Gregg

Actually, after reading some of the other replies in this thread, I have to backtrack from that. It's actually not that clear that "Lord" is a reference to Jesus. I've found it doesn't pay to underestimate Doherty. Claiming that his case is built entirely on "speculation" and that he "doesn't consider the implications" of his statements is just plain wrong.

I still disagree with him about Apollos, though.

spin

Not having read Doherty, I'd like to know what your problem with Apollos is.


spin

Gregg

Well, he makes the argument that in 1 Corinthians Paul is including Apollos among those who deny "Christ crucified." I've read the relevant verses carefully and I just don't agree. I'll have to explain my thoughts on this in more detail later.

Gregg

Actually there's not much to tell. Read Doherty's take on 1 Corinthians, read it myself, and I just didn't see what Doherty saw on it. I agree with him on everything else but I think he's just flat wrong about Apollos. I mean, in 16:12 Paul calls Apollos "our brother" and says he encouraged Apollos to go visit the Corinthians. That doesn't strike me like he's talking about a bitter theological rival.

However, the Apollos thing is pretty tangential to the MJ argument--Doherty's being wrong here really doesn't effect his main case one way or the other.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks spin now I inderstand it better. Gakusei - whaddya say to that?

Ted Hoffman

Gregg stated,
Your objection is clear. A couple of questions will clear this disagreement:

1. 1 Cor. 1:11-12 shows that the Corinthian congregation had broken up into cliques, specifically those who follow Paul and others who follow Apollos. Doesnt this indicate that there was a rivalry between Paul and Apollos? (the last two groups are dubious - this is consistent with the arguments fronted by Wayne Meeks, Walter Bauer and Francis Watson regarding Peter going to Corinth )

2. In 3:6 Paul states: "I planted the seed, and Apollos watered it; but God made it grow." and Doherty argues that Paul is trying to handle the rivalry diplomatically but nevertheless gives Apollos the short end of the stick.
Paul arrogates himself the role of laying a foundation and assigns Apollos the role of constructing upon and after doing that, he portrays Apollos as not constructing well or destroying it.

Doherty states "Paul lets his animosity shine through, for he warns that the quality of that construction will have to suffer the test of fire on the day of judgment. Then, styling the Corinthians as God's temple, he warns (3:17) that "anyone who destroys God's temple will himself be destroyed by God," and he concludes his little diatribe by revisiting the theme of the foolish wisdom of the world vs. God's wisdom (which is to say, what Paul preaches). "

Do you agree that Paul's depiction of Apollos as among "those who fancy themselves wise" (3:18) as an indication of Paul's distaste towards Apollos? If not, can we then regard it as an indication that they were bosom pals?

Gregg stated,
3. Its simple. First, once you agree that in 17-31 where Paul condemns the wisdom of the world, he includes Apollos (if You disagree, please refute Dohertys argument regarding this).
Once you agree, then when Paul says in verse 18 that " the message of the cross is foolishness to those on their way to ruin", it means he (Paul) includes Apollos among them.

Jesus' crucifiction was central to Paul's theology while it may not have been central to Apollos' theology because (a) Apollos is not known to have proclaimed a crucified Jesus: Acts 14 states that Apollos knew "only the baptism of John" and had to be taught by Priscilla and Aquila (b) The religious milieu and background from which Apollos arose had an intermediary "son" who conferred salvation to mankind - not a crucified saviour figure.

Doherty states "The early Christian record is full of documents which offer a Son without these features: The Epistle of James, the Didache, the Odes of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermas, many second century apologists. In some cases, such a Son is simply a Revealer. (Q and the Gospel of Thomas also have a Jesus who does not suffer and die, but this is a different case in that it reflects an invented human founder of an (originally) non-cultic nature"

So, first, you need to decimate the argument regarding the rivalry between Paul and Apollos, then fix Apollos in the right religious background.

On a wider mythical context, when you go back to the works of the apostolic fathers (Shepherd, Didache etc), you can see that Apollos was among the last of a dying breed. He still held "the son" as an intermediary figure, as a revealer and a channel for God's wisdom. Pauline theology represents the emergence of a crucified saviour figure whose death and suffering conferred salvation to mankind. But even at this stage, Paul believed the death and resurrection of Christ took place in a sublunar realm (consistent with the Platonic worlview) and could only be seen by those who were chosen and via revelation.

Beyond Paul, the materialists emerged. Greek (materialistic) philosophy with the works of Homer and the influence of the Hellenistic period rendered Paul's christ unfeasible. Jesus had to be brought down to earth, born, tortured and died on a location on earth.

And then the Gospels emerged and Acts was written. Paul unknowingly represented a transition from a spiritual to an earthly son. His rivalry with Apollos is the window through which we can peek and behold the backdrop from which a HJ emerged.

GakuseiDon

I don't understand your point. Didn't Paul write in Greek? If so, are you saying he has translated the name "Ahijah" from the original language and applied it to James?

On "Lord" by itself meaning "God", that isn't necessarily the case.

1Cr 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1Cr 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

1Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Phl 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

In the last, even Doherty seems to agree that "Lord" here refers to Jesus Christ:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset3.htm#Sean
If you can make your way through the stream of speculation, it seems Doherty has no objection to "Lord" standing on its own as referring to a divine Jesus.

spin

Yes, Paul's letters are in Greek. No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that you cannot presume to know what the expression "brother of the lord" signifies, firstly because we have the Hebrew names which means just that if translated by parts and secondly because of the knowledge of the use of the word "kurios" as evinced in the LXX translation from the Hebrew bible.


=YHWH (See 6:20b)

This is one of the two or three examples in Pauline literature in which kurios refers to Jesus, which I take as interpolations.

=YHWH (This is Paul's opinion, not a commandment)

=YHWH

I don't follow Doherty. I don't think I've read anything directly by him.

That kurios refers to Jesus is definitely the case in instances in Luke, John, and Acts, though again these are few. It is not the case in Matt nor in Mark, except in the addition at the end.


spin

Gawen

Well, another wrench has been thrown in my understanding of the problem. First we have Doherty and his ideas, which to me make a great deal of sense....almost. Then we have Maccoby, and he makes a great deal of sense....almost.

One would think that without some sort of crucified figure, the Jesus movement would not have started. However, look at Hal-Bop comet and it's cult, for example. So it is conceivable for the Jesus movement to have begun with or without a crucified figure. Given that the HJ/MJ movements gives us nothing in the way of a living divine resurrected Jesus (until Paul), perhaps it was only the veneration of a martyr for a secular cause, turned hero worship and then whatever?

Someone must have done something for the early Xtians to revere. We all know that the living divine aspects came much later. But how do we find that middle ground?

There was a HJ.
He was divine.
Movement begins.
He was martyred.
He was resurrected.
Movement escalates.
Paul begins.

Or

There was a HJ.
He was not devine.
He was a rebel.
Movement begins.
He was martyred.
There is no resurrection.
Movement slowly escalates.
Paul begins.

Or

There was no HJ.
Movement begins anyway.
Paul begins.

It would be nice to have NT scripture...omitting ALL known redaction and interpolation. Then, take this info and try to apply a timeline using both sides of the camp, HJ or MJ, on a Excel format. Or a graph of some sort. I think I'll be silent on the matter. I've read so much lately...I'm quite sure I've forgotten some and even mixed a little up.

Amaleq13

Now, add in the possibility that Paul introduced this specific means of execution to a descending-dying-ascending redeemer sect/cult.

It has been suggested that the two allegedly pre-Pauline hymns (don't have the specific locations right now) originally lacked any reference to the cross and that these were added by Paul.