Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 12-20-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

It's a trick of the infidels. They abbreviate the hot link in the text. So if it is a link with "..." you gotta open up the page and then cut-and-paste the link from your browser.

Try this.
http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com...nfeature71.pdf

Thanks a lot prax. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to view source. :banghead:

TedM · 12-20-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Sorry Ted I overlooked your response to my post.

I have a couple of problems with your response apart from the obvious presumption of an HJ and an acceptance of gospel ''facts" as such.

For example- an ambiguity, Paul never mentions the synagogues AFAIK, so we can't draw anything from that. But he does mention "circumcisers" and the like as rivals without, IMO, implying that a fatal split has occurred. They are still communicating and ''within the fold" of Judaism, perhaps just.

According to him he was the apostle to the gentiles and Pete or Cephas, I forget which, had that role with respect to the Jews. So there was still, in Paul's day, interaction between the 2.
Which for me points to "John"s healing of the blind man leading to excommunication as reflecting a much later date a la Marsh as above.
In other words it's a fiction based on later times.
So whilst we have, can I call it ''rivalry"?, perhaps persecution, we do not have formal excommunication from the synagogues.
That has been placed in the very last years of the first century, how accurately I am not sure.
And Paul states that whatever form his persecution took, it did not occur in Judea because he was unknown there except by reputation. At least that's how I interpret his comments in Galatians 1.22.

Couple all that with the chronology from my post above and I see "John" as the last of the 4 canonical gospels with "Mark" being written post-70 ce at the earliest.

I'll leave interesting stuff such as his relation to the synoptics and the debate about the existence of synagogues in Palestine for later.
cheers
yalla

Thanks for your comments yalla. I still think that if Paul, who likely reflected the views of Pharisees in general was going about approving the deaths Edit: or even 'just' the "persecution" of certain Christians, then it isn't a stretch to conclude that at some early point, and in some synagogues there was a crackdown on Christians which doesn't have to rise to the level of a nation-wide excommunication. But, I admit a lack of knowledge about the times and Marsh may be aware of why my perspective is simply wrong on the matter.

ted

yalla · 12-20-2005, 09:11 AM

Julian
I missed your post too, you guys are too quick.
In any conflict between Acts and Paul's apparently genuine letters then I would tend to go with Paul.
As I said to Ted I think Paul portrays the hellenistic Christianized Jews as still being 2 wings within, loosely and uncomfortably, within Judaism. He is still saying that the Jews are OK just not as good as those with faith and not law...to simplify dramatically. The Jews are still capable of seeing the light, no final irrevocable split as painted by the birkhat-ha-minim of c90ce, has yet occurred.

But I haven't read Koester so I don't know why he places the split so early.

Edit ..you've done it again posted while I'm typing
I'll have to read you later Ted.

Julian · 12-20-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Julian
I missed your post too, you guys are too quick.
In any conflict between Acts and Paul's apparently genuine letters then I would tend to go with Paul.
As I said to Ted I think Paul portrays the hellenistic Christianized Jews as still being 2 wings within, loosely and uncomfortably, within Judaism. He is still saying that the Jews are OK just not as good as those with faith and not law...to simplify dramatically. The Jews are still capable of seeing the light, no final irrevocable split as painted by the birkhat-ha-minim of c90ce, has yet occurred.

But I haven't read Koester so I don't know why he places the split so early.

Edit ..you've done it again posted while I'm typing
I'll have to read you later Ted.

Koester is relying pretty heavily on Acts for his dating in this case. His judgment is generally sound but, like all writers who write about religion, caution should always be exercised.

If I get a chance I will type/scan the relevant section in here. It is from Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II, pages 90-100 or thereabouts, in case you have the book.

Julian

yalla · 12-20-2005, 09:24 AM

Last post from me for a while...bedtime...but it's interesting.

Ted:" Paul, who likely reflected the views of Pharisees in general..."

See what I find fascinating about all this are the tangents and derails that pop up all the time.
Hyam Macoby reckons Paul was not a pharisee and that scholars who claim Paul uses pharisee logic are mistaken. Once again the pharisee association is from Acts [ I think] and I regard such as unreliable. Anyway Macoby presents an argument that Paul is not representing the pharisees and he seems to know his stuff so I more or less run with that unless someone rebuts it.
From "Mythmaker"...interesting but...?
good night.

Edit Thanks Julian

TedM · 12-20-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Last post from me for a while...bedtime...but it's interesting.

Ted:" Paul, who likely reflected the views of Pharisees in general..."

See what I find fascinating about all this are the tangents and derails that pop up all the time.
Hyam Macoby reckons Paul was not a pharisee and that scholars who claim Paul uses pharisee logic are mistaken. Once again the pharisee association is from Acts [ I think] and I regard such as unreliable. Anyway Macoby presents an argument that Paul is not representing the pharisees and he seems to know his stuff so I more or less run with that unless someone rebuts it.
From "Mythmaker"...interesting but...?
good night.

Edit Thanks Julian

Here are some things Paul says about himself, including the claim to being a pharisee. Macoby apparantly doesn't buy the claims for some reason:

Philippians 3

Quote:

4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Rom 11

Quote:

1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Galations 1

Quote:

13For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;
14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

ted

yummyfur · 12-20-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Last post from me for a while...bedtime...but it's interesting.

Ted:" Paul, who likely reflected the views of Pharisees in general..."

See what I find fascinating about all this are the tangents and derails that pop up all the time.
Hyam Macoby reckons Paul was not a pharisee and that scholars who claim Paul uses pharisee logic are mistaken. Once again the pharisee association is from Acts [ I think] and I regard such as unreliable. Anyway Macoby presents an argument that Paul is not representing the pharisees and he seems to know his stuff so I more or less run with that unless someone rebuts it.
From "Mythmaker"...interesting but...?
good night.

Edit Thanks Julian

Paul calls himself a Pharisee in regards to the law, in Philippians 3:5, he also says he is a Benjamite, which could mean he is an Idumean(who were classified in the tribe of Benjamin). Considering he has a kinsman named Herodion, he mentions in Romans 16:11, I think the combination makes it likely he was part Idumean, and probably related to the Herods in some manner, this would explain the claims that he was a Roman citizen.

yummyfur · 12-20-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Thanks for your comments on Muller's reconstruction. I haven't looked at it in detail, but he claims all the pieces fit together in the end. It seems complicated so I keep putting it off..

take care,

ted

I assume this was intended to be directed at me? The posts are really racking up fast here, so no problem.

I only skimmed Muller's portion on John and concentrated on the parts that pertained to the section in question. It seems like he is still working on it, so it is probably premature to comment, but I didn't find his arguments convincing, for the sections in question. Though many of his points outside of that were interesting, though I wouldn't always agree with his conclusions, it seems like it would be good to go over to look for possibly problematic passages. Though I'm not sure I have the time either, especially since he covers a wholly reconstructed Gospel of John based on his points

yalla · 12-20-2005, 10:05 AM

yummy
I'm trying to go to bed and youse guys keep writing interesting stuff.

I thought the pharisee etc stuff was from Acts only but you're right about Philippians of course.

IF that is genuine Paul?? I have seen doubts expressed about that and someone I read [sorry about the imprecision] says no Jew would have claimed to be a Benjamite...might have been Macoby again, I'll check later.

But I wouldn't agree about the stuff from Romans cos Paul regards lots of people as his "kin" [eg Junias or Junia depending on the version and preferred sex, and Andronicus at 16.6] "brethren", ''sister" [eg Phoebe at 16.1], the son of "his mother and mine" [?] Rufus at 16.13, and so on in Romans and others.
It does not imply family/kin/blood relationship but membership of those who are believers in JC.
Note that Andronicus is a Gk. name and the others are Roman so you can get Paul related to anyone using that method.
Absolutely gotta go.
cheers
yalla

yummyfur · 12-20-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

yummy
I'm trying to go to bed and youse guys keep writing interesting stuff.

I thought the pharisee etc stuff was from Acts only but you're right about Philippians of course.

IF that is genuine Paul?? I have seen doubts expressed about that and someone I read [sorry about the imprecision] says no Jew would have claimed to be a Benjamite...might have been Macoby again, I'll check later.

But I wouldn't agree about the stuff from Romans cos Paul regards lots of people as his "kin" [eg Junias or Junia depending on the version and preferred sex, and Andronicus at 16.6] "brethren", ''sister" [eg Phoebe at 16.1], the son of "his mother and mine" [?] Rufus at 16.13, and so on in Romans and others.
It does not imply family/kin/blood relationship but membership of those who are believers in JC.
Note that Andronicus is a Gk. name and the others are Roman so you can get Paul related to anyone using that method.
Absolutely gotta go.
cheers
yalla

Well all the Herodians were Benjamites, they certainly claimed to be, and were quite powerfull despite this. Certainly among some Jews this would be a bad thing, because of the Idumean connection, though the real problem for the Herods was that Herod the Great's mother was Nabatean. But this definately was not a problem for all, and probably was of no concern to diaspora Jews, who were probably as muttish as any Idumean to some inbreeding high priestly family(who were very geneologically concerned). Also Galilleans might have been pretty suspect to, from a similar Jewish perspective. I'm not sure Pharisee's would have cared that much, or as much, especially since they had a mass popular following who were probably pretty diverse.

Also Paul refers to Herodion as Suggenes, a greek word meaning kin, he uses only in Romans, and only in regards to Herodian, and Sosipater(who is possibly from Beroea, modern Aleppo, near or in the tetrarchy of Chalcis, controlled by several Herods) and possibly Lucius and Jason, though it's unclear if they should be included, or are merely fellow workers like Timothy. He is not using Adelphos for brother or Adelphe for sister, which he uses generically for fellow believers. Most Herodians had Greek or Roman names, as did many Judeans(including some high priests), so this is hardly meaningfull wether their names are not Jewish seeming.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2005, 09:11 AM	#33
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Julian I missed your post too, you guys are too quick. In any conflict between Acts and Paul's apparently genuine letters then I would tend to go with Paul. As I said to Ted I think Paul portrays the hellenistic Christianized Jews as still being 2 wings within, loosely and uncomfortably, within Judaism. He is still saying that the Jews are OK just not as good as those with faith and not law...to simplify dramatically. The Jews are still capable of seeing the light, no final irrevocable split as painted by the birkhat-ha-minim of c90ce, has yet occurred. But I haven't read Koester so I don't know why he places the split so early. Edit ..you've done it again posted while I'm typing I'll have to read you later Ted.

12-20-2005, 09:24 AM	#35
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Last post from me for a while...bedtime...but it's interesting. Ted:" Paul, who likely reflected the views of Pharisees in general..." See what I find fascinating about all this are the tangents and derails that pop up all the time. Hyam Macoby reckons Paul was not a pharisee and that scholars who claim Paul uses pharisee logic are mistaken. Once again the pharisee association is from Acts [ I think] and I regard such as unreliable. Anyway Macoby presents an argument that Paul is not representing the pharisees and he seems to know his stuff so I more or less run with that unless someone rebuts it. From "Mythmaker"...interesting but...? good night. Edit Thanks Julian

12-20-2005, 10:05 AM	#39
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	yummy I'm trying to go to bed and youse guys keep writing interesting stuff. I thought the pharisee etc stuff was from Acts only but you're right about Philippians of course. IF that is genuine Paul?? I have seen doubts expressed about that and someone I read [sorry about the imprecision] says no Jew would have claimed to be a Benjamite...might have been Macoby again, I'll check later. But I wouldn't agree about the stuff from Romans cos Paul regards lots of people as his "kin" [eg Junias or Junia depending on the version and preferred sex, and Andronicus at 16.6] "brethren", ''sister" [eg Phoebe at 16.1], the son of "his mother and mine" [?] Rufus at 16.13, and so on in Romans and others. It does not imply family/kin/blood relationship but membership of those who are believers in JC. Note that Andronicus is a Gk. name and the others are Roman so you can get Paul related to anyone using that method. Absolutely gotta go. cheers yalla

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.