Envisioning the beginnings of Jesus worship

[lclapshaw]

When I created my BCE Paul I did so by taking the so called "authentic" letters literally and assuming a Jewish Paul predating the Gospel stories. This is false. My entire thesis was based on an erroneous point of view.

"Paul", whatever the actual source might have been, is clearly not Jewish. No matter what some redactor tried to do with the letters. "Paul" very clearly is, mostly, a literary construct of multiple authors that post date the Gospel stories and Acts. His sole purpose is to shore up the Gospel stories and Acts and create a linear progression of apostleship from Jerusalem to Rome.

I have in this and other threads done some analysis of rgprice's ideas. I must say that they are incredibly complex and posit an extremely complicated transmission and redaction history for the NT canonical texts. This is itself not unusual. The current crop of scholars reconstructing Marcion's gospel are in the same life-raft.

I believe they are missing the serious investigation and corresponding assessment of a vital possibility:

The NT is fiction. When you realize that you will be able to move forward.

If indeed the NT is an historical fiction we have no need for the complexities. Father Brodie posited a "literary school". Other scholars posit that the authors of the NT knew each other and were part of an elitist group. We do not need a community spread out over large expanses of time and space. We only need a small and elite "literary school".

The question which will lead us forward is, in my mind, where did the nomina sacra come from? The whole idea of "envisioning the beginnings of Jesus worship" lead us directly to the evidence that they started with these "runes" of IS XS. Aside from a very small number of exceptions we have seen that the actual physical evidence from antiquity up until Codex E in the 6th century had virtually no knowledge of "Jesus" or "Christ" except through these "sacred abbreviations".

Did the beginnings of Jesus worship actually start with the runes IS XS?
And if so, what does that suggest?

Agreed. Contemplating the NS is what keeps me engaged with this subject.

[Leucius Charinus]

The beginnings of IS XS worship look thoroughly compatible with the influential Roman obsession of using abbreviations in written or inscribed media.

[rgprice]

I think that some of the works of the NT are fiction. Most specifically, the Gospel of Mark is an entirely invented allegorical fiction. I think there was an underlying Acts of the Apostle, which was about Paul's ministry. This may have been "based on a true story". There is an original layer to the Gospel of Luke, which was also fiction. I don't think the original 10 Pauline letters are fiction, though they do contain some forgery. The original layer of the Gospel of John is also fiction.

However, I think that the real innovation of Marcion was that Marcion did not treat any of these works as allegorical fiction, he treated these writings as literally true. Others, even his opponents, then followed him down that path. The Gospel of Matthew is not intended as fiction. Canonical Luke and canonical Acts are not intended as fiction. They are falsified accounts, but not fictional. There were written with the intention of being understood as literally true.

[lclapshaw]

The beginnings of IS XS worship look thoroughly compatible with the influential Roman obsession of using abbreviations in written or inscribed media.

I agree that the abbreviations IC XC possibly is of Roman origin. As you say, the Romans were big on this kind of thing. Way more than other cultures in the area.

I recently discovered, btw, a older thread with you discussing the possibility that IC XC may have originally been an abbreviation for Iulios the Good with someone else (can't remember who tho) so I'm not the first to make that connection. I still suspect that "Paul" has his origin in an early (Roman) layer of 1 Corinthians and this Roman "Paul" is the originator of the abbreviated IC XC.

All we can do is speculate tho.

[lclapshaw]

I think that some of the works of the NT are fiction. Most specifically, the Gospel of Mark is an entirely invented allegorical fiction. I think there was an underlying Acts of the Apostle, which was about Paul's ministry. This may have been "based on a true story". There is an original layer to the Gospel of Luke, which was also fiction. I don't think the original 10 Pauline letters are fiction, though they do contain some forgery. The original layer of the Gospel of John is also fiction.

However, I think that the real innovation of Marcion was that Marcion did not treat any of these works as allegorical fiction, he treated these writings as literally true. Others, even his opponents, then followed him down that path. The Gospel of Matthew is not intended as fiction. Canonical Luke and canonical Acts are not intended as fiction. They are falsified accounts, but not fictional. There were written with the intention of being understood as laterally true.

Fiction written to be understood as fact is still fiction.

[rgprice]

I think that some of the works of the NT are fiction. Most specifically, the Gospel of Mark is an entirely invented allegorical fiction. I think there was an underlying Acts of the Apostle, which was about Paul's ministry. This may have been "based on a true story". There is an original layer to the Gospel of Luke, which was also fiction. I don't think the original 10 Pauline letters are fiction, though they do contain some forgery. The original layer of the Gospel of John is also fiction.

However, I think that the real innovation of Marcion was that Marcion did not treat any of these works as allegorical fiction, he treated these writings as literally true. Others, even his opponents, then followed him down that path. The Gospel of Matthew is not intended as fiction. Canonical Luke and canonical Acts are not intended as fiction. They are falsified accounts, but not fictional. There were written with the intention of being understood as laterally true.

Fiction written to be understood as fact is still fiction.

I view it as a progression from allegorical fiction that was misinterpreted as fact to embellishment of perceived fact. It's like War of the Worlds being reported on by reporters to think that its real, and then the reports from those reporters being picked up by other reporters who don't check their sources and and passing it on as fact. This type of thing still happens to this day.

[lclapshaw]

I think that some of the works of the NT are fiction. Most specifically, the Gospel of Mark is an entirely invented allegorical fiction. I think there was an underlying Acts of the Apostle, which was about Paul's ministry. This may have been "based on a true story". There is an original layer to the Gospel of Luke, which was also fiction. I don't think the original 10 Pauline letters are fiction, though they do contain some forgery. The original layer of the Gospel of John is also fiction.

However, I think that the real innovation of Marcion was that Marcion did not treat any of these works as allegorical fiction, he treated these writings as literally true. Others, even his opponents, then followed him down that path. The Gospel of Matthew is not intended as fiction. Canonical Luke and canonical Acts are not intended as fiction. They are falsified accounts, but not fictional. There were written with the intention of being understood as laterally true.

Fiction written to be understood as fact is still fiction.

I view it as a progression from allegorical fiction that was misinterpreted as fact to embellishment of perceived fact. It's like War of the Worlds being reported on by reporters to think that its real, and then the reports from those reporters being picked up by other reporters who don't check their sources and and passing it on as fact. This type of thing still happens to this day.

Oh, I'm sure that's how it went down.

[Leucius Charinus]

The beginnings of IS XS worship look thoroughly compatible with the influential Roman obsession of using abbreviations in written or inscribed media.

I agree that the abbreviations IC XC possibly is of Roman origin. As you say, the Romans were big on this kind of thing. Way more than other cultures in the area.

I recently discovered, btw, a older thread with you discussing the possibility that IC XC may have originally been an abbreviation for Iulios the Good with someone else (can't remember who tho) so I'm not the first to make that connection.

viewtopic.php?t=10597
An interested thread.

I still suspect that "Paul" has his origin in an early (Roman) layer of 1 Corinthians and this Roman "Paul" is the originator of the abbreviated IC XC.

All we can do is speculate tho.

That's true. My speculation is that Paul is an entirely fabricated fictional identity who in Christian history - at least for the first thousand years of its instruction and inculcation - was to be historically viewed as being a 1st century identity who exchanged letters with Seneca.