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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Theological evolution

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.