New Testament propaganda

[Realworldjack]

There are those on this site who continue to refer to the New Testament as "propaganda".

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can this idea be demonstrated to be a fact? If it cannot, then who is it that is spreading, "propaganda"?

[Mithrae]

the overwhelming majority of the NT was not addressed to the public, but was rather addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would read this information, other than the original intended audience,

On the contrary, the pattern of Christians circulating epistles among many churches was begun very early on according to Acts 15. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation are not addressed to particular individuals or even particular churches, but to all believers to whom the letters might be passed ina region or indeed the world; the Pauline corpus is actually quite unique in the NT as being addressed to specific churches: Yet in his letter to the Colossians, Paul apparently not only expected but requested that they read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa (Colossians 4:16), a habit which Luke (v. 14) undoubtedly noticed. In fact the author of 2 Peter explicitly mentions the wide dissemination of many of Paul's epistles. Compared to virtually all other ancient works, there is a surprising wealth of early NT manuscripts because of the Christians' habit of copying and disseminating their correspondence.

[Realworldjack]

the overwhelming majority of the NT was not addressed to the public, but was rather addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would read this information, other than the original intended audience,

On the contrary, the pattern of Christians circulating epistles among many churches was begun very early on according to Acts 15. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation are not addressed to particular individuals or even particular churches, but to all believers to whom the letters might be passed ina region or indeed the world; the Pauline corpus is actually quite unique in the NT as being addressed to specific churches: Yet in his letter to the Colossians, Paul apparently not only expected but requested that they read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa (Colossians 4:16), a habit which Luke (v. 14) undoubtedly noticed. Compared to virtually all other ancient works, there is a surprising wealth of early NT manuscripts because of the Christians' habit of copying and disseminating their correspondence.

None of what you say, would have a thing in the world to do with the original intent of the author, which can be clearly demonstrated. Let us remember, we are talking about the content of the NT intending to be "propaganda". What others may do with these writings later, would have nothing whatsoever to do with the original intent of the author.

On the contrary, the pattern of Christians circulating epistles among many churches was begun very early on

Correct! These writings were intended for Christian audiences, and were past around as you say, "among many churches" who would have been Christians as well. Therefore, the information being given, would be to those who already believed, and would not have been intended to persuade, seeing as how these folks would have already been persuaded.

Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation are not addressed to particular individuals or even particular churches, but to all believers to whom the letters might be passed ina region or indeed the world;

What you are saying cannot possibly be correct. All these letters can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who would have already believed, and it would have been the original intended audience, who would have been in possession of the original writing, and there would not have been one other copy for quite a while. Let us recall what the article had to say, which you supplied us with,

the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves

This was said in reference to the author of Luke/Acts copying from another, and the point being made would be that Luke/Acts would have to be much later, because of what is stated above. So then, either the article is correct, or they have no argument for Luke/Acts being written much later.

This should certainly tell us that these letters could not possibly be intended for the "world". Moreover, and again, all these letters can be demonstrated to have been addressed to believers as well, which would have in no way been an attempt to persuade anyone of a, resurrection, since the intended audience would have already been persuaded.

This is the whole point? Can the material in the NT, be demonstrated to be an attempt to persuade an unbelieving world? Or, can the content be demonstrated to be intended for those who would have already believed?

the Pauline corpus is actually quite unique in the NT as being addressed to specific churches: Yet in his letter to the Colossians, Paul apparently not only expected but requested that they read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa (Colossians 4:16)

Again, you are correct, but seeing as how Paul made this request in this letter, would seem to indicate that this was not a normal thing. Moreover, there are letters from Paul to different Churches, and individuals, in which there would have been no benefit in sharing these letters with others, because they would have nothing to do with others. A couple of examples would be, his first letter to the Corinthians, as well as his letter to Philemon.

Next, as noted above, these folks would more than likely have to share the original letter, since there more than likely would not have been copies at this point.

And of course, we are back to the point that, all these letters were addressed to those who were already believers, and the request was to share with those who already believed. Therefore, I am not seeing as to how these things can be considered to spread information to a wide audience, in order to persuade, since the audience would have already been persuaded?

In fact the author of 2 Peter explicitly mentions the wide dissemination of many of Paul's epistles. Compared to virtually all other ancient works, there is a surprising wealth of early NT manuscripts because of the Christians' habit of copying and disseminating their correspondence.

Again, the problem is the fact that everyone of the letters of Paul, can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who would have already been persuaded. Next, some of the letters of Paul can be demonstrated to be dealing with specific problems in that one particular Church, with first, and second Corinthians, along with Galatians being very good examples. So again, how is this in any way an attempt to spread information widely, in order to persuade, when the letters are confined to a specific group of people, who would have already been persuaded?

The overwhelming majority of material in the NT, would simply be the by-product of the lives of those who wrote them. In other words, Paul was traveling around planting Churches, and as he traveled, he would have concerns for particular Churhes, and or indivivuals, and would sit down to write out these personal letters to these particular audiences, addressing these specific concerns.

Likewise, the author of Luke/Acts, traveled with Paul, and after all these events, he decides to sit down to write an account, for Theophilus out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth".

My question then is, how can folks simply living out their lives, part of which would be to sit down to write letters addressed to those who would have already been persauded, be seen as an attempt to persuade a wider audeince, when the particular audience being addressed, would have already been persauded?

[Mithrae]

Therefore, the information being given, would be to those who already believed, and would not have been intended to persuade, seeing as how these folks would have already been persuaded. . . .
already been persuaded. . . .
already been persuaded. . . .
already been persuaded. . . .
already been persuaded. . . .
already been persuaded. . . .

Did I get them all? I skipped over all the "already believed"s Look, if every individual in the church of Galatia already knew, understood and fully accepted everything found in Galatians, the letter would not have been written at all; it would have been utterly pointless to do so. The fact that Paul felt it worth the time and effort of writing and sending a courier with that content is proof that some of the recipients were indeed at least considering "another gospel," some perhaps were newer converts who'd joined after Paul left, some perhaps fully convinced of Paul's gospel but unsure of all theological details etc. etc. Even these early Pauline letters to specific churches discussing fairly specific topics (while reading the first parts of your post I was thinking something similar about Galatians and Corinthians that you went on to mention) were obviously intended to persuade and reinforce the author's opinions on the immediate recipients... and beyond that, explicitly intended to cause indirect influence on non-believers who witnessed the recipients' Paul-guided behaviour (eg. 1 Cor. 6:5-7, 10:27-33, Gal. 6:1,10).

That is even more obviously true of the more general non-Pauline epistles (and the pseudo-Pauline ones too, for that matter) addressed to any and all believers who received a copy, and of Paul's own more general epistles later in his career (Romans being an obvious example) after the pattern of passing the letters on to other nearby churches had been established. While the immediate recipients of these letters were indeed Christian believers in a general sense,
a) the very fact that the authors felt they would be worth writing proves their purpose of persuading and/or reinforcing the authors' opinions among any new or wavering or still-learning followers,* and
b) one of the explicitly-stated intentions behind that direct influence on believers' actions and opinions was the hope of exerting an indirect influence on others who saw or talked with those believers (eg. Philipp. 1:27, Col. 4:5-6, 1 Peter 2:12-17, 3:15)



* In particular it's worth noting that one of apologists' most-cited passages, 1 Cor. 15, is explicitly addressed towards some members of the Corinthian congregation who "say there is no resurrection of the dead" generally and perhaps even that "Christ has not been raised" specifically; not repeating established humdrum 'facts'/beliefs, but trying (through dubious appeals to Scripture, mostly-unnamed alleged witnesses who the Corinthians didn't know and would probably never meet, and the nasty consequences of not believing) to persuade and reinforce wavering or absent belief in the dogma on which Paul's whole theology was built.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

Look, if every individual in the church of Galatia already knew, understood and fully accepted everything found in Galatians, the letter would not have been written at all; it would have been utterly pointless to do so.

The point is, Paul was addressing certain problems inside this Church, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to persuade a wide audience of anything. You see, it was because Paul had detected a problem with the theology inside this Church, that Paul was compelled to address this issue. Therefore, he was not attempting to persaude a wider audience of anything, since he only had this Church, and the problems inside this Church in mind as he wrote.

This is the exact reason it was addressed to this Church. In other words, he was not sitting down in order to write out something for every Church to read, and certainly not the world. Rather, it is clear he only had the Galatian Church in mind as he wrote, since this is the Church which was demonstrating the problem.

This would be no different than the president of a certain demonanaation writing a letter to a particualr Church in that demonination, addressing concerns he may have in that particular Church. Other Churches may read this letter intended only for this particular Church, but this would not change the intent, of the author as he wrote.

There is no way for you to get around this fact. Either Paul intended for all Christians to read this letter as he wrote? Or, he only had the Galatian Church in mind as he wrote? The evidence certainly suggests that he only had the Galatian Church in mind as he wrote, and he certainly had no intentions for the world to read as he wrote.

So then, how in the world can this letter be seen as attempting to persuade a wide audience of anything?

and beyond that, explicitly intended to cause indirect influence on non-believers who witnessed the recipients' Paul-guided behaviour

THANK YOU! Because we are not talking about, "indirect influence", (which examples are few and far between) but rather that the intention of the letter would have been to influence a wider audience. You seem to be in agreement at this point, that this letter would have only been intended for one particular Church.

That is even more obviously true of the more general non-Pauline epistles (and the pseudo-Pauline ones too, for that matter) addressed to any and all believers who received a copy, and of Paul's own more general epistles later in his career (Romans being an obvious example) after the pattern of passing the letters on to other nearby churches had been established. While the immediate recipients of these letters were indeed Christian believers in a general sense,
a) the very fact that the authors felt they would be worth writing proves their purpose of persuading and/or reinforcing the authors' opinions among any new or wavering or still-learning followers, and
b) one of the explicitly-stated intentions behind that direct influence on believers' actions and opinions was the hope of exerting an indirect influence on others who saw or talked with those believers (eg. Philipp. 1:27, Col. 4:5-6, 1 Peter 2:12-17, 3:15)

You are bringing up a whole other debate, but all you are really doing is to reinforce the fact that, the overwhelming majority of the NT, would have been addressed to those who would have already been persuaded that the Christians claims were true, and therefore could not be seen as attempting to persuade the world.

The whole point here is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been instructions, and, or information to those who would have already believed, and was not addressed to the public in any way. The only material that we would be unsure about would be Matthew, Mark, and John, because the audience is not identified. Of course we cannot assume that these 3 were intended for a believing audience, but we also cannot assume that it would not have been, since the overwhelming majority can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who would have already believed.

So again, it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the overwhelming majority of the material in the NT, was addressed to those who would have already believed, but for some reason there are those who want to insist that it was intended to persuade the wider world, when this is clearly not the case in the least.

The question is, why are there those who want to look past the obvious evidence? This to me, would be more in line with the definition of "propaganda" than the letters, and accounts, contained in the NT which were clearly addressed to believing audiences.

[Red Wolf]

Why did Paul doubt the gospel he preached?

Paul said that he received his gospel directly from Jesus.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12

But when Paul met the Apostles in Jerusalem he had doubts concerning his gospel.
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. Galatians 2:1-2

Don't you think it is strange that on the one hand, Paul claimed that he received his gospel directly from Jesus. But on the other hand he found it necessary to submit his gospel to the Apostles in private for fear that he had been preaching in vain?

[Difflugia]

Don't you think it is strange that on the one hand, Paul claimed that he received his gospel directly from Jesus. But on the other hand he found it necessary to submit his gospel to the Apostles in private for fear that he had been preaching in vain?

I don't think Paul is doubting his own gospel. I don't think he ever doubted his own gospel. The wording there is weird, but it reads to me that Paul is worried that the trip itself would be "in vain" if the Jerusalem church didn't accept him. I think Paul was saying that he tried to convince the "pillars" first and, reading between the lines, I don't think he was very successful because his attempt at a positive spin on it just ended up sounding paranoid: "They sent infiltrators to try to enslave us, but Titus didn't even need to get circumcised, so I won!"