Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution

Expand Messages
  • David Conklin
    ... and yet wrote before the synoptists even began. I m not asking you to accept anything on faith, Brian. So why are you asking me to accept that everything
    Message 1 of 14 , May 2 2:12 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > The apostle Paul clearly had a very "high" Christology in many respects,
      and yet wrote before the synoptists even began.

      I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith, Brian. So why are you
      asking me to accept that everything Paul wrote in the "authentic 7 letters"
      is authentic as an item of faith?

      PMJI here, but based _only_ on (i.e., on what I have) on what we have here
      and re-reading Brian's previous full post I believe that your response is
      non sequitur.
      ====
      > I would suggest that theological change was not like
      > travelling continuously upwards in an elevator, any more than biological
      evolution has been, or is, a continuous upward movement towards "higher"
      forms of life. Theological change was more like travelling in a small boat
      in a storm generating waves 5 metres high (and low, depending on whether the
      boat is at the top or the bottom of a wave!).

      Theological change is real, and it must be studied.

      First, it has to be proven that such is the case; just because a previous
      writer doesn't mention a particular theological point of view doesn't mean
      that he/she wasn't aware of it; it could very well be that for the intended
      audience a particular theological view wasn't crucial or relevant. We
      shouldn't be too quick to ascribe "change" to a simple case of considering
      the needs of the audience.
      ===
      > Insofar as it matters, I think you will find that many scholars doubt
      whether the old- fashioned nineteenth century quasi-scientific idea of
      "theological evolution" is much use in solving the synoptic problem.

      I believe [the] opposite is the case (regardless of who says what and when).
      Theological evolution is the key to solving the synoptic problem.

      If the "who says what" is based on concrete evidence then it shouldn't be
      ignored. Please explain in more detail (if you haven't already) why
      theological evolution is the *key* to solving the synoptic problem.
      ===
      > Each synoptist was totally free to impress his own style and theological
      understanding on his own choice of material from the Greek Notes. Each
      synoptist was a free author. If any synoptist belonged to any particular
      state of "theological evolution" in early Christianity, then he was free to
      express this theological convictions in any way he chose.

      I see no evidence that "each synoptist was a free author". It is much more
      likely that the gospels were products of their communities, and that their
      textual evolution was constrained and pre-determined by what the community
      in question believed about Jesus as years passed by.

      As a case in point, to support Brian's view, Matthew wrote to convince Jews
      that Jesus was the Messiah; whereas, Luke doesn't have that need (since it
      was already done) and is instead trying to reach out to the Gentiles. No
      community is actually creating these documents; just concerned writers with
      particular agendas and audiences in mind.
      ===
      [snip] > On my Greek Notes Hypothesis, the Greek Notes were produced between
      the beginning of the mission and the coming of Paul to help Barnabas - which
      would seem to be between c.37 and c.39, and therefore c.AD 38. The dates of
      the beginning of the Gentile Greek-speaking Christianity are discussed also
      by Ehrhardt, Luedemann, and others, of course. The date I give of "about AD
      38", is anything but arbitrary.

      Your dates do not seem credible. It is hardly likely that the theology of
      early Christianity was already fully formed by 39. Sorry, but I have
      problems consdering this as serious historical scholarship.

      Actually, it's more than quite probable; for instance, it has been noted
      that Peter's speech at Pentecost gives us the basic outline of all the
      synoptics. So, it seems highly probable that the disciples decided very
      early on on what to preach and what the basic message would be. In this
      regard I found the suggestions made by Bernard Orchard in his article "The
      Formation of the Synoptic Gospels," Downside Review 106 (1988): 1-16
      (especially for here pages 7-15) very probable. The only change I'd make to
      his presentation would be to suggest that Luke more likely wrote his gospel
      far earlier that Orchard suggests (during the imprisonment "about A.D. 63");
      it seems more likely, to me at least, that Luke wrote his very early in
      Paul's ministry when it would be most needed to _counter_ the Cirumcision
      party.


      David Conklin

      P.S. I don't claim to know all the in's and out's of the synoptic problem so
      the above can be taken with a grain of salt. I fully realize that altho' I
      have read over 6,100 pages that there is a huge amount that I need to yet
      cover.
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/2/2000 5:16:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, djconklin@hotmail.com writes:
      Message 2 of 14 , May 2 5:06 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/2/2000 5:16:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        djconklin@... writes:

        << The only change I'd make to
        his [Dom Bernard Orchard's] presentation would be to suggest that Luke more
        likely wrote his gospel far earlier that Orchard suggests (during the
        imprisonment "about A.D. 63"); it seems more likely, to me at least, that
        Luke wrote his very early in Paul's ministry when it would be most needed to
        _counter_ the Cirumcision
        party. >>

        But doesn't Luke follow the story of Paul's missionary activity up to quite
        near the end for Paul in Acts? And doesn't the Gospel of Luke seem to
        presuppose a knowledge on the part of Luke of where he is heading in and
        through Acts?

        Leonard Maluf
      • David Conklin
        DJC
        Message 3 of 14 , May 2 5:22 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          DJC <<The only change I'd make to his [Dom Bernard Orchard's] presentation
          would be to suggest that Luke more likely wrote his gospel far earlier that
          Orchard suggests (during the imprisonment "about A.D. 63"); it seems more
          likely, to me at least, that Luke wrote his very early in Paul's ministry
          when it would be most needed to _counter_ the Cirumcision party.>>

          LM: But doesn't Luke follow the story of Paul's missionary activity up to
          quite near the end for Paul in Acts? And doesn't the Gospel of Luke seem to
          presuppose a knowledge on the part of Luke of where he is heading in and
          through Acts?

          1) The book of Acts takes Paul's activity up till the time of his
          imprisonment--I was referring to the gospel.
          2) Hadn't thought of that; I'll have to check.

          Thanks for your input.

          David Conklin

          ________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... [Brian:] ... respects, ... [Yuri:] ... letters ... here ... Not quite, David. Brian said that Paul clearly had a very high Christology in many
          Message 4 of 14 , May 3 11:31 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            ----------
            > From: David Conklin <djconklin@...>
            > To: Synoptic-L@...
            > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution
            > Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:12 PM

            [Brian:]
            > > The apostle Paul clearly had a very "high" Christology in many
            respects,
            > and yet wrote before the synoptists even began.

            [Yuri:]
            > I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith, Brian. So why are you
            > asking me to accept that everything Paul wrote in the "authentic 7
            letters"
            > is authentic as an item of faith?
            >
            > PMJI here, but based _only_ on (i.e., on what I have) on what we have
            here
            > and re-reading Brian's previous full post I believe that your response is

            > non sequitur.

            Not quite, David. Brian said that "Paul clearly had a very "high"
            Christology in many respects". But this can only be sustained if one
            assumes that there are no interpolations in Paul.

            [Yuri:]
            > I believe [the] opposite is the case (regardless of who says what and
            when).
            > Theological evolution is the key to solving the synoptic problem.
            >
            > If the "who says what" is based on concrete evidence then it shouldn't be

            > ignored. Please explain in more detail (if you haven't already) why
            > theological evolution is the *key* to solving the synoptic problem.

            See my previous reply to Brian.

            Regards,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

            Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • David Conklin
            [Brian:] ... respects, and yet wrote before the synoptists even began. [Yuri:] ... letters is authentic as an item of faith? ... here and re-reading Brian s
            Message 5 of 14 , May 3 12:58 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              [Brian:]
              > > The apostle Paul clearly had a very "high" Christology in many
              respects, and yet wrote before the synoptists even began.

              [Yuri:]
              > I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith, Brian. So why are you
              > asking me to accept that everything Paul wrote in the "authentic 7
              letters" is authentic as an item of faith?
              >
              > PMJI here, but based _only_ on (i.e., on what I have) on what we have
              here and re-reading Brian's previous full post I believe that your response
              is non sequitur.

              Yuri: Not quite, David. Brian said that "Paul clearly had a very "high"
              Christology in many respects". But this can only be sustained if one
              assumes that there are no interpolations in Paul.

              In terms of theological _evolution_, which you proposed, your response
              didn't follow directly from what Brian said. However, if you wish to assume
              interpolations then the burden of proof is on you to prove that the
              statements showing a high Christology were in fact interpolations.
              ====
              [Yuri:]
              > I believe [the] opposite is the case (regardless of who says what and
              when). Theological evolution is the key to solving the synoptic problem.
              >
              > If the "who says what" is based on concrete evidence then it shouldn't be
              ignored. Please explain in more detail (if you haven't already) why
              theological evolution is the *key* to solving the synoptic problem.

              See my previous reply to Brian.

              I did; I also noticed that Brian asked for more proof/evidence.

              Regards,
              DJC
              ________________________________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 5/3/2000 2:30:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
              Message 6 of 14 , May 3 1:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/3/2000 2:30:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                yuku@... writes:

                << Not quite, David. Brian said that "Paul clearly had a very "high"
                Christology in many respects". But this can only be sustained if one
                assumes that there are no interpolations in Paul.
                >>

                No, Yuri. The opposite (your) position can only be sustained if one assumes
                (and whithout a shred of text-critical support) that every one of the very
                numerous instances of high Christology in Paul IS a later interpolation. This
                is what is usually referred to as tendentious argumentation, and it rightly
                has garnered little support from the majority of scholars. Just think, e.g.,
                of the opening of virtually every letter Paul wrote, where the double LXX
                expression KYRIOS THEOS (KYRIOS standing for YAWEH in the Heb), referring to
                Israel's God, is divided up thus: "..grace and peace from THEOU Patros kai
                KYRIOU... I.X." This is mighty high Christology, if you ask me, and to
                excise this phrase from all the Pauline letters would be only the first in a
                long series of such operations that would be necessary to reverse the
                impression of "high" Christology in the Pauline letters to which Brian
                alluded in the above citation.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... assumes ... very ... This ... rightly ... Again, Leonard, it seems like you want me to accept that everything Paul wrote in those 7 authentic letters is
                Message 7 of 14 , May 4 11:04 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----------
                  > From: Maluflen@...
                  > To: @...; djconklin@...; Synoptic-L@...
                  > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution
                  > Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:02 PM
                  >
                  > In a message dated 5/3/2000 2:30:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  > yuku@... writes:
                  >
                  > << Not quite, David. Brian said that "Paul clearly had a very "high"
                  > Christology in many respects". But this can only be sustained if one
                  > assumes that there are no interpolations in Paul.
                  > >>
                  >
                  > No, Yuri. The opposite (your) position can only be sustained if one
                  assumes
                  > (and whithout a shred of text-critical support) that every one of the
                  very
                  > numerous instances of high Christology in Paul IS a later interpolation.
                  This
                  > is what is usually referred to as tendentious argumentation, and it
                  rightly
                  > has garnered little support from the majority of scholars.

                  Again, Leonard, it seems like you want me to accept that everything Paul
                  wrote in those "7 authentic letters" is authentic as an item of faith. But
                  in science, things are never supposed to be taken merely on faith.

                  > Just think, e.g.,
                  > of the opening of virtually every letter Paul wrote, where the double LXX

                  > expression KYRIOS THEOS (KYRIOS standing for YAWEH in the Heb), referring
                  to
                  > Israel's God, is divided up thus: "..grace and peace from THEOU Patros
                  kai
                  > KYRIOU... I.X." This is mighty high Christology, if you ask me, and to
                  > excise this phrase from all the Pauline letters would be only the first
                  in a
                  > long series of such operations that would be necessary to reverse the
                  > impression of "high" Christology in the Pauline letters to which Brian
                  > alluded in the above citation.

                  But you neglect that usually the beginnings and ends of early Christian
                  writings especially were subject to later editorial changes and insertions.

                  Also, David Conklin wrote,

                  "However, if you wish to assume interpolations then the burden of proof is
                  on you to prove that the statements showing a high Christology were in fact
                  interpolations."

                  No, thank you kindly, David, but I have no special desire to accept the
                  burden of proof in this case. Why don't my opponents rather refer me to
                  some place in literature where it is proved scientifically that everything
                  that Paul wrote in his "authentic 7 letters" is authentic. I would be very
                  grateful for that reference.

                  This whole debate is certainly not new, so those who are interested in this
                  subject will do well to read the following articles where the basic state
                  of this problem is outlined quite competently,

                  Robert M. Price
                  Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline
                  Interpolation,

                  http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

                  Darrell J. Doughty
                  Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity,

                  http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

                  Regards,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                  Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • David Conklin
                  Yuri: Not quite, David. Brian said that Paul clearly had a very high Christology in many respects . But this can only be sustained if one assumes that there
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 4 1:59 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yuri: Not quite, David. Brian said that "Paul clearly had a very "high"
                    Christology in many respects". But this can only be sustained if one
                    assumes that there are no interpolations in Paul.
                    >
                    LM: No, Yuri. The opposite (your) position can only be sustained if one
                    assumes (and whithout a shred of text-critical support) that every one of
                    the very numerous instances of high Christology in Paul IS a later
                    interpolation. This is what is usually referred to as tendentious
                    argumentation, and it rightly has garnered little support from the majority
                    of scholars.

                    Yuri: Again, Leonard, it seems like you want me to accept that everything
                    Paul wrote in those "7 authentic letters" is authentic as an item of faith.
                    But in science, things are never supposed to be taken merely on faith.

                    On the other hand, it seems like you expect us to take it on faith that all
                    high Christological statements in the writings ascribed to Paul to be
                    interpolations--That's not very scientific either.

                    LM: Just think, e.g., of the opening of virtually every letter Paul wrote,
                    where the double LXX expression KYRIOS THEOS (KYRIOS standing for YAWEH in
                    the Heb), referring to Israel's God, is divided up thus: "..grace and peace
                    from THEOU Patros kai KYRIOU... I.X." This is mighty high Christology, if
                    you ask me, and to excise this phrase from all the Pauline letters would be
                    only the first in a long series of such operations that would be necessary
                    to reverse the impression of "high" Christology in the Pauline letters to
                    which Brian alluded in the above citation.

                    Yuri: But you neglect that usually the beginnings and ends of early
                    Christian writings especially were subject to later editorial changes and
                    insertions.

                    And the proof would be?
                    ===
                    Also, David Conklin wrote,

                    "However, if you wish to assume interpolations then the burden of proof is
                    on you to prove that the statements showing a high Christology were in fact
                    interpolations."

                    Yuri: No, thank you kindly, David, but I have no special desire to accept
                    the burden of proof in this case. Why don't my opponents rather refer me to
                    some place in literature where it is proved scientifically that everything
                    that Paul wrote in his "authentic 7 letters" is authentic. I would be very
                    grateful for that reference.

                    1) The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. You
                    basically claimed that the high Christological statements in the worsk
                    ascribed to paul are interpolations. Therefore, you are honor bound to
                    produce the evidence.
                    2) It isn't normal practice in dealing with historical documents to expect
                    scientific proof. The best that could ever be arrived at is high
                    probability. In the case of the letters of Paul if it is said to be by him
                    then the burden of proof lies with those who deny it.
                    ===
                    Yuri: This whole debate is certainly not new, so those who are interested in
                    this subject will do well to read the following articles where the basic
                    state of this problem is outlined quite competently,

                    Robert M. Price
                    Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline
                    Interpolation, http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

                    Darrell J. Doughty
                    Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity,
                    http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

                    Thank you Yuri, for the sources; I'll check them out.

                    David Conklin
                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Yuri Kuchinsky wrote -- ... Yuri, It seems to me that you are saying here that in your view there are non-Pauline interpolations of material in the seven
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 5 10:45 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
                      >
                      >it seems like you want me to accept that everything Paul wrote in those
                      >"7 authentic letters" is authentic as an item of faith.
                      >
                      Yuri,
                      It seems to me that you are saying here that in your view there
                      are non-Pauline interpolations of material in the "seven authentic
                      letters of Paul", and that these interpolations were added by others
                      after Paul wrote. From this you wish to argue that the apparently "high"
                      christology observed in the seven letters as we have them could
                      therefore have been added decades later than Paul (and is therefore not
                      evidence against your idea of "theological evolution").

                      I would suggest that the letter to the Romans (one of the seven)
                      contains dozens of "high" christology statements. Showing that just one
                      of these christological statements (for instance Romans 5.6) is a later
                      interpolation would not help your argument very much. For even if this
                      one instance was shown not to be an authentic part of Paul's writing
                      here, there would still be dozens of other instances remaining. Indeed,
                      showing that all except one of the "high" christological statements are
                      later interpolations, would not help your argument either. For if only
                      one of them was written by Paul, then the letter would contain a "high"
                      christological statement about Jesus which would cause your argument to
                      fail. It seems to me that therefore the only way to show that the letter
                      to the Romans originally had no "high" christology is to show that
                      absolutely all the dozens of "high" christology statements that it
                      contains were later interpolations. I would suggest, however, that this
                      is just not feasible. There is not one piece of manuscript tradition
                      which shows that any "high" christological statement in Romans is a
                      later interpolation. The same is true for all seven of the letters of
                      Paul we are considering. It seems to me the only way to show that the
                      dozens and dozens of such christological statements are later non-
                      Pauline interpolations is by making such a view "an item of faith", to
                      use your terminology. In other words, by presupposing the conclusion of
                      your argument, thereby making it logically invalid.

                      On the other hand, if you are aware, Yuri, of some scholar somewhere
                      ever showing that every single one of the "high" christological
                      statements in the "authentic seven letters" is a later non-Pauline
                      interpolation, I am sure we would be very grateful for the reference.

                      My own view is that the "high" christology of the seven authentic
                      letters of Paul is what Paul dictated to his amanuenses. The main piece
                      of evidence for this view is that there is no manuscript evidence for
                      regarding any "high" christological statement in any of the seven
                      letters as later interpolations. Even one conjectural emendation to the
                      text of one of the letters would require something very unusual as
                      evidence. To make dozens and dozens of such conjectural emendations to
                      the text of the seven letters is to throw text criticism out of the
                      window, I would suggest. The idea that all the "high" christological
                      statements present in our text of the seven authentic letters of Paul
                      are later non-Pauline interpolations is therefore extremely unlikely. It
                      can be held only as a result of what Leonard has politely called
                      "tendentious argumentation".

                      For this reason I do not accept your old-fashioned philosophical idea of
                      "theological evolution" with respect to the letters of Paul and the
                      writing of the synoptic gospels. Since, as I think I have shown above,
                      it is extremely unlikely that all the "high" christological statements
                      in the seven authentic letters are later non-Pauline interpolations, it
                      is very likely indeed that at least some, if not all, of them are
                      authentic to Paul. In this case, it is just not acceptable to affirm
                      that "high" christological statements concerning Jesus were not invented
                      until, say, the second century, but that these were step by step by step
                      approached as theology "evolved" deterministically from the lowest, to
                      the not quite so low, to the next higher, to the even higher, until, how
                      wonderful, the highest christological view is reached. Such a view is
                      really old-fashioned nineteenth century "evolution" in the sense of
                      "deterministically-inevitable progress". It is difficult to imagine a
                      more unrealistic basis for solving the synoptic problem. "Solution by
                      evolution", I suppose we could describe it.

                      Moreover, as Paul makes very clear particularly in Galatians, but
                      elsewhere also, his "high" christology was handed on to him by those who
                      were before him in their christological theology. Paul did not invent
                      the EUAGGELION which he proclaimed and to which he refers in his letters
                      time and time again. The EUAGGELION expounded by Paul in his letters was
                      in existence by c. AD 38. It was this EUAGGELION which had been
                      proclaimed by the men from Cyprus and Cyrene to the Greek-speaking
                      Gentiles at Antioch in Syria. I would suggest that at least some aspects
                      of the christologies we find in the synoptic gospels had been formulated
                      within a few years of the crucifixion of Jesus.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      Sorry for misunderstanding your question, Brian. So it seems you were interested in how I would answer Andrew s question in regard to my own theory? Well,
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 8 5:49 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sorry for misunderstanding your question, Brian. So it seems you were
                        interested in how I would answer Andrew's question in regard to my own
                        theory? Well, here's my answer.

                        First of all, it's not my own theory. It's for the most part Loisy-Koester
                        theory. Loisy was a most eminent and respected scholar. And Koester is no
                        less. So these are broad backs to hide behind.

                        And I'm not really proposing anything unusual regarding the mechanism of a
                        solution to the synoptic problem. The essence of Loisy-Koester Model is
                        that it proposes that both Mt and Mk are based on proto-Mk, and also that
                        some passages in Mk are later expansions based on Mt. So my theory looks
                        roughly like a combination of elements of the standard 2ST, plus elements
                        of the 2GT, with the proto-Mk added to the mix. And so whatever historical
                        textual parallels that exist for 2ST and 2GT will also apply to my theory.

                        And now to answer your post of May 05.

                        ----------
                        > From: Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
                        > To: Synoptic-L@...
                        > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Theological evolution
                        > Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 1:45 PM
                        >
                        > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
                        > >
                        > >it seems like you want me to accept that everything Paul wrote in those
                        > >"7 authentic letters" is authentic as an item of faith.
                        > >
                        > Yuri,
                        > It seems to me that you are saying here that in your view there
                        > are non-Pauline interpolations of material in the "seven authentic
                        > letters of Paul", and that these interpolations were added by others
                        > after Paul wrote.

                        This is correct, Brian.

                        > From this you wish to argue that the apparently "high"
                        > christology observed in the seven letters as we have them could
                        > therefore have been added decades later than Paul (and is therefore not
                        > evidence against your idea of "theological evolution").

                        This is not quite so. I merely suggest to "bracket" Paul's writings
                        temporarily for the purposes of discussing early Christian theology.
                        There's plenty of other textual evidence for early Christian beliefs being
                        characterized by low christology. As to Paul's writings, much in them
                        supports the idea of low christology being early, and much also contradicts
                        this idea. Thus their value from this point of view is uncertain.

                        > I would suggest that the letter to the Romans (one of the seven)
                        > contains dozens of "high" christology statements. Showing that just one
                        > of these christological statements (for instance Romans 5.6) is a later
                        > interpolation would not help your argument very much. For even if this
                        > one instance was shown not to be an authentic part of Paul's writing
                        > here, there would still be dozens of other instances remaining. Indeed,
                        > showing that all except one of the "high" christological statements are
                        > later interpolations, would not help your argument either. For if only
                        > one of them was written by Paul, then the letter would contain a "high"
                        > christological statement about Jesus which would cause your argument to
                        > fail.

                        Not really. I will simply point out other instances where Paul demonstrates
                        low christology, so then the value of his writings will have to be judged
                        uncertain in this regard. Contrary to what you imply, I'm certainly not
                        suggesting to base any theory on what is found in Pauline writings alone.

                        > It seems to me that therefore the only way to show that the letter
                        > to the Romans originally had no "high" christology is to show that
                        > absolutely all the dozens of "high" christology statements that it
                        > contains were later interpolations. I would suggest, however, that this
                        > is just not feasible. There is not one piece of manuscript tradition
                        > which shows that any "high" christological statement in Romans is a
                        > later interpolation. The same is true for all seven of the letters of
                        > Paul we are considering. It seems to me the only way to show that the
                        > dozens and dozens of such christological statements are later non-
                        > Pauline interpolations is by making such a view "an item of faith", to
                        > use your terminology. In other words, by presupposing the conclusion of
                        > your argument, thereby making it logically invalid.

                        The truth of the matter is that Pauline studies seem to be a "dark hole" of
                        NT scholarship, because nobody seems to be able to make any good sense of
                        Paul, and virtually all Pauline scholars disagree with each other on
                        virtually all important matters. So if you are trying to imply that somehow
                        there's "the Clear and Obvious Truth about Paul" that I somehow failed to
                        get, then this would not be an accurate picture.

                        Pauline writings can be used to prove virtually anything in the world,
                        because their contents are apparently so diverse in style, theology, and in
                        many other respects. So bracketing them temporarily may not be such a bad
                        idea.

                        > On the other hand, if you are aware, Yuri, of some scholar somewhere
                        > ever showing that every single one of the "high" christological
                        > statements in the "authentic seven letters" is a later non-Pauline
                        > interpolation, I am sure we would be very grateful for the reference.

                        Read Loisy, Brian, and all your questions will be answered.

                        And I have never proposed to try to prove that every single one of the
                        "high" christological statements in the "authentic seven letters" is a
                        later non-Pauline interpolation. The only thing that I'm proposing OTOH is
                        to treat evidence from Pauline writings in this regard with some caution.
                        That's all.

                        > My own view is that the "high" christology of the seven authentic
                        > letters of Paul is what Paul dictated to his amanuenses. The main piece
                        > of evidence for this view is that there is no manuscript evidence for
                        > regarding any "high" christological statement in any of the seven
                        > letters as later interpolations.

                        Manuscript evidence is discussed in the two articles I recommended. This is
                        what William O. Walker Jr. writes, as cited by Robert Price, "Apocryphal
                        Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11"
                        http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

                        "..the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the
                        historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of
                        the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the
                        emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text
                        of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices,
                        suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts.
                        Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the
                        third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are
                        remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it
                        is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of
                        the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

                        (William O. Walker, Jr., "The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations
                        in the Pauline Letters," NTS 33 (1987), 610-618: 615.)

                        Also see,

                        Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of
                        Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the
                        Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993),
                        277: "this study has reinforced the notion that theologically
                        motivated changes of the text are to be anticipated particularly
                        during the early centuries of transmission, when both the texts and
                        the theology of early Christianity were in a state of flux, prior to
                        the development of a recognized creed and an authoritative and
                        (theoretically) inviolable canon of Scripture." See also pages 55 and
                        97.

                        > Even one conjectural emendation to the
                        > text of one of the letters would require something very unusual as
                        > evidence. To make dozens and dozens of such conjectural emendations to
                        > the text of the seven letters is to throw text criticism out of the
                        > window, I would suggest. The idea that all the "high" christological
                        > statements present in our text of the seven authentic letters of Paul
                        > are later non-Pauline interpolations is therefore extremely unlikely. It
                        > can be held only as a result of what Leonard has politely called
                        > "tendentious argumentation".

                        But this is not my argument at all.

                        > For this reason I do not accept your old-fashioned philosophical idea of
                        > "theological evolution" with respect to the letters of Paul and the
                        > writing of the synoptic gospels.

                        But the idea of theological evolution certainly does not depend on the
                        argument you're now arguing against.

                        As far as I can see, you're trying to argue 3 different, and for the most
                        part unconnected things at the same time.

                        1. was there theological evolution?
                        2. was the earliest christology low, or Ebionite?
                        3. are there interpolations in Paul?

                        First, was there theological evolution in early Christianity? Of course.
                        Every historical scholar assumes so. There are various theories about
                        Jesus, whether he was a laid-back non-apocalyptic social reformer, or
                        apocalyptic prophet, an Essene, a barefoot doctor, or whatever. And there
                        are also various theories about the role Paul played in early Christianity.
                        Did he hijack Christianity? Was he a Roman spy and agent? A gnostic
                        initiate? Etc. And accordingly, there are various models of theological
                        evolution. The fact that you're apparently not able to offer any model of
                        theological evolution remains a problem for your theory, in my view.

                        Second, was the earliest christology low/Ebionite? Lots of people think so,
                        Ehrman, Crossan, and many others. This is an idea that is quite sensible,
                        widely accepted, and rests on large amounts of textual evidence. Crossan
                        for example believes that the Tomb Burial was added to the story of Jesus
                        later, and I agree with him.

                        Now, third, interpolations in Paul, which is a very big subject indeed. Is
                        it possible to prove that there are no interpolations in Paul whatsoever? I
                        doubt it somehow, and this has not been done before. But even if you or
                        someone else somehow succeeded in doing so, will this necessarily refute
                        the previous two points above? Certainly not, because these two points have
                        been argued effectively without in any way doubting the integrity of
                        Pauline corpus. After all, many Pauline scholars offer various sorts of
                        theories about theological evolution _in Paul_ over the years!

                        But it is true that the points 1 and 2 will be easier to argue effectively
                        if one also accepts the idea that "the 7 authentic letters" were in fact
                        heavily interpolated. And this is what I think. Around 50% of them may be
                        later expansions.

                        Best regards,

                        Yuri.

                        Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                        New ideas in biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

                        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                      • Yuri Kuchinsky
                        ... wrote, ... in ... peace ... if ... be ... necessary ... David, Think about all the endings of Mk, for example. Also I think the endings of all 4 canonical
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 8 6:18 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----------
                          > From: David Conklin <djconklin@...>
                          > To: Synoptic-L@...
                          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution
                          > Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 4:59 PM

                          > LM: Just think, e.g., of the opening of virtually every letter Paul
                          wrote,
                          > where the double LXX expression KYRIOS THEOS (KYRIOS standing for YAWEH
                          in
                          > the Heb), referring to Israel's God, is divided up thus: "..grace and
                          peace
                          > from THEOU Patros kai KYRIOU... I.X." This is mighty high Christology,
                          if
                          > you ask me, and to excise this phrase from all the Pauline letters would
                          be
                          > only the first in a long series of such operations that would be
                          necessary
                          > to reverse the impression of "high" Christology in the Pauline letters to

                          > which Brian alluded in the above citation.
                          >
                          > Yuri: But you neglect that usually the beginnings and ends of early
                          > Christian writings especially were subject to later editorial changes and

                          > insertions.
                          >
                          > And the proof would be?

                          David,

                          Think about all the endings of Mk, for example. Also I think the endings of
                          all 4 canonical gospels show signs of significant alteration and
                          cross-pollination in later periods. As to the beginnings, the best example
                          are the nativity stories that were probably added to both Lk and Mt later.

                          > ===
                          > Also, David Conklin wrote,
                          >
                          > "However, if you wish to assume interpolations then the burden of proof
                          is
                          > on you to prove that the statements showing a high Christology were in
                          fact
                          > interpolations."
                          >
                          > Yuri: No, thank you kindly, David, but I have no special desire to accept

                          > the burden of proof in this case. Why don't my opponents rather refer me
                          to
                          > some place in literature where it is proved scientifically that
                          everything
                          > that Paul wrote in his "authentic 7 letters" is authentic. I would be
                          very
                          > grateful for that reference.
                          >
                          > 1) The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. You
                          > basically claimed that the high Christological statements in the worsk
                          > ascribed to paul are interpolations. Therefore, you are honor bound to
                          > produce the evidence.

                          But, David, I did not make such a claim. As I replied to Brian, I merely
                          advice some caution in dealing with Pauline literature. Skepticism is good,
                          and fully scientific. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything on faith,
                          and similarly I hope people don't expect me to accept things on faith
                          alone.

                          > 2) It isn't normal practice in dealing with historical documents to
                          expect
                          > scientific proof.

                          There are different degrees of proof, each appropriate to its own
                          particular field of study. Science means to expect demonstrable proof
                          before accepting any theory as valid.

                          > The best that could ever be arrived at is high
                          > probability. In the case of the letters of Paul if it is said to be by
                          him
                          > then the burden of proof lies with those who deny it.

                          Epistle to the Hebrews "is said" to be written by Paul. Do you accept it as
                          such? And what about the Pastorals?

                          > ===
                          > Yuri: This whole debate is certainly not new, so those who are interested
                          in
                          > this subject will do well to read the following articles where the basic
                          > state of this problem is outlined quite competently,
                          >
                          > Robert M. Price
                          > Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a
                          Post-Pauline
                          > Interpolation, http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html
                          >
                          > Darrell J. Doughty
                          > Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity,
                          > http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html
                          >
                          > Thank you Yuri, for the sources; I'll check them out.

                          It's well worth reading.

                          And also, David wrote,

                          ----------
                          > From: David Conklin <djconklin@...>
                          > To: Synoptic-L@...
                          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Scrolls of Paul's letters or synoptic gospels?
                          > Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:04 PM
                          >
                          > Yuri: So the only thing that we appear to agree on so far is that all
                          early
                          > members of the Jesus movement had a very strong belief about Jesus who
                          had
                          > been crucified and who was nevertheless proclaimed as Lord. For my own
                          part,
                          > I doubt that the laws of Moses started to be seen as generally irrelevant

                          > for Christians much before 100.
                          >
                          > Yuri, could you clarify what you mean by "the laws of Moses" here? Are
                          you
                          > referring to the "Jewish halachic laws" that you seem to have equated in
                          the
                          > previous paragraph?

                          This is correct, David.

                          > There certainly is quite a bit of reference to the laws
                          > of Moses in the Synoptic gospels, the book of Acts and in the writings of

                          > Paul all of which were written before 100 A.D..

                          For my own part, I would be cautious about dating these documents. It is
                          possible that at least parts of them date post-100.

                          Best wishes,

                          Yuri.

                          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                          Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          David Conklin wrote -- ... Yuri Kuchinsky replied -- ... Yuri also replied to Brian Wilson on the same topic -- ... Yuri, Are you claiming that the dozens of
                          Message 12 of 14 , May 9 4:54 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Conklin wrote --
                            >
                            >"However, if you wish to assume interpolations then the burden of proof
                            >is on you to prove that the statements showing a high Christology were
                            >in fact interpolations."
                            >
                            Yuri Kuchinsky replied --
                            >
                            >But, David, I did not make such a claim. As I replied to Brian, I
                            >merely advise some caution in dealing with Pauline literature.
                            >Skepticism is good, and fully scientific. I'm not asking anyone to
                            >accept anything on faith, and similarly I hope people don't expect me
                            >to accept things on faith alone.
                            >
                            Yuri also replied to Brian Wilson on the same topic --
                            >
                            >But it is true that the points 1 and 2 will be easier to argue
                            >effectively if one also accepts the idea that "the 7 authentic letters"
                            >were in fact heavily interpolated. And this is what I think. Around 50%
                            >of them may be later expansions.
                            >
                            Yuri,
                            Are you claiming that the dozens of statements of "high
                            christology" in the "authentic 7" letters of Paul are all
                            interpolations?

                            If you NOT claiming this, then how can you say that, to quote your own
                            words above,
                            >
                            >"the 7 authentic letters" were in fact heavily interpolated. And this
                            >is what I think. Around 50% of them may be later expansions." ?
                            >
                            Presumably you are not suggesting that the "high christology" statements
                            in the "7 authentic" letters are original to Paul, and that the
                            interpolations were of the "lower christology" type? That would go
                            against your "theological evolution" principle, surely?

                            If you ARE claiming that the dozens of statements of "high christology"
                            in the "7 authentic" letters of Paul are all interpolations, then is
                            this not extraordinarily unscientific? There is no manuscript evidence
                            even to begin supporting such a claim. You are simply asking us to take
                            this view on faith, even though, in your exact words above, you have
                            said--
                            >
                            >I'm not asking anyone to accept anything on faith
                            >
                            Again, you say you advise caution, your exact words being --
                            >
                            >I merely advise some caution in dealing with Pauline literature
                            >
                            But what sort of caution is it to affirm concerning the "7 authentic
                            letters" of Paul, with no manuscript evidence, that "around 50% of them
                            may be later expansions"? As far as I can gather, the basis of your idea
                            that the "7 authentic" letters of Paul "were in fact heavily
                            interpolated" is your belief in an old-fashioned nineteenth century
                            quasi-scientific theory of deterministic evolution which holds that
                            things inevitably progress from "lower" to "higher" forms.

                            In my view, this is not advisable caution, but caution thrown to the
                            winds.

                            As far as I am concerned, "Solution by evolution" is as dead as a dodo.

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
                            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
                            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                            _
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            Andrew Smith wrote -- ... Yuri Kuchinsky replied -- ... Yuri, So proto-Mk was written first, then deutero-Mk and Matthew were written where each of these used
                            Message 13 of 14 , May 9 4:58 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Andrew Smith wrote --
                              >
                              >What relationship of documents in all of literature (sacred, profane,
                              >technical, etc.) most closely resembles the mechanism of your proposed
                              >solution for the synoptic problem?
                              >
                              Yuri Kuchinsky replied --
                              >
                              >I'm not really proposing anything unusual regarding the mechanism of a
                              >solution to the synoptic problem. The essence of Loisy-Koester Model is
                              >that it proposes that both Mt and Mk are based on proto-Mk, and also
                              >that some passages in Mk are later expansions based on Mt.
                              >
                              Yuri,
                              So proto-Mk was written first, then deutero-Mk and Matthew were
                              written where each of these used proto-Mk, then Mark was produced where
                              Mark used both Matthew and deutero-Mk. This makes no mention of Luke.
                              Nor does it mention Q. According to my reading, Koester is a very strong
                              advocate of a hypothetical document "Q" having been the source of
                              Matthew and Luke. See for instance, H. Koester, "Ancient Christian
                              Gospels: Their History and Development" (London, 1990) page 86. So if we
                              are really going for the Loisy-Koester model, the one single documentary
                              source we cannot omit is "Q". So we presumably have to add that
                              hypothetical "Q" was written before proto-Mk, and that Matthew and Luke
                              each used Q. Presumably we also have to add that Luke used proto-Mk or
                              deutero-Mk or Mark. So far, this would seem to be merely the "essence"
                              of your documentary hypothesis.

                              For the hypothesis you really hold, Yuri, is still more complex. For
                              instance, as you wrote to this List recently, you have doubts about Q,
                              at least as a single work --
                              >
                              >Q now seems to me like it may refer to the loose (or even partly
                              >connected) collections of sayings that existed in various forms in 1st
                              >and 2nd centuries. One thing that can hardly be denied by Q critics is
                              >that such loose sayings collections did exist. Surely some such
                              >collections were used by Mt (and also possibly by Mk).
                              >
                              So now we have to consider that Q was not one single source, but a loose
                              group of sayings sources, these being tapped at various stages by
                              Matthew, and possibly by Mark also. Further complexities are also on
                              order. So far we have not mentioned material special to Matthew and
                              Luke, for instance the "birth narratives" which are supposed to contain
                              "late" doctrines, and so on, and so on.

                              Now I suggest that those interested in the above should attempt to draw
                              a diagram of the "mechanics" of the documentary hypothesis posited here.

                              When the diagram is drawn, we are in a position to answer Andrew's
                              question --
                              >
                              >What relationship of documents in all of literature (sacred, profane,
                              >technical, etc.) most closely resembles the mechanism of your proposed
                              >solution for the synoptic problem?
                              >
                              I have drawn the diagram. It contains five hypothetical documents
                              (proto-Mk, deutero-Mk, Q1, Q2, Q3) and eleven arrows showing the
                              direction of documentary dependences.

                              I have not yet found a relationship of documents which resembles the
                              mechanism it represents.

                              Is there one?

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                              _
                            • David Conklin
                              Yuri: But you neglect that usually the beginnings and ends of early Christian writings especially were subject to later editorial changes and insertions. DJC
                              Message 14 of 14 , May 9 5:10 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yuri: But you neglect that usually the beginnings and ends of early
                                Christian writings especially were subject to later editorial changes and
                                insertions.

                                DJC > And the proof would be?

                                Yuri:
                                Think about all the endings of Mk, for example. Also I think the endings of
                                all 4 canonical gospels show signs of significant alteration and
                                cross-pollination in later periods. As to the beginnings, the best example
                                are the nativity stories that were probably added to both Lk and Mt later.

                                I'm aware of the endings of Mark; however in regards to the others do you
                                have sources for this suggestion? Same with your suggestion that the
                                navitity stories are additions. Have these been confirmed by the same type
                                and level of linguistic analysis that confirms that the various endings of
                                Mark are in fact additions from another hand?
                                > ===
                                > Also, David Conklin wrote,
                                >
                                > "However, if you wish to assume interpolations then the burden of proof
                                is on you to prove that the statements showing a high Christology were in
                                fact interpolations."
                                >
                                > Yuri: No, thank you kindly, David, but I have no special desire to accept
                                the burden of proof in this case. Why don't my opponents rather refer me to
                                some place in literature where it is proved scientifically that everything
                                that Paul wrote in his "authentic 7 letters" is authentic. I would be very
                                grateful for that reference.
                                >
                                DJC > 1) The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. You
                                basically claimed that the high Christological statements in the works
                                ascribed to paul are interpolations. Therefore, you are honor bound to
                                produce the evidence.

                                But, David, I did not make such a claim. As I replied to Brian, I merely
                                advice some caution in dealing with Pauline literature. Skepticism is good,
                                and fully scientific. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything on faith, and
                                similarly I hope people don't expect me to accept things on faith alone.

                                That's why I said "basically claimed". A healthy skepticcism is indeed
                                healthy; however undue skepticism is not, nor is it scientific.
                                ====
                                > 2) It isn't normal practice in dealing with historical documents to
                                expect scientific proof.

                                There are different degrees of proof, each appropriate to its own
                                particular field of study. Science means to expect demonstrable proof
                                before accepting any theory as valid.

                                In dealing with historical documents of this great age it isn't reasonable,
                                nor scientific, to expect demosntrable proof. That best that could be
                                expected is a high degree of probability.
                                ===
                                > The best that could ever be arrived at is high probability. In the case
                                of the letters of Paul if it is said to be by him then the burden of proof
                                lies with those who deny it.

                                Epistle to the Hebrews "is said" to be written by Paul. Do you accept it as
                                such? And what about the Pastorals?

                                Where is it said that the book of Hebrews is written by Paul? I have read
                                and heard of a number of other suggested authors ranging from John to
                                Priscilla. As for the Pastorals it seems reasonable.
                                > ===
                                > Yuri: This whole debate is certainly not new, so those who are interested
                                in this subject will do well to read the following articles where the basic
                                state of this problem is outlined quite competently,
                                >
                                > Robert M. Price Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a
                                Post-Pauline Interpolation, http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html
                                >
                                > Darrell J. Doughty Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity,
                                > http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

                                DJC: I am currently reading the first article. My first impression was one
                                of disappointment for two major reasons: one, because these two seem to be
                                attempting to resurrect the undue skepticism of the Tubingen school and
                                secondly, because they are extreme left-wing radicals. I would have been a
                                great deal more impresssed in more main-stream scholars had been presented.

                                ----------
                                > Yuri: So the only thing that we appear to agree on so far is that all
                                early members of the Jesus movement had a very strong belief about Jesus who
                                had been crucified and who was nevertheless proclaimed as Lord. For my own
                                part, I doubt that the laws of Moses started to be seen as generally
                                irrelevant for Christians much before 100.
                                >
                                > Yuri, could you clarify what you mean by "the laws of Moses" here? Are
                                you referring to the "Jewish halachic laws" that you seem to have equated in
                                the previous paragraph?

                                This is correct, David.

                                Where in the NT did they have made this equation?
                                ===
                                DJC > There certainly is quite a bit of reference to the laws of Moses in
                                the Synoptic gospels, the book of Acts and in the writings of Paul all of
                                which were written before 100 A.D..

                                Yuri: For my own part, I would be cautious about dating these documents. It
                                is possible that at least parts of them date post-100.

                                Which parts? Are you aware of J. A. T. Robinson's rationale and findings on
                                this issue?
                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.