Apollos,Philo,And The "Wisdom" Of Corinth

[Tod Stites]

*It has been shown that in the religions of Egypt and Babylon, various gods are called the son and image
of the supreme god. In addition, Hellenistic cults could make Hellenistic rulers the visible manifestation of
a god, with the concept of soteriology (salvation) linked to the concept of icons:

Kleinknecht in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.2,p.390n50

*We know of course that the first Christians portrayed Christ as the Son and image of God (2 Cor 4:4):
(Col 1:15):(Heb 1:3), while viewing contemporary pagans as worshipping "the beast"(Rev 13:14-15),
i.e. Caesar, whose chief cultic center (Pergamum)was known to them as "Satan's throne"(Rev 2:13).
*The influx of religious influence from Egypt in this period has been revealed by archaeological
discoveries in the chief ancient centers of Asia Minor (Turkey), as noted by Helmut Koester in 2007
("Paul And His World" p.159).
*And in their "Hellenistic Commentary On The New Testament", Boring,Berger,and Colpe (1995)
suggest (p.27-8) that "Son of God" statements in the New Testament "originated with reference
to Egyptian religiosity", possibly with Egyptian Hellenistic Judaism having a mediating role.
*But if a wave of Egyptian religious influence was making itself felt in the eastern Mediterranean
region in the first century, it probably did not consist solely of pagan features, and, as we have
seen, Hellenistic Judaism has been seen as playing a mediating role in it's advance. Logically then,
while the Pauline kerygma may have been grafted onto the beliefs of pagan gentiles influenced by
the pagan aspects of this wave, a simultaneous wave of Hellenistic Jewish religious influence from
Egypt may well have been making itself felt amongst the Hellenized Jews of the Pauline mission
field.
*Now any Hellenized Jewish religious influence emanating out of Egypt in this period would be
likely to include the reflections of Philo Judaeus, the Hellenized Jewish philosopher who lived
at Alexandria in the time of Paul and who has even been suggested as the author of "The
Wisdom Of Solomon" (David Winston "Anchor Bible" vol.43,p.3,passim).
*But also reported to have hailed from Alexandria in this period was Apollos, who appears in the
New Testament as having been able to teach "accurately" concerning Jesus but who remains
ignorant of the importance of being baptized in his name (Acts 18:24-25). This tradition suggests
Apollos had received traditions about Jesus but had yet to hear the kerygma of the cross, that
all-important message that "Christ died for our sins", which Paul seems to have regarded as the
united apostolic message of the church (1Cor 15:3,11).Yet the Sayings Source Q, which so many
scholars have posited as representing the earliest layer of the dominical sayings tradition, also
must have been regarded as reporting "accurately" about Jesus, yet contains no kerygma of the
cross, and attaches no salvific importance to the suffering and death of Jesus:

*Rossing in (ed.) Horsley "Christian Origins" (p.272)
*Pearson in (ed.) Logan and Wedderburn "The New Testament And Gnosis" (p.75-7)

Of course Q specialists point out that the proclamation of the cross and it's atonement
theology is not present in Q, and suggest that this calls into question whether the cross
was the fulcrum of faith in every Christian community during the New Testament period:

Kloppenborg "Q: The Earliest Gospel" (p.74)
Kloppenborg Verbin "Excavating Q" (p.365,378)
Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" (p.173)
McLean in (ed.) Piper "The Gospel Behind The Gospels" (p.343-4)

*Nor was the death of Christ the source of salvation according to Jewish-Christian theology:

Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" (p.243)
Cullmann "Christology Of The New Testament" (p.49)
Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.214-5

*And so the aforesaid belief may not have been present in very early Christian communities
where the Sayings of Q were circulating. Indeed Paul's refutation of "human wisdom"(1Cor 1:20)
has suggested to some that this "wisdom" was denying the soteriological (salvific) significance
of the cross:

cf.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" vol.32,p.157,

while others have suggested that the presence of Q with it's wisdom sayings and lack of
atonement theology is behind the elitist wisdom mentality which confronted Paul at
Corinth:

Kelber "The Oral And Written Gospel" (173-6)
Jacobson "Wisdom Christology In Q" (p.219)

But who else do we find at Corinth ?
Why, none other than Apollos (1Cor 1:12), of Alexandria, hometown of Philo Judaeus as well as
the sect of the "Therapeutae", known for leaving their wives in preference to a search for wisdom:

Rossing (ibid)
Pearson (ibid)

Any man who did such a thing may have been considered "out of his mind"(Mark 3:21).
But that is a story for another day.
In any case we seem to make out the faint outlines of a connection not only between Egyptian
religiosity and religious centers in the eastern Mediterranean region, but between Philo and
Alexandria,between Apollos and Alexandria, between Alexandria and Corinth, and between
the lack of atonement theology in Q and Apollos' apparent ignorance of atonement theology.

For further reading on the presence of an apparent elitist "wisdom" mentality at Corinth, see:
Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" (ed.) Logan and Wedderburn (p.37n77)
Koester "Ancient Christian Gospels" (p.55-6)
Koester "Introduction To The New Testament" (vol.2,p.120-2,134)
Koester "Paul And His World" (p.204,228)
Seesemann in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" (vol.5,p.118)
Patterson in "Harvard Theological Review" (vol.84,p.33-8)
Meyer,Patterson;et.al. "Q-Thomas Reader"(p.112)

*The last link in this proposed ring of connections is the signs of Philonic influence in the
Sayings Source Q, to which we may now turn:

*In his "Vita Mosis"(2.9.49-51), Philo declares that Moses, rather than appoint punishments,
suggested and recommended, rather than commanded, so as to "allure men to virtue rather
than drive them to it". And in a similar way, Q, as observed by Ronald Piper ("Wisdom In The
Q Tradition" pp.33,35,73,103,178-9), attempts to "win" agreement to it's teachings rather
than issue authoritative commands.
*Q has also been detected as polemicizing "quite as much against waverers and those who
would claim to be disinterested..as against any active opponents"(Tuckett "Q And The History
Of Early Christianity" pp.250,285-96). In the same way Philo observes that "hesitating and
wavering people" are not to be taken seriously, because "they are influenced by impulse and
not by deliberate meaning"("Migration Of Abraham" 27.148).
*In two of his works ("Special Laws" 1.42.317-8):("Confusion Of Tongues" 143-8), Philo expresses
belief that all Israel can become "sons of God" through ethical behavior. And of course Jesus
makes a similar promise in Q (Matt 5:44-45=Luke 6:35).
*In his "Allegorical Interpretations"(13.34), Philo observes that God makes the rain fall far out
at sea and on rough, unproductive land, symbolizing God's concern for even the worst kinds of
people, just as Q urges listeners to love their enemies, for God "makes the sun shine and the
rain fall on the evil and the unrighteous, and is kind even to the ungrateful and the wicked".
*Philo wrote that nothing is concealed from the true prophet ("Special Laws" 4.192), and that
the wise man is like Wisdom, entering into union with God and even divinization ("Questions
And Answers On Genesis" 2.40). We can imagine this kind of Philonic inspiration for the Q
declaration that "All things have been handed to" Jesus by his "Father in heaven"(Matt 11:27=
Luke 10:22).
*In "Migration Of Abraham"(218), Philo declares that one should traverse the whole world in order
to acquire wisdom, while in Q contemporaries are condemned for not travelling from afar to hear
the voice of divine wisdom, a wisdom "greater than Solomon"(Matt 12:42=Luke 11:31).
*Philo gives warning ("On Joseph" 68) that "a worse evil than death" is to "conceal or dissemble the
truth in the manner of theft", just as Q condemns opponents who hide away the key of knowledge
(Matt 23:33=Luke 11:52).
*Philo believed ("Deus" 29) that God allows nothing to escape His notice or to pass outside His
control. Thus Q assures listeners that all of the hairs of their head have been numbered, and that
not a single sparrow falls to the ground without God's knowledge (Matt 6:29-31=Luke 12:6-7).
*For Philo ("On The Virtues" 14.85) "inanimate riches" are "stored up in the soul", with heaven
claiming a share in them. In Q we find similar imagery which urges listeners to "store up treasure in
heaven", for "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"(Matt 6:19-21=Luke 12:33-34).
*Philo envisioned ("On Rewards And Punishments" 26.152) a Messianic Age in which God welcomes
the stranger who comes to Judaism but repels renegade Jews, possibly providing inspiration for
the Q warning that "many will come from the east and the west, the north and the south", to
take their place in the kingdom of God, while the original heirs to the kingdom will be "thrown
out"(Matt 8:11-12=Luke 13:28-29).
*Philo believed God would take the initiative in bringing back the mind that strayed ("On
Rewards And Punishments" 117), just as Q offers assurance that it is God's will that not a single
errant sinner be lost (Matt 18:12-14=Luke 15:4-7).
*When it came to Torah, the Law of Moses, Philo ("Vita Mosis" 2.14.124) believed the Law was
the unshakeable cosmic order, stamped by the seals of nature herself, and (2.3) that through
long Ages not the smallest part of the Law was changed, and that it would last as long as
heaven and earth existed. This too sounds like Q, where "it is easier for heaven and earth
to pass away than it is for a single iota of the Law to pass away"(Matt 5:18=Luke 16:17).
*Philo ("On The Cherubim" 109,118) opined that wealth derived from God is a loan, with God
demanding an account from the recipient. This kind of vocabulary might easily have inspired
the parable of the "talents", where the Master expects a return on His investment (Matt 25:
14-30=Luke 19:11-27).

*There are other possible parallels with Philo in Q and many more in the other portions of the
New Testament. But while many of them may derive from a common origin in the neo-Platonic
spirit of the times ("zeitgeist"), the Q/Philo parallels may be more direct and specific. Apollos'
apparent ignorance of atonement theology combined with his "accurate" knowledge of Jesus
is matched by Q's extensive traditions of Jesus and a lack of atonement theology. Not that we
should suppose that Apollos brought "Q" to Corinth, but that he brought the Philonic influence
that we find in Q, and that stood behind the "human wisdom" mentality that confronted Paul.
*Now it has been suggested that patrons in the first century Greco-Roman world might very
well have influenced the literature they supported (Rajak "Josephus: The Historian And His
Society" p.6), and that in that world, "the elite inserted themselves into the communication
between this and the next world by providing the agencies of worship"(Gordon in "Paul And
Empire" ed. Horsley p.135-6).
*We arrive then at a reconstruction in which wealthy patrons of earliest Christian literature
and the owners of the earliest house churches were in a position to influence if not control
the thinking of their clients and serviles by turning to what was trending in contemporary
society-the religions of Egypt, including, and especially for Jews, the writings of the
Alexandrian Philo Judaeus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,
What do you think about Apollos of Alexandria introducing the notions of Philo (also of Alexandria) to Paul?
What do you think about Apollos as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews?
Would you consider that epistle (minus parts of Ch. 13) as addressed to the Corinthians at the times of Paul's ministry?

How Christianity started, in my views: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html
The prequel: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

Bernard Muller,
*Thank you for your cordial response to, and intriguing queries about my post.
I am especially fascinated by the idea of Philonic influence being transmitted
to Paul via Apollos.I find it remarkable that just yesterday someone informed
me that some have investigated the idea of a connection between Apollos of
Acts and the historical Apollonius of Tyana.
*First I would like to address the equally interesting idea of "Hebrews" being
the work of Apollos. I knew initially that the late Father Brown felt attracted
to the idea that this epistle uses the language of Acts (6:1) in addressing
"Hebrews" and in trying to convince them that Judaism was obsolete.
("Community Of The Beloved Disciple" p.49n82).
*Now Christian Maurer in his perusal of Philo points out that in "De Decalogo"
(87) the conscience, if not placated, can inflict terrible wounds and cuts
("Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" v.7,p.911-2), while Eduard
Schweizer observes that Philo considered the Logos to be the "cutter"
("tomeus") that can pierce and dissect the "psyche", and is perceived by the
"pneuma"("Who Is The Heir Of Divine Things ?" 130-132)=("Theological
Dictionary Of The New Testament" v.9,p.651. I think that if the author of
Hebrews tried, he could hardly have come closer to sounding like Philo
when he describes the word of God's truth, which is like a double-edged
sword which cleaves the marrow where the soul meets the spirit (4:12).
*For Philo the Word of God is continually suppliant to the immortal God
on behalf of the mortal race ("Who Is The Heir Of Divine Things ?" 205),
and of course in Hebrews Christ appears in the presence of God on be-
half of those who believe in him (9:24).
*Instead of Philonic influence permeating Q as a staple of the "human
wisdom" that confronted Paul at Corinth, you have suggested Philonic
influence on Paul transmitted through Apollos. In support of this we
might begin by noting Philo's observation of the illogic of the creation
sequence in Genesis (God made the plants and trees before He made
the sun)=("On The Creation Of The World" 14.45-46), and it is easy
to see how this would have inspired Paul to declare that "God's foolish-
ness is wiser than human wisdom"(1Cor 1:25).
*In another instruction to Corinth, Paul reveals his belief that "no one
comprehend what is truly God's except the Spirit of God"(1Cor 2:11).
There is perhaps no better candidate in the New Testament for Philonic
influence. For Philo believed that "it is not possible for God to be
comprehended by any being but Himself"("On Rewards And Punishments"
6.40), and that no one has any certainty regarding God's nature
("Allegorical Interpretations" 3.73.207).Philo believed that God mingles
with no one ("Questions And Answers On Genesis" 1.54), and that man
is allowed to comprehend God's existence but not His essence (Posterity
And Exile Of Cain 48.169).
*Of course Philo and Paul could both have drawn inspiration for these
statements from the Hebrew Bible (Isa 55:8-9). But if Q was part of the
"wisdom" mentality at Corinth, we might perhaps see 1Cor 2:11 as a
rebuke to those who had become puffed up by their "gnosis"(1Cor 8:1)
and gotten carried away with Q passages like Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22.
Thus Jacobson ("Wisdom Christology In Q" p.219),sees knowledge of Q
as a possible contributor to the exalted self-perfection/elitism which
confronted Paul at Corinth.
*Now in "Who Is The Heir Of Divine Things ?" (57), Philo defines two
classes of people in the world, those who live by the divine spirit, and
those who live by blood and carnal desire (cf.Schweizer in "Theological
Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.9,p.476).Thus Paul, perhaps
under Philonic influence, believed that the world is inhabited by spiritual
people, able to judge the value of everything, and "natural people", who
could not understand spiritual things (1Cor 2:14-15).
*Now if the exaltation of their elitist wisdom had prompted some of the
Corinthians to feel like "kings", who had already begun to "reign"(1Cor 4:8),
then we can see how input from the works of Philo could have been a
contributing factor. For Philo ("On Agriculture" 10.41-12.53;14.65-66) saw
the kingliness of the sage as based on the idea he is a citizen of heaven,
and that the true king is the wise man, to be exalted as divine (cf.Schmidt
"Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" v.1,p.575-6), and that by
means of education ("paidea") a man becomes a king, exercising dominion
according to the law of nature.
*It is debatable whether Paul's anthropology allowed for the possibility that
a person's spirit could be saved after their flesh had been destroyed (cf. 1
Cor 5:5)=(2 Cor 5:1). But it is equally unclear whether Philo believed that
any soul was wicked in itself apart from association with the flesh (Lester
Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.262).
*For Philo the body was the holy temple of the soul ("On The Creation Of
The World" 137). For Paul the body was the temple of the Holy Spirit (1
Cor 6:19).
*Part of the elitist mentality confronting Paul at Corinth involved the
exaltation of "knowledge", and Paul's refutation of it brings him to invoke
some Philonic-sounding language. Philo believed that "to be aware that one
knows nothing is the end of all knowledge"("On The Migration Of Abraham
24.134), and that "so long as the mind supposes itself to be the cause of
anything, it is far from making room for God"("Allegorical Interpretations"
1.82).And so Paul declares that: "whoever thinks he knows something
does not yet know as he ought to"(1Cor 8:2).Philo also defines a level of
ignorance afflicting one "enveloped in ignorance, but (who) also thinks
that he knows what he never has known, being elated with an ungrounded
opinion of his knowledge"("On Drunkenness 40.162-3).And so for Paul:
"knowledge puffs up, charity builds up"(1Cor 8:1).
*For Philo the image of God is the Word, "by which all the world is made"
"Special Laws" 15.81), just as for Paul Christ is the one Lord, "from whom
are all things".
*For Philo the material element in sacrifices were worthless ("Questions
And Answers On Genesis 2.99); it is the giver's disposition that gives them
value. And so for Paul:"If the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable
according to what one has, not according to what one has not"(2 Cor 8:12).
*Philo observed ("Migration Of Abraham" 22) that as Joseph shook his
brothers when they stood fast in their convictions, so man can be shaken
from the stability he has reached in his opinions. Thus Paul issued warnings
about overconfidence to those convinced they were standing firm (1Cor 10:
12), to those who thought it sufficient to judge themselves (1Cor 11:31),
to those who exalted themselves in their knowledge (1Cor 8:1-2), and even
to himself (1Cor 4:4).
*Philo also opined (Special Laws 1.51.283) that one about to offer sacrifice
ought to look and see not if the animal is without blemish, but whether his
own mind is sound and entire and perfect. Such a warning may have inspired
Paul to admonish the Christians at Corinth to examine themselves before
eating the Supper of the Lord (1Cor 11:28).
*Philo believed ("Posterity And Exile Of Cain" 43.143) that God;s word of
revelation does not correspond to the measure of His completeness, but is
suited to man's ability to hear. Such thinking may have influenced Paul to
acknowledge that he knew only in part (1Cor 13:9-10).
*A potentially profound influence from Philo may have been absorbed by
Paul in the matter of the resurrected body, a matter of special importance
to the church at Corinth. Philo says that God "resolved" the dead Moses'
"twofold nature of soul and body into a single entity, transforming his
whole being into mind, such as now already inhabits our mortal bodies"
("Vita Mosis" 2.51.288). Here we may have a solution to the oxymoron
of Paul's "spiritual body"(1Cor 15:44), in which (to use Gnostic terms),
the "outside" has become like the "inside"(cf."Gospel Of Thomas" 22).
*Another possibly profound influence from Philo to Paul involves the
concept of "quantitative salvation". Phlio ("Preliminary Studies" 6.26)
writes that the "soul is composed of two parts",the rational and the
irrational, but that immortality applies only to the rational soul, which
should control the appetites produced by the lower parts of the soul,
which is mortal and corruptible (cf.Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The
Second Temple Period" p.261). Thus Paul may have likewise believed
that it is the "rational" part of the soul that is eligible for immortality,
so that some souls being more rational than others, will enjoy greater
"presence" after death, the way that some stars shine with greater
glory than others (1Cor 15:41-42).The basis for such an understanding
would have been that Paul's "doxa"(glory) had been used to translate
the Hebrew "kabod", which also means "presence"(Cogan "Anchor Bible"
v.10,p.280). Indeed such "quantitative" calibration of the soul was
already in use under Palestinian Judaism, where the Qumran scrolls
define a person whose soul is made up of eight parts "light" and one
part "darkness" as being "almost perfect", while the soul that was one
part light and eight parts darkness was counted as "wicked"(Vermes
"Dead Sea Scrolls In English" p.357-8)=(Nickelsburg and Stone "Early
Judaism" p.35)=(cp.Matt 6:22-23=Luke 11:34-36).

*In closing I must assure you I am fully aware of the neo-Platonic
"zeitgeist" which prevailed in the Age of Philo and Paul and from
which both men could have drawn inspiration independently.
Perhaps we will never be able to assume Philonic influence on the
New Testament, but it surely remains an inviting possibility.

*I leave you with references on the elitist "wisdom" mentality at Corinth:
Robinson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" (ed.) Logan and Wedderburn p.37n77 (1983)
Pearson in "The New Testament And Gnosis" (ed.) Logan and Wedderburn p.75-7
Rossing in "Christian Origins" (ed.) Horsley p.272 (2005)
Koester "Ancient Christian Gospels" p.55-6 (1990)
Koester "Introduction To The New Testament" v.2,p.120-2,134 (1982)
Koester "Paul And His World" p.204,228 (2007)
Seesemann in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" v.5,p.118
Patterson in Harvard Theological Review v.84,p.33-8
Meyer,Patterson;et.al."Q-Thomas Reader" p.112 (1990)
Jacobson "Wisdom Christology In Q" p.219 (1978)
Kelber "The Oral And Written Gospel" p.173-6 (1983)

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,
Thank you for your reply to parts of my questions and for the lot of work you put into it. It certainly looks Philo's works inspired the theology of Paul.
You seem to be very knowledgeable: I, for one, and probably others, wish to know about your background.
I certainly hope you read the first link (The Beginning of Christianity) I already gave you and share your comments on it, more so because it is in great part about Paul, Philo, Apollos & 'Hebrews', with association to Corinth.
And about Paul & 'Hebrews' & the Christians of Corinth, please see also http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html (Paul And The Corinthians During The Third Journey).

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

Bernard,
I have been reading your reconstruction on the beginnings of the primitive church.
I would like to submit these observations.
*Your suggestion that the disciples stayed on in Jerusalem after the crucifixion is
supported by the rest of the reading from Joel, where it is indicated that those who
survive the calamities of the last days will be found "in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem"
(2:32 NRSV).Surely the disciples wanted to be among the "survivors"(!).
It is also supported by the dominical imperative that "the Gospel must be preached
to all nations"(Mark 13:10), combined with the disciples assumed knowledge of
Scripture, where it is at Mount Zion/Jerusalem that the nations will come to the
God of Israel (Isa 2:2-4)=(Mic 4:1-6)=(Zech 2:10-12), especially if Jesus himself
had predicted that many would come from the east and west, the north and south,
to sit at table in the kingdom of God (Matt 8:11), since God was to prepare a feast
on Mt.Zion for all the peoples of the earth in the end times (Isa 25:6-8).
It is also supported by the dominical warning to the disciples to "be ready"(Matt
24:44)=(Luke 12:40), combined with the disciples assumed readiness to sit on
thrones of judgment over the tribes of Israel, as promised by Jesus (Matt 19:28)=
(Luke 22:30), because it was in Jerusalem that were set the thrones of David
(Psalm 122:5).
*Note:Eusebius places Hegesippus in the generation after the apostles ("Historia
Ecclesiastica" 2.23.3), though we are warned about vesting great confidence in
Eusebius (James Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.3,p.141,524).Traditions
from Hegesippus however may have been written down quite early in the second
century.
*In regard to "John's Gospel from original to canonical", I see you are in agreement
with Helmut Koester:"it must be conceded that (the) extant manuscripts do not
present the Gospel of John in it's original form"("From Jesus To The Gospels" p.36),
even if Joachim Jeremias believed that "there have always been good and cogent
reasons for supporting the unity of John's Gospel"("Theological Dictionary Of The
New Testament" vol.6,p.494).
*You are probably aware that the numerous theological archaisms which mark the
discourses in Acts orient us toward an acknowledgment of a primitive kerygma
there (Ben F. Meyer "The Aims Of Jesus" p.61,66).Matthew Black saw some slight
evidence of an Aramaic source behind the speeches of Peter and Stephen ("An
Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" p.272), while Dunn ("The Oral Gospel
Tradition" p.335) thinks the discourses in Acts 2,3,10 seem to reflect the use of
earlier tradition. This finds support in Luke's "lively" eschatology (2:16-17)=(3:19-
21), less typical elsewhere in Luke, and by his primitive-sounding Christology (2:
22,36)=(3:13-15)=(10:38,42).Dunn notes ("Christianity In The Making" vol.2,
p.90-1,166) that the imminence of Peter's eschatology in Acts 2:14-39 includes
his replacing the "afterwards" of Joel (2:28) with "in the last days"(Acts 2:17).
Todt concurs ("The Son Of Man In The Synoptic Tradition" p.172), pointing to
the absence of the kerygmatic word "cross" from the tradition of the discourse,
pointing to an early stage in the tradition, when Hellenistic influence did not
prevail. Dibelius ("Book Of Acts" p.29) thought Peter's speeches in the first part
of Acts consist of variations on a kind of original community theology.Dunn
("Christianity In The Making" vol.3,p.287) thinks that the absence of the
soteriology of the cross from Luke-Acts (except Acts 20:28) "may reflect an
early hesitation on the subject among the first believers.."
*In this vein we should recall that atonement theology is not associated with
the death of Jesus in Jewish-Christian belief (Flusser "Judaism And Christain
Origins p.243)=(cf.Cullmann in "Christology Of The New Testament" p.49)=
(Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.214-5).It seems that the
Jewish-Christians carried on the earlier community theology of the primitive
church, as reflected in the early speeches in Acts, without the kerygma of the
cross, as did the Sayings Source Q, where the kerygma of the cross is also
absent, and which has been suggested as representing an effort to "rejudaize"
Jesus (Tuckett "Q And The History Of Early Christianity" p.418).
*The accusation that the disciples are celebrating Pentecost by getting drunk
on "new wine" receives strong support as being historical from the discovery
that a Feast of New Wine was celebrated as one of the three Pentecostal Feasts
observed at Qumran (Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" vol.31,p.234).
*Your suggestion that "Diaspora Jews were predominant from the beginning"
could I think have been potentially explosive. But Paul indicates that churches
were established in Judea and flourishing enough to draw the unwanted
attention of persecutors by c.40 C.E. (Gal 1:22).

I will have to read more of this very interesting reconstruction and see if I can
add some more suggestions..

Thank You...

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,
Thank you for the work you put into this reply. It's my turn to comment on your main points:

Your suggestion that the disciples stayed on in Jerusalem after the crucifixion

Sorry. I did not say that. I think they went back to Galilee and they (at least for some of them, plus dependents & family members of Jesus), years later, were invited to join, as permanent guests, a proto-Christian Hellenistic community in Jerusalem.
I don't have direct evidence for that but it is implied through deductions and explained at the start of my web page on the Beginning of Christianity (already posted).

*In regard to "John's Gospel from original to canonical", I see you are in agreement
with Helmut Koester:"it must be conceded that (the) extant manuscripts do not
present the Gospel of John in it's original form"("From Jesus To The Gospels" p.36),

Certainly, I can agree with that.

Todt concurs ("The Son Of Man In The Synoptic Tradition" p.172), pointing to
the absence of the kerygmatic word "cross" from the tradition of the discourse,
pointing to an early stage in the tradition, when Hellenistic influence did not
prevail.

I agree with that. Proto-Christians and then early Jewish Christians saw Jesus dying on a cross as shameful. That's reflected in some of Paul's epistles and also in 'Hebrews':
1 Cor 1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal 5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2 Cor 13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."
Heb 12:2 "looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

Dunn ("Christianity In The Making" vol.3,p.287) thinks that the absence of the
soteriology of the cross from Luke-Acts (except Acts 20:28) "may reflect an
early hesitation on the subject among the first believers.."

Yes, but Acts 20:28 is put in the mouth of Paul at the end of his public life. It is not attributed to Peter or others.

*In regard to "John's Gospel from original to canonical", I see you are in agreement
with Helmut Koester:"it must be conceded that (the) extant manuscripts do not
present the Gospel of John in its original form"("From Jesus To The Gospels" p.36)

Of course I agree with that.

*In this vein we should recall that atonement theology is not associated with
the death of Jesus in Jewish-Christian belief (Flusser "Judaism And Christain
Origins p.243)=(cf.Cullmann in "Christology Of The New Testament" p.49)=
(Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.214-5)

Total agreement here. But I think "Luke" greatly Christianized Peter's speeches, to the point they may be total fiction. Furthermore, I am convinced that Peter, James and former Jesus' disciples never believed in the Resurrection and they did not become Christians.
But I am intrigued by these archaisms and Aramaisms scholars found in these speeches.

*Your suggestion that "Diaspora Jews were predominant from the beginning"
could I think have been potentially explosive. But Paul indicates that churches
were established in Judea and flourishing enough to draw the unwanted
attention of persecutors by c.40 C.E. (Gal 1:22)

In my views, these churches were founded not before 35 CE, when the church of Jerusalem started soon after 28 CE (but under hellenistic leadership). The persecution on this church was around 35 CE which lead to the "Greek" dispersion, creating churches of proto-Christians in Judea and beyond.

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

Adding to the shame of the crucifixion of course was the shame of the abandonment (Mark 14:50).
Studies in cross-cultural anthropology indicate that in the first century, if disciples of a teacher even
disagree with one of his teachings it would signal disrespect and make the teacher unworthy of public
honor (Malina "New Testament World" p.31).
How much more dishonorable then would it be for Jesus to be abandoned by his followers ?
Perhaps this is why there is no sign that there was ever a passion narrative attached to Q, and why
the resurrection of Jesus needed to be proclaimed, to show that God had vindicated both Jesus and
his teachings, so that the preaching of Q could go forward.

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,

Adding to the shame of the crucifixion of course was the shame of the abandonment (Mark 14:50).
Studies in cross-cultural anthropology indicate that in the first century, if disciples of a teacher even
disagree with one of his teachings it would signal disrespect and make the teacher unworthy of public
honor (Malina "New Testament World" p.31).

Yes, but I don't think the abandonment was caused by the lack of respect for Jesus' teachings. Because I believe an uneducated rural Galilean could not pretend to be (and be seen as) a teacher.
Rather, the abandonment was mostly due to the Galileans followers not seeing Jesus as a charismatic leader worth resisting his arrest (if they ever could!). But, more important, the abandonment was also spiritually after the crucifixion (Mark 14:27 & John 16:31-32a).

preaching of Q could go forward

You must know by now I am an ultra minimalist historicist. So don't be offended about the "Jesus was not a teacher" thing, which is against what most believers into a historical Jesus think, as a minimum.
For me I don't. I also take Q as mostly inspired by Mark & written after that gospel; even if I strongly think some of the Q sayings are likely authentic, because that's what an apocalyptic uneducated preacher would say, in the wake of John the Baptist's public life, to other rural poor uneducated Jews.

I hope I did not offend you.

About Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
Sayings of Jesus deemed authentic: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

No Bernard, you did not offend me.
I have seen many Jesuses in my 13+ years of study..
You have done a lot of work in this field..
You should be proud of your work..