Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Joseph D. L. »

An idea that I've been going back and forth on for a while, and one that I've mentioned once or twice on here, is that the original Gospel, evangelium, could not have been a biography, acta, or romance about anyone named Jesus, historical or otherwise, and must have been an imperial declaration.

The reason for this is many fold. First, assuming Paul's authentic epistles are written directly following this decree in defense of it. They show no indication that Paul knew of a biography or novel of Christ, but one of announcement and revelation. Think of it like the American Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a document granting rights to the states of America, but does not contain any biographical details about its drafters.

Secondly, presuming that the Gospels are written biographical accounts, this begs the question: why is the life of Jesus necessary to know? Surely all you really need to care about is that he died for your sins and that to get into Heaven you need to implement his teachings (i.e. decrees), but does it matter if he was born of a virgin, had brothers, performed miracles, etc? All of these sound as if they are ideas added (And hey! They were!)

So the original evangelium (good news) had to be something that was pithy, short, almost aphoristic, but above all, official; it had to be an announcement that would be read aloud.

I go back to my theory of Paul working on behalf of the Empire, but even if you guys have misgivings about that, I think the above still works even if Paul was making this declaration himself for some authority, be it Christus or otherwise. But this has serious ramifications for NT studies for me. It means that what we think of as a Gospel is entirely different than what it was originally, and so everyone has been looking in the wrong place trying to discover what the original Gospel even was. For me, it was 1) an Epistle, 2) sanctioned by a high authority (in this case, the Empire), and 3) its goal was politically motivated (which back then, politics and religion were almost the same, but I mean that this document was strictly written as a political and economic charter).

How we go from it to the Gospels is something I'm working on, but I think by the time they came around there were already legends about a Jesus figure (Lukuas, bar Kochba, Antinous, and ben Stada are all suspects), and somehow, someway, he became conflated with Paul's ideas of Isu Christus.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Jax »

How about Julius Caesar?
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Jax wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:10 am How about Julius Caesar?
Paul's theological system is closer to Hadrian's policies on Jews; and an early second century origin for the Gospel fits the evidence better.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Jax »

Just out of curiosity, I have a thread on Paul's letters viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487&start=90#p100479
Have you by chance come across it? And if so, do you have any thoughts about it?
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Jax wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:40 am Just out of curiosity, I have a thread on Paul's letters viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487&start=90#p100479
Have you by chance come across it? And if so, do you have any thoughts about it?
I've looked at off and on but haven't gone through the entire thread.

One thing I'm trying to break out of is thinking about these texts as axiomatic. We simply do not know what they originally were or why they were written. [I'm referring to the Pauline letters]. When looked at from a certain angel, they almost seem needless and redundant. This is without presuming that there was such a thing as Christian churches when they were written. So the question remains, why write them?

The theory I'm working at is that originally there was one text, an imperial/heavenly decree, in the guise of a letter from Heaven and delivered from the Apostle/Angle of God. What its contents were I haven't the foggiest. Probably something similar to Epistle of Barnabas. But this was Marcion's actual text. Essentially, there wasn't an Evangelion or Apostolikon until about 165 ad. All of our evidence for Marcion's text conveniently appears then. That would still make it older than Orthodoxy, but contemporary with proto-Orthodoxy. And Justin Martyr? His text is useless. Irenaeus and Tertullian are obvious liars; and Adamantius is a late second, early third century text.

So this indicates to me that the break of Marcionism and proto-Orthodoxy occurred later than what is calculated, while the historical Marcion lived earlier than what is calculated. (I have him at 85 ad-157 ad).
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Charles Wilson »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:46 pmSecondly, presuming that the Gospels are written biographical accounts, this begs the question: why is the life of Jesus necessary to know? Surely all you really need to care about is that he died for your sins and that to get into Heaven you need to implement his teachings (i.e. decrees), but does it matter if he was born of a virgin, had brothers, performed miracles, etc? All of these sound as if they are ideas added (And hey! They were!)
Well stated.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree

Post by Jax »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:46 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:40 am Just out of curiosity, I have a thread on Paul's letters viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487&start=90#p100479
Have you by chance come across it? And if so, do you have any thoughts about it?
I've looked at off and on but haven't gone through the entire thread.

One thing I'm trying to break out of is thinking about these texts as axiomatic. We simply do not know what they originally were or why they were written. [I'm referring to the Pauline letters]. When looked at from a certain angel, they almost seem needless and redundant. This is without presuming that there was such a thing as Christian churches when they were written. So the question remains, why write them?

The theory I'm working at is that originally there was one text, an imperial/heavenly decree, in the guise of a letter from Heaven and delivered from the Apostle/Angle of God. What its contents were I haven't the foggiest. Probably something similar to Epistle of Barnabas. But this was Marcion's actual text. Essentially, there wasn't an Evangelion or Apostolikon until about 165 ad. All of our evidence for Marcion's text conveniently appears then. That would still make it older than Orthodoxy, but contemporary with proto-Orthodoxy. And Justin Martyr? His text is useless. Irenaeus and Tertullian are obvious liars; and Adamantius is a late second, early third century text.

So this indicates to me that the break of Marcionism and proto-Orthodoxy occurred later than what is calculated, while the historical Marcion lived earlier than what is calculated. (I have him at 85 ad-157 ad).
I have included a PDF of Paul's letters with all of the cruft that I could find removed viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487&p=100617#p100617

Give it a look and see if your interpretation of the content remains as you see it now.
Post Reply