The Nicene Creed begins:
I believe in one Father, the maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things invisible and visible.
They took this language word for word out of Colossian:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible… Col 1:15-16
The writers of the Creed are putting their names on another author’s text. In Colossians, Jesus, not God, created Heaven and Earth, the visible and invisible.
Scholars agree Colossians is a forgery. Paul did not write this Gospel, in part, because of the theology in Colossians, which includes a cohesive theory of creation:
He is before all things; in Him, all things hold together. He is also the head of the body and the church, and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so He will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in. Col 1:17–20.
This is very similar to the advanced theology in John’s Prologue:
He was at the beginning of God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him, not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and life was the Light of mankind. Jn. 1:2-4
The language of the passage in Colossian, written around 60 CE, is advanced and abstract. It is a theory of creation. The theory is theological in the sense that it posits Jesus as the Logos who “hold things together” and is pre-existent, establishing Jesus as God like John would state over 30 years later.
The hallowed Nicene Creed is not so pure after all. It begins with word-for-word plagiarism from a forged text.
Textual analysis of Ephesians and Colossians is very interesting, and I highly recommend the investment in Ehrman’s Forgery and CounterForgery. Reading it convinced me that these letters were forged anyway. Personally, the kicker is the clear difference of viewpoint between these letters and Romans and Corinthians, both universally undisputed. Namely the concept of what’s called “realized eschatology”, the idea that believers have in some sense already participated in the Resurrection. It is precisely this view that Paul attacks in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians where Paul assumes the Resurrection is imminent but still to come. In the forgeries I think this demonstrates a response to the delay of the Parousia and the waning of apocalyptic expectation of the imminence of the coming kingdom.
Scholars have pointed out that the Christology of Colossians does seem more Johannine than Pauline. That’s not to say that the author actually knew John. But for this reason, as well as the realized eschatology, I think the date of Colossians would probably have to be fairly late in the first century.
Robert,
I was not clear on the third Forgery. Yes, I think a redactor may have added this later. No Christian authors produced “theories” or “theologies” in 60 CE. Paul’s authentic epistles have many theologically sound passages, but they don’t contain the kind of deliberate theology that doesn’t appear until the Gospel of John, which dates from 90–95 CE.
The other possibility involves the Gnostics. Some scholars believe Colossians is, in part, defending against Gnosticism. The Gnostics did use more abstract concepts in their interpretation of Jesus. Thus, Colossian’s creation theology and pre-existence of Jesus were intended to provide a strong identity of Jesus as co-extensive with God.
A similar creation theology is the Gospel of John and Epistles of John. Jesus is pre-existent, co-extensive with God, and created all things. The Epistles acknowledge their defense against Gnosticism. The Gospel of John does not explicitly mention the Gnostics, but many scholars believe they were in the mix of many ideas and influences circulating in the Gospel.
The famous Rudolph Bultmann book on John asserts the Gnostics as a primary influence. Church Father Irenaeus recounts a story from Bishop Polycarp in which John ran out of the bathhouse when the Gnostic Cerinthus entered.
Forgery is too strong a word; Colossians could have been in the mix of influences on the Gospel of John.
Best, Sam
Newlogos said
Robert,I was not clear on the third Forgery. Yes, I think a redactor may have added this later. No Christian authors produced “theories” or “theologies” in 60 CE. Paul’s authentic epistles have many theologically sound passages, but they don’t contain the kind of deliberate theology that doesn’t appear until the Gospel of John, which dates from 90–95 CE.
The other possibility involves the Gnostics. Some scholars believe Colossians is, in part, defending against Gnosticism. The Gnostics did use more abstract concepts in their interpretation of Jesus. Thus, Colossian’s creation theology and pre-existence of Jesus were intended to provide a strong identity of Jesus as co-extensive with God.
A similar creation theology is the Gospel of John and Epistles of John. Jesus is pre-existent, co-extensive with God, and created all things. The Epistles acknowledge their defense against Gnosticism. The Gospel of John does not explicitly mention the Gnostics, but many scholars believe they were in the mix of many ideas and influences circulating in the Gospel.
The famous Rudolph Bultmann book on John asserts the Gnostics as a primary influence. Church Father Irenaeus recounts a story from Bishop Polycarp in which John ran out of the bathhouse when the Gnostic Cerinthus entered.
Forgery is too strong a word; Colossians could have been in the mix of influences on the Gospel of John.
Best, Sam
Paul’s letters were not known until 100 CE when 10 were published in an anthology called the Pauline Corpus. The consensus says they were written by Paul and 3 ghost writers. Whatever one may say about the rest of the NT writings, one thing is true – they were written by ghost writers who had no copyright on the texts. Except for the Apocalypse. As a result, these texts were edited and supplemented many times. Until finally they were given a false author’s attribution and over time were considered authoritative, and finally they edition process was shut down by the creation of the NT. Content production was a must for the young religion. Nicene creed is the last without Pilate. He was introduced later to avoid problems with location of Jesus in space and time.
Jarek, I’m grateful. I was unaware that they were compiled in the year 100 CE. Whey you say “Paul’s letters were not known before 100 CE.”Do you mean that they weren’t written down or distributed orally between 60 and 90 CE?
Commentators frequently query whether Jews or Gentiles were the intended audience. Paul addressed his letters to top church leaders. He is obviously speaking to their concerns and offering broader interpretations unrelated to the current situation, but a larger audience may include other church officials who would then preach his message. Were they circulating among the general population?
People assume that these New Testament books were for the general population, but all involve an exoterica audience and a popular audience. Take for example the Gospel of John. Historians believe it was based on a hymn, but it’s hard to believe that people were chanting:
In the beginning is the Word,
The Word was with God,
The Word is God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through the Word
Apart from Him not even one thing came into being.
This sounds like an Aristotlian argument for being insteaed of nothingness, not a popular folk hymn. Yet, it shows the bias of commenators who believe the general public was primairy audience.
Most claim that John’s familiarity with Judaism proves that he was Jewish. You had to be impenetrable if you wanted to be taken seriously by the leaders, who were almost exclusively Jewish, and if you wanted to have any impact on the top thinkers developing the principles of the fledgling church. Of course, the author (John) knew the ins and outs of Judaism.
Given that the Synoptic Gospels are thought to be based on well-known oral traditions, their diffusion is less important. We only know of these works that were written with a mass market in mind.
Again, were Paul’s letter dessiminationg to a popular audience, orally or written, between 60CE-90CE?
Thanks, Jarek
Sam
Robert said
Jarek, you seriously don’t think Pilate was associated with the Jesus story until a later redaction of the Nicene creed?
Pilate is evangelically bound to Jesus. However, I am surprised that this knot had to be strengthened in Constantinople in 381 CE. Why not earlier? And as a conspiracy theorist, I’m checking this intriguing puzzle. On the one hand, Epiphanius dug up to some Jesus from the times of Alexander Jannaeus, which is 100 years before Pilate. And he announced his discovery in the Panarion which appeared in 378 CE. On the other hand, a certain Apollinari of Laodicea says that Jesus did not have a full human nature because he had a perfect divine nature.
Instead of commenting on Epiphanius for writing nonsense, they took Pilate and stuffed him into the Creed? One theologian effectively undermines the human nature of Jesus?
Their confidence in the gospel accuracy seems to me to be dramatically low…
Newlogos said
Jarek, I’m grateful. I was unaware that they were compiled in the year 100 CE. Whey you say “Paul’s letters were not known before 100 CE.”Do you mean that they weren’t written down or distributed orally between 60 and 90 CE?Commentators frequently query whether Jews or Gentiles were the intended audience. Paul addressed his letters to top church leaders. He is obviously speaking to their concerns and offering broader interpretations unrelated to the current situation, but a larger audience may include other church officials who would then preach his message. Were they circulating among the general population?
People assume that these New Testament books were for the general population, but all involve an exoterica audience and a popular audience. Take for example the Gospel of John. Historians believe it was based on a hymn, but it’s hard to believe that people were chanting:
In the beginning is the Word,
The Word was with God,
The Word is God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through the Word
Apart from Him not even one thing came into being.
This sounds like an Aristotlian argument for being insteaed of nothingness, not a popular folk hymn. Yet, it shows the bias of commenators who believe the general public was primairy audience.
Most claim that John’s familiarity with Judaism proves that he was Jewish. You had to be impenetrable if you wanted to be taken seriously by the leaders, who were almost exclusively Jewish, and if you wanted to have any impact on the top thinkers developing the principles of the fledgling church. Of course, the author (John) knew the ins and outs of Judaism.
Given that the Synoptic Gospels are thought to be based on well-known oral traditions, their diffusion is less important. We only know of these works that were written with a mass market in mind.
Again, were Paul’s letter dessiminationg to a popular audience, orally or written, between 60CE-90CE?
Thanks, Jarek
Sam
The first individual circulation of Paul’s letters is completely undocumented. No trace. The fate of the letters for the first 40 years from their creation is unknown. They were heavily edited, supplemented by letters from other ghostwriters, made into amalgams like 2Cor, and released together around 100 CE. This is illustrated by a drawing by G. Zuntz which is a graphic illustration of the biblical consensus. The testimonies of Paul’s letters begin around 100 CE … if we date the testimonies correctly.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek, you seriously don’t think Pilate was associated with the Jesus story until a later redaction of the Nicene creed?
Pilate is evangelically bound to Jesus. However, I am surprised that this knot had to be strengthened in Constantinople in 381 CE. Why not earlier? And as a conspiracy theorist, I’m checking this intriguing puzzle. On the one hand, Epiphanius dug up to some Jesus from the times of Alexander Jannaeus, which is 100 years before Pilate. And he announced his discovery in the Panarion which appeared in 378 CE. On the other hand, a certain Apollinari of Laodicea says that Jesus did not have a full human nature because he had a perfect divine nature.
Instead of commenting on Epiphanius for writing nonsense, they took Pilate and stuffed him into the Creed? One theologian effectively undermines the human nature of Jesus?
Their confidence in the gospel accuracy seems to me to be dramatically low…
I am not very familiar with this passage of Epiphanius, but some who are would say that you’re misreading him. Their interpretation would be that the Maccabees combined the royal and priestly lines until the time of Herod and Jesus.
First of all, I wouldn’t have read it on my own. Secondly, I am also disappointed that reading and missreading are two sides of the coin offered by biblical studies so often in the writings of Tertullian, Epiphanios, …, you name it. And thirdly, even rejecting Panarion and Apollinaris, Pilate’s introduction to the Constantinople creed and to many earlier ones proves one thing – extremely low trust in recognized historical sources, which were the gospels after more than 200 years from their creation. Apparently, Paul wasn’t the only one who heard about other Jesuses.
Robert said
Jarek, haven’t we already established that your sense of proof and indisputable facts is rather peculiar?
Yes, we have. You are absolutely right. It is easier to take a man out of marketing than marketing out of a man. I’ll try to use “excellent argument” instead of “proof”
Stephen said
And as a conspiracy theorist, I’m checking this intriguing puzzle.What rank do you suppose Prof Ehrman holds in the Illuminati?
Thanks. I didn’t dare start this topic. We are all guests of Bart, but many excellent arguments point to him as Big Boss The Winner of the organization. On the one hand, he has achieved an indisputably high position in critical biblical studies. On the other hand, the incredible impact on the masses of audiences through the worldwide player Harper One. A generous philanthropist. On the one hand, he refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius after he did the translation and editing. On the other hand, an opportunity has just opened up for some commercial debate to support philanthropic activities. Well, I don’t know what to think. Suspicion is the dark side of my nature
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek, haven’t we already established that your sense of proof and indisputable facts is rather peculiar?
Yes, we have. You are absolutely right. It is easier to take a man out of marketing than marketing out of a man. I’ll try to use “excellent argument” instead of “proof”
If I may be allowed to push back just a little bit further on this point, I would hesitate to use even the aspirational language of “excellent argument” until one has actually identified such.
This is an excellent proposition. Thank you
Robert said
Jarek said
Stephen said
And as a conspiracy theorist, I’m checking this intriguing puzzle.
What rank do you suppose Prof Ehrman holds in the Illuminati?
… On the one hand, he refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius after he did the translation and editing. On the other hand, an opportunity has just opened up for some commercal debate to support philanthropic activities. Well, I don’t know what to think. Suspicion is the dark side of my nature
So you offered to finance a debate with the proceeds going to charity?
I think about it a bit differently. From next Friday, November 18, 2022, the regulation of the Minister of Education and Science on the establishment of biblical studies as an independent scientific discipline in the higher education system comes into force. So far, biblical studies have been part of theological studies in Poland. The subject is good, both sides of the debate are excellent. This could be an interesting event for all interested parties.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)