Theory: The original evangelium was an imperial decree
Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
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.