscribed duties for laypersons in transition from some states of ritual uncleanness into ritual cleanness involved washing oneself along with other things. But the act of submersing in water for the ritual washing of sins (and "dying to the world") begins AFAIK with John Baptist. Now that I think about it, symbolically it mirrors the Pagan spring fertility ritual of planting a seed (death) into the ground and sprouting (rebirth) from the ground.

....What's more, is that traditionally John is a sentinel character. Only 6 months older than Jesus, it is written that he leapt in his mother's womb when Miriam told Elizabeth about being pregnant. He grows up to live in the desert wearing course clothing and eating grasshoppers and wild honey. Yet such an eccentric manages to draw a following and invent baptising.

Post #55 resources about Essenes

Originally Posted by Post #57

....Some scholars[attribution needed] believe that Herod Antipas did not marry his brother's wife until his brother Philip died in 34 CE, placing these events after the date in the Gospel account....

Post #63 Zealots and Sicarii

Originally Posted by Post #64

Jesus was a Jew. He was born to observant Jewish parents, in a Jewish household, raised in the Jewish Temple religion through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*), in turn he taught his followers from the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*). For some reason he was Tortured and executed in a Roman manner.....The rest seems to me questionable at best, and this does strain credibility. What is known historically is that there were competing views of what and who Jesus really was, and what it was he taught......

......It is impossible with the evidence at hand to say exactly what the earliest Christians were taught by Jesus to believe. It would have logically been an extension of Judaism in some form. It was the Apostle Paul who was instrumental in carrying the new interpretation of Judaism to the Gentile converts, effectively opening the door to the world. It was by his efforts that one no longer needed to be a Jew first in order to be a Christian. This creates its own backlash, in that we have no valid way I am aware of to distinguish between the Jewish origins that had to comprise the fledgling Christianity, and the Pagan trappings that became intermingled with Christianity.....

Post #67 Paul the apostle vs. Elaine Pagels !!! (Paul may discuss that at some point)

Originally Posted by Post #67

....Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby contends that the Paul as described in the Book of Acts and the view of Paul gleaned from his own writings are very different people. Some difficulties have been noted in the account of his life. Additionally, the speeches of Paul, as recorded in Acts, have been argued to show a different turn of mind. Paul as described in the Book of Acts is much more interested in factual history, less in theology; ideas such as justification by faith are absent as are references to the Spirit.

On the other hand, according to Maccoby, there are no references to John the Baptist in the Pauline Epistles, but Paul mentions him several times in the Book of Acts.....

F.C.Baur (1792–1860)...argued that Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, was in violent opposition to the older disciples. Baur considers the Acts of the Apostles were late and unreliable. This debate has continued ever since, with Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937) and Richard Reitzenstein (1861–1931) emphasising Paul's Greek inheritance and Albert Schweitzer stressing his dependence on Judaism.

....Maccoby theorizes that Paul synthesized Judaism, Gnosticism, and mysticism to create Christianity as a cosmic savior religion. According to Maccoby, Paul's Pharisaism was his own invention, though actually he was probably associated with the Sadducees.

Wow! I can't wait to read Maccoby's work!!! (Don't tell anybody or they might raise the price of the book!)

Post #68 Dauer mentions a resource on Easter & Passover

[juantoo3]

Just a bump in the road...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Juan, why does Dream's post right above your bump have your edit mark on it?

Chris

[juantoo3]

Good question...I don't remember.

It wouldn't be the first time I goofed and hit the wrong button...

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've read the Maccoby book on Paul. I found it in the bargain section at Barnes and Noble, in hardback, for like five bucks a few years ago. I figured I should read it since this guy Maccoby always comes up in these Paul discussions. I have to say that I wasn't overly impressed. It might make an interesting book discussion, though, if anyone wants to do that.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that the author of Acts essentially invents the apostolic tradition. He is the one who makes Paul the vehicle that will transform Christianity away from the taint of civil disobedience in it's Jewish roots, and bring it to Rome. In that sense the story is an allegory of the demographics of Christianity's initial spread throughout the empire, beginning in Jerusalem, and ending with Paul arriving in Rome. "Luke" chooses the characters of Peter and Paul to build the story around, and in the meanwhile invents a bridge between the genuine Pauline material and the fictional gospel narratives by creating a mythological Paul somewhat unlike the character which can be deduced from the real Paul's writings.

Maccoby and others fail to differentiate between the historical character Paul, and the mythological character created by "Luke" in Acts. It isn't Paul who creates a syncretic Christianity, it's "Luke" and the other Gospeliers. This, in my opinion, is what all the Paul detractors get wrong. Paul was preaching a cosmopolitan message alright, but Paul didn't invent the myth of the "Apostles of the Round Table", as it were, that underlines the Roman church's claim to preeminence. That was Luke and his buddies, who, after all, came after Paul, and riffed freely on his stuff.

Think of all the Pagan stuff that's in Christianity. How many times do images from Paul's writings pop up? No, the Pagan stuff all swirls around characters and imagery from the Gospels, doesn't it?

Chris

[juantoo3]

I think I see what you're saying, Chris. Except for Maccoby, never read him (that I'm aware of). Back to your point, at least in general terms, I still have certain reservations maintained by the fact that it was rather hazardous to be a Christian. Nero liked inventing cruel ways to torture them to death. Nothing like going out as a candle wick at a garden party. Gives a whole new meaning to "ambient lighting."

Point being there was no advantage, political, material or practical, to being a Christian about the time of Paul and shortly after. While I am still vague about what specifically you mean about the "real" Paul versus the "mythical" Paul versus the "Gospeliers," I think I get the gist. But it seems rather vague to me when even those who "know" don't seem to agree on the subject...like the Jesus Seminar people. One man's "real" Paul is another man's "fake" Paul, and both men are "experts." Us confused laity are left to either choose up sides, or walk away scratching our heads wondering what the hell just happened. I'm still scratching my head some 20 years later, and the subject is no clearer to me now than it was then, even though I have managed to add to the stack of gobaldigook.

In a sense I can't help but feel that yes, somebody somewhere screwed with something...there is far too much corresponding outside evidence, like the stuff I have pointed to here; the historical stuff, the political stuff, the anthropological stuff. There is too much anecdotal evidence to cavalierly disregard the impact of later political editing, specifically under the jurisdiction of Constantine.

So what this always ends up coming around to is: who is responsible? As if such could be narrowed to an individual or select group. It seems even there there are two distinct factions; those who want to "blame" the Jewish begetters of Christianity, those borderline heretics and infidels whose leader dared fulfill prophecy, and those who want to "blame" the political powers that be for that period of time in a bit broader sense, also known as Ceasarean Rome for trying to keep the peace against a minor indistinguishable sect of rabble rousing malcontented trouble makers. I suspect it was a little of both, but the final and most emphatic say was undoubtedly that of Rome.

Another player overlooked usually is the social complex in which all of this plays out, and what influence that may have brought to bear in all of this. We debate all the time here about the literal versus figurative problem, and how metaphors are frequently taken as literal. Drive some obscure teaching into the social underground surrounded by the horrors of warfare as your nation is crumbling around you, re-emerge in the Pagan netherworld just outside your comfort zone where you either sink or swim in double-quick time, and nobody gives a rat's ass if you drown. Whatever metaphors you brought with you are gonna change...either by design or circumstance, but change they will, because there is no political legitimacy, either from Jerusalem or Rome. The form and shape of your mythos will change of necessity in order to blend and mask and hide; the survival instinct for your new socio-spiritual order kicks into high gear.

The way I see it, it was Paul's fault, it was Nero's fault, it was everybody's damn fault...and yet it was nobody's fault. It was a perfect storm of circumstance that conspired to muddy the waters. 300 years later the powers that be took advantage of the situation, and we know the story from there pretty well. But what the hell do I know??? I'm not an expert...

BTW, thanks for your input. I don't say it often enough, but I appreciate what you have to say in this.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Juan.

The genuine Paul I'm referring to is the guy who wrote the material attributed to Paul by general scholarly consensus. If one brackets those writings off and uses modern textual analysis techniques on the material a certain image of the author emerges. It's pretty sketchy to be sure, but it's the closest thing we have to a description of Paul the actual, historical human being.

From my point of view it's a given that the Gospel narratives are not intended to be construed as strictly historical accounts. They serve a different, more liturgical function. The many arcane esoteric literary devices used in the construction of the Gospel stories smack heavily of derived mythology. Twelve Apostles, like twelve signs of the zodiac, or twelve tribes, or twelve semi-tones in an octave: I don't know for sure, but it seems most reasonable to see the Gospels as works of literature rather than historically accurate accounts. That doesn't mean that the Gospels lack worth as historical artifacts, it's more a matter of nuance and genre.

The guy who wrote the Gospel of Luke also probably penned Acts. If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles? Since it's likely that the Acts material is to some degree mythology, what exactly do we know about Paul strictly from his own work? Try separating the two. It's really hard because almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I goofed this up: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles?"

It should read: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles?

I am retrded!

Chris