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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution

Expand Messages
  • David Conklin
    DJC
    Message 1 of 14 , May 2, 2000
    • 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 2 of 14 , May 3, 2000
      • 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 3 of 14 , May 3, 2000
        • 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 4 of 14 , May 3, 2000
          • 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 5 of 14 , May 4, 2000
            • 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 6 of 14 , May 4, 2000
              • 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 7 of 14 , May 5, 2000
                • 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 8 of 14 , May 8, 2000
                  • 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 9 of 14 , May 8, 2000
                    • 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 10 of 14 , May 9, 2000
                      • 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 11 of 14 , May 9, 2000
                        • 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 12 of 14 , May 9, 2000
                          • 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.