You won't hear what I'm going to tell you from your pastor. He probably hasn't even thought about it.
Here is a great mystery:
Paul virtually never quoted Jesus or spoke of His earthly deeds in his Epistles. This even though he called Him Master and Lord, meaning that he considered Jesus his authoritative example.
Doesn't this strike anyone else as nothing short of amazing? baffling? sad?
Because of this oddity, some theologians have surmised that Paul wanted to start his own religion with Jesus as a sort of benign figurehead. This way Paul could have a great say in how this new religion was molded and shaped. I guess they could be right if it weren't for what we can surely see as Paul's real love for, and devotion to, his Savior. But other than those few, I haven't been able to find many who'll address this enigma.
But it is the truth, Paul's lack of a physical connection with Jesus in his letters. Think about it or even take the time to survey his work if you like.
Now before you label me as 'Paul-basher', let me put you at ease. I'm doing nothing of the sort. Paul was a follower of Jesus and a great one at that. He was even an Apostle and this acknowledged or granted after an examination by Peter in Jerusalem.
Here's another truly baffling question. What constituted the examination that was administered to Paul? What did Paul say or demonstrate that caused the other disciples to bestow the lofty title of apostle onto this former Christian killer?
The clues necessary to answer these questions, I believe, are found in a common, ancient Jewish convention; one lost completely within modern Christianity.
But before I write about that convention, I'd like to visit one special letter: Q.
For so many years scholars have supposed the existence of an early Christian document they've titled - you guessed it - Q. Some have assumed that it was the original collection of the Jesus material in written form. From this point, they've guessed how the gospels were written, or copied as it were from this collection and/or then from one gospel to another. Now many an egghead (see also this blogger) have dedicated themselves to understanding how the gospels came into existence. Some say Matthew was written first, some say Mark. But most of 'whoever' say that one copied from the other and then added more of the original material (Q) to their gospels. For those of you who are familiar with this branch of scholarship, you know how detailed their theories can be. They've put a lot of time and effort into their work.
But I don't believe in the mythical Q, at least not in any written form. First of all, nary a copy has been found (I do realize this is not sufficient evidence to preclude its existence). Secondly, many times when scholars suppose one has copied from another, there are slight differences in the text. The act of copying should produce no variance. Third, there is another hypothesis that is much more plausible.
It's the convention I spoke of earlier.
To be continued.
Comments