The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

[Sinouhe]

3) There are striking similarities between Ascension of Isaiah, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and works found at Qumran that can be decisively dated to the first century BCE or prior.

Interesting. In my opinion, i think that Paul mixed the religious beliefs of Qumran (for the suffering servant concept and the coming of the Messiah) and the Parables of Enoch (for the celestial Messiah and their eschatological expectations like the judgment of the sinners and the resurrection of the saints).

What are your opinion about the Son of Man in the Parables ?

[davidmartin]

Interesting. In my opinion, i think that Paul mixed the religious beliefs of Qumran (for the suffering servant concept and the coming of the Messiah) and the Parables of Enoch (for the celestial Messiah and their eschatological expectations like the judgment of the sinners and the resurrection of the saints).

Paul omits to mention hell (neither does g.John and I would argue Mark and Marcion's EV) yet that is found later on in Matthew in spades and the redacted Luke only somewhat
I think this is a major clue because the doctrine is a weighty one

I believe this shows certain Jewish ideas influencing things post-Paul that were never there originally
I don't mean that what you say about Paul can't be right and Qumran type beliefs influenced him, but were these there originally? Did he just apply them to an existing movement?

[MrMacSon]

1) ... The Jesus figure in every Gospel we have today is based on Paul.

Based on the character of Paul as depicted in the Pauline epistles?
or based on Paul's portrayal of Jesus? or both?

2) The big question is: What was the nature of the original Pauline letters? Were they Jewish in character at all? Did the original letters make any case about the inclusion of Gentiles through the promise of Abraham or not? I strongly suspect that the logic about Abraham's promise actually originated with Justin Martyr and was later interpolated into the orthodox Pauline letters. Did Paul actually say he had persecuted "the church" (Christians)? I don't think so. I think that is a mix of misinterpretation and later interpolations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BUT, what about a scenario where Jesus worship begins among Gnostics? Firstly, we have to recognize that "Gnosticism" has its origins in Judaism, so of course there are still Jewish connections.

I'm not so sure about " 'Gnosticism' having its origins in Judaism " or entirely in Judaism.

Many of the 'Gnostic' creation narratives may reflect Greek/Greco[-Roman] or even Egyptian creation myths or a combination of them +/- Judaism ie. they could well be 'Hellenistic' in origin.

eta: Contrary to what I wrote there,

Sethian Gnostic thought had its roots in a form of Jewish speculation on the figure and function of Sophia, divine Wisdom, whom the Jewish scriptures sometimes personified as the instrument through whom God creates, nourishes, and enlightens the world (Proverbs 1–8; Sirach 24; Wisdom of Solomon 7). 'The Sethian School of Gnostic Thought' in Marvin W Meyer, ed., The Nag Hammadi Scriptures

eg. somewheres in the Gospel of Philip, in Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations

Christ came so he might rectify the division that came about from the beginning and again join the two, and so that to those who have died in the division he might give life and join them ... Eve separated from Adam because she had not joined to him in the bridal chamber

And

Indeed it is necessary to speak a mystery. The Father of the entirety joined with the virgin who came down, and a fire illuminated him on that day. He appeared in the great bridal chamber. For this reason his body came about on that day. He came from the bridal chamber as one who had come to be from the groom and the bride. This is how Jesus established the Entirety within it through these. Indeed, it is necessary to enable each of the disciples to journey into his rest. Adam came to be from two virgins, from the spirit and from the virgin earth. For this reason Christ was begotten from a virgin so that the stumbling that came about in the beginning might be set right

And

The chrism is better than baptism, since on the basis of the “chrism” we have been called “Christians,” not because “baptism.” Also “Christ” is named on account of the “chrism.” For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. The one who is anointed has the Entirety. He has the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave this to him in the bridal chamber; he received. The Father came to be in the son, and the son (came to be) in the Father. This [is the] kingdom of heaven

With regard to Paul and 'Gnosticism", here's an extract from the 'Excerpt from Theodotus'

The followers of Valentinus call Jesus the helper, because he has come filled with the Eternities, since he comes forth from the Whole.

For Christ, leaving behind the One who brought him forth, Wisdom, and entering into the Fullness, requested help for Wisdom, who was left outside. And Jesus was brought forth by the goodwill of the Eternities as a helper for the Eternity that had transgressed. In the type of the helper, Paul became the Apostle of the Resurrection.

Right after the passion of the Lord he too was sent off to preach. Therefore, he preached the Savior according to <both> (understandings): created and subject to suffering ... because since they are able to know him, they fear him in this place, and spiritual from the Holy Spirit and virgin, as the angels on the right know (him).

These points are worth noting

3) There are striking similarities between Ascension of Isaiah, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and works found at Qumran that can be decisively dated to the first century BCE or prior.

4) There are striking similarities between Paul's description of Jesus and the Beloved found in Ascension of Isaiah. The Jesus described by Paul is more similar to the Beloved in Ascension of Isaiah than to the Jesus of the Gospels.

[MrMacSon]

Another Excerpt 'of' Theodotus

26 The visible part of Jesus was Wisdom and the [gathering/congregation] of the superior seeds, which he put on through the flesh, as Theodotus says. But the invisible part is <the> name, which is the Only-Begotten Son.

For which reason when he says, “I am the door,” he is saying that as those of the superior seed, you shall come up to the boundary where I am.

And when he enters, the seed accompanies him into the Fullness, gathered together and brought forward through the door.

26 Τὸ ὁρατὸν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ Σοφία καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία ἦν τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν διαφερόντων, ἣν ἐστολίσατο διὰ τοῦ σαρκίου, ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος. τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον <τὸ> Ὄνομα, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ Μονογενής.

Ὅθεν ὅταν εἴπῃ, «Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα,» τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι μέχρι τοῦ Ὅρου οὗ εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐλεύσεσθε, οἱ τοῦ διαφέροντος σπέρματος.

Ὅταν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰσέρχηται, καὶ τὸ σπέρμα συνεισέρχεται αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ Πλήρωμα, διὰ τῆς θύρας συναχθὲν καὶ εἰσαχθέν

[Sinouhe]

Interesting. In my opinion, i think that Paul mixed the religious beliefs of Qumran (for the suffering servant concept and the coming of the Messiah) and the Parables of Enoch (for the celestial Messiah and their eschatological expectations like the judgment of the sinners and the resurrection of the saints).

Paul omits to mention hell (neither does g.John and I would argue Mark and Marcion's EV) yet that is found later on in Matthew in spades and the redacted Luke only somewhat
I think this is a major clue because the doctrine is a weighty one

I believe this shows certain Jewish ideas influencing things post-Paul that were never there originally
I don't mean that what you say about Paul can't be right and Qumran type beliefs influenced him, but were these there originally? Did he just apply them to an existing movement?

On the contrary, i think the beliefs of punishments of the Sinners that we find in the DSS fit well the day of the judgment of the sinners in the parables and in the writings of Paul.

The difference being that judgment will be pronounced through the Messiah in the parables and Paul :

Capture d’écran 2022-04-30 à 09.51.27.png (423.89 KiB) Viewed 1379 times

[andrewcriddle]

Justin uses the phrase Evangellion in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, even as "so-called gospel" (First Apology 66:3)

“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them;

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

I have 2 other suggestions which you may find interesting about Justin's Gospel:

1. That it was a single texts, akin to Tatian's (albeit including material not found in the 4 Gospels), with a title attributing it to unnamed apostles.

2. It referred instead to the message of salvation and proper conduct within Justin's belief system, akin to Paul's usage of the term Gospel.

Several scholars have suggested that Justin used a Synoptic harmony as his main Gospel text and that Tatian rewrote this to include John.

Andrew Criddle

[mlinssen]

Several scholars have suggested that Justin used a Synoptic harmony as his main Gospel text and that Tatian rewrote this to include John.

Andrew Criddle

And solid reasons for that would lie in the undeniable fact that Sweet Jus (verbatim) quotes from unknown sources, time after time, with the highly peculiar feature of most of them leading back to Luke or Matthew, and sometimes a combination of both

I'd be greatly interested in his Greek quotes compared to the NT as we know it. I once started that in

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7726&p=119376&hilit ... yr#p119376

[rgprice]

Based on the character of Paul as depicted in the Pauline epistles?
or based on Paul's portrayal of Jesus? or both?

Based on the Paul depicted in the epistles.

I'm not so sure about " 'Gnosticism' having its origins in Judaism " or entirely in Judaism.

Many of the 'Gnostic' creation narratives may reflect Greek/Greco[-Roman] or even Egyptian creation myths or a combination of them +/- Judaism ie. they could well be 'Hellenistic' in origin.

But this has a lot to do with what you understand Judaism to actually be. I think that by and large, the Judaism we know came into existence following the conquest of Alexander the Great. The Torah was written in the early 3rd century BCE. The Torah puts forward a specific interpretation of Canaanite origin traditions. I believe this interpretation was actually at odds with the original traditions. Canaanite, Egyptian, and Greek mythology have common origins. Genesis is a Hellenistic spin on the common mythology that attempts to turn the original polytheistic Canaanite story into a monotheistic story, but at the same time the writers of Genesis were confronting Persian Judaism, which held, as 2nd Isaiah states, that there is only one God, who is the creator of EVERYTHING, Good and Evil - the God who brings punishment and reward, the God who creates sin and salvation. The writers of Genesis didn't like the idea that by truly having one single God, that God became responsible for all of the problems of the world. The world was clearly unjust and filled with terrors and iniquity. How could God be responsible for all of that?

So that's where the Deuteronomist reformers took a different turn and looked for scape goats (no pun intended). So what there was was an original polythetic Canaanite story, and then there was the Persian influenced monotheistic version of it, where God likely can be seen as responsible for the ills of the world, and then the Deuteronomist reformers made a version in which humans are made responsible for the ills of the world. They couldn't put the blame on another deity, so the Genesis story is an attempt to shift the blame on to God's creation for its own ills.

What we find at Qumran is a line of thought that re-develops Belial/Satan as an opposing figure to God, in which the ills of the world are blamed, not on people as in Genesis, but on Belial/Satan. But this is the slippery slope of introducing another deity, diverging from monotheism. Gnosticism is another reaction. Gnostics, like the Qumranic line, recognize that Genesis is a biased interpretation of the original story. They attempt to go back to the more original story, reintroducing polytheistic elements, and highlighting the fact that the original form of monotheistic Judaism held that God was the creator of evil. Thus, they saw the God of Judaism as, in fact, an evil God, just as Isaiah claimed (not that he was evil per-se but that he authored evil and brought injustice as well as justice).

But really, Judaism is a part of the Hellenistic stew. It didn't really pre-date Greek culture. Yes, Canaanite predated Hellenism, but Judaism isn't Canaanite religion, its a Hellenistic invention that utilized pre-Persian Canaanite elements as well as Persian era monotheistic developments, set within a framework of Hellenistic philosophy and historical interpretation.

So I think the Gnostics, as well as the writers of Enoch literature, were drawing upon older, pre-Deuteronomist elements of Semitic thought and countering what they saw as a false presentation of the original origin stories that put the blame for evil on other beings, instead of humans.

[MrMacSon]

But really, Judaism is a part of the Hellenistic stew.

I fully agree (and this is a point that David Litwa makes: all of the religions in the Roman Empire were part of wider Hellenised/Greco-Roman culture)

and I had noted that

Many of the 'Gnostic' creation narratives may reflect Greek/Greco[-Roman] or even Egyptian creation myths or a combination of them +/- Judaism ie. they could well be 'Hellenistic' in origin.

Though had added -

Contrary to what I wrote there,

Sethian Gnostic thought had its roots in a form of Jewish speculation on the figure and function of Sophia, divine Wisdom, whom the Jewish scriptures sometimes personified as the instrument through whom God creates, nourishes, and enlightens the world (Proverbs 1–8; Sirach 24; Wisdom of Solomon 7). 'The Sethian School of Gnostic Thought' in Marvin W Meyer, ed., The Nag Hammadi Scriptures

- but did not mean a dichotomy.

[davidmartin]

On the contrary, i think the beliefs of punishments of the Sinners that we find in the DSS fit well the day of the judgment of the sinners in the parables and in the writings of Paul.

Paul never mentions hell though, you have to admit
1 Thess is as close as you get and this is doubted at actually by him
He never mentions hell