Zenaphobe

In a book I am currently reading the author has brought up something that really stood out to me.

The author of Galatians (Paul?) says this concerning Jesus being the fruition of Yahweh's promise to Abraham

Galatians 3:16 (New American Standard Bible)
compare this to Genesis

Genesis 22:15-18 (New American Standard Bible)
Can the Hebrew really be construed to support Paul's argument that since Genesis does not say "seeds" but "seed" it was meant to indicate a singular heir and not decedents as the context seems to be saying?

The book argues that Paul is trying to co opt Abraham to give his "Christ" an anchor in the ancient faith of the Hebrews so it appeals to a Roman audience, but runs an end game around Moses so he can castigate those who follow Torah which he rejects as no longer in effect.

Does this sound plausible?

Toto

What is the book that you are reading?

This question has been the subject of debate

answering Islam supports Paul

It seems most likely that Paul was reading the Septuagint rather than independently agreeing with its translators.

The argument seems a little contrived, typical of Christian's off kilter reading of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Zenaphobe

I'm reading How Jesus Became Christian (or via: amazon.co.uk).

DCHindley

It will depend a good deal on how seriously you decide to take the "unity" of Pauline thought.

I have deconstructed it into two narratives woven together:

The base, consistent narrative -

RSV Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4 Did you experience so many things in vain?--if it really is in vain. 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6)" 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the good news beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (Gen 12:3; compare to 18:18 and Sir 22:41) 9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Deut 27:26) 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live" (Hab 2:4); 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them," (Lev 18:5) 13 [...] 14a (So) that 14b [...] 14c the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, 14d [...].

15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified. 16a Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. 16b [...]. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

And the knee jerk off-topic interjections -

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree." (Deut 21:23) 14b in Christ Jesus, 14d that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith

16b It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," (Gn 12:7 LXX; 22:17-18 LXX) is Christ

Like others have correctly noted, the argument about seed (sg) vs seed(s) (pl) is forced. But that kind of quirky irrationality, interjecting statements that are at odds with the coherent narrative about gentiles participating in the covenant God had with Abraham by reason of his faith in God's promise to give him many children, characterizes every single Christ statement in the Pauline letters. While the master narrative told the gentile readers that THEY were Abraham's descendants if they share his simple faith, just as much as his physical descendants are for following the law of Moses that followed Abraham's expression of faith by many years, the Christ language say it was actually fulfilled in Christ who by his crucifixion transcended the law. It is a complete re-interpretation of what Paul had originally said.

Since I like to think Paul was probably not schizophrenic or bi-polar, the Christ language was probably not Paul's. If not Paul's then whose?

DCH

rhutchin

In theory, anything is plausible. The author (Barrie Wilson) apparently argues that Paul and his followers highjacked the Christianity of Jesus from the first followers of Jesus and created a different Jesus and different Christianity. Wilson would have people reject the book of Acts as tales written to support Paul's actions.

This claim seems similar to those accusations about Paul in the first century which then caused Paul to defend his calling as an apostle in Galatians 1-2.

So, who do we believe - Paul or his critics? In 2 Peter we read,

"...our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

suggesting that Paul was controversial in his day and nothing has changed.

However, Paul is clearly identifying Christ with the OT and is clearly telling the Jews that they have perverted that which the OT says.

You can now choose to follow Paul or to follow Wilson regarding the nature of Christ and what Christ did.

rhutchin

I do not understand your argument and am confused about the conclusion you are drawing. The discussion in Galatians is about the role of the law in salvation with Paul's argument being that the law serves no purpose other than "...to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." The law cannot save. It can only bring a person to a point where he can be saved and this by faith. Paul then goes into detail about this faith and why it is that Christ is the center of this faith. Thus, the "Christ language" is appropriate to the argument that Paul makes. Paul is not likening the followers of Christ to the physical descendants of Abraham -- he is saying that the followers of Christ are the intended descendants of Abraham.

Regardless, I don't really understand the point you are making.

rhutchin

Given Paul's background, it is likely that Paul studied the original Hebrew scriptures and, while aware of the Septuagint, probably did not depend on it for anything.

While I would not say, "typical of Christian's off kilter reading of the Hebrew Scriptures," it is clear that the Christian regarded the OT in the sense of that which Christ said, "...Search the scriptures;...and they are they which testify of me." This is off kilter from that which the typical Jew would have understood these same scriptures.

DCHindley

Well, I admit it is not an easy idea to get one's head around. Paul without Christ? Impossible!! It took a long time for me to accept it myself, back in the late 80's and early 90's when I finally sorted it out.

What I had proposed was that a man, we can call him Paul as a convenience, traveled extensively throughout the Mediterranean and Arabia, probably as a retainer to one of the several Herodian households active in the 1st century AD. He was himself of Jewish lineage, and very proud of that.

If you read Josephus, you may be aware of the story of Helena the Dowager Queen of Adiabene, a Parthian client state. She and her sons Monobazus the king and Izatus were interested in Judaism and became close to a Jewish trader who encouraged them to express that by living as "faithful gentiles." Later, another trader influenced Monobazus, strongly advising him to fully convert. Against his mother's wishes, he and his brother did so.

This illustrates that two types of Jewish outreach were active towards gentiles in that period. One fostered close relations while the other desired interested gentiles assimilate into Judaism. I'd place Paul squarely in the former camp, and the opponents he mentions squarely in the other. Paul's brand of outreach knew nothing of Jesus Christ.

There was indeed a Jesus movement active in roughly the same time period, but this was a movement of national liberation that predicted the arrival of a just and prosperous (Jewish) Kingdom of God that would rule the world as the successor to the Romans, under the governorship of an anointed leader (a "christ"). This movement had attracted some gentiles from the region of lower Syria (Judea, Galilee, the Lebanon), who hoped to enjoy the fruits of this kingdom as "strangers in the gate" or even as full proselytes. It was proponents of this kind of kingdom of God, both Jewish and gentile, who Romans disparagingly called "christians."

Jesus, the leader, was executed for sedition, and the later Jewish rebellion failed utterly, causing many among the gentile wing of this movement to became disenchanted. In time, they reinterpreted Jesus the messianic king into Christ the divine redeemer, thus creating Christianity as we know it within a decade or two of the failure of the rebellion in 70 AD.

Proponents of the new, revised (gentile) Christianity, came upon genuine writings of Paul, which had reached out to "faithful gentiles" (faithful to the God of the Jews), something they also thought of themselves as, and published them in redacted form to make Paul a Christian after their own fashion. What I did was separate from the consistent narrative about faithful gentiles the Christ doctrine of the redactor(s).

A short essay explaining the process and a complete (although not final) analysis of all of the Pauline books is available at Ben Smith's Text Excavation site:
http://www.textexcavation.com/dch.html

Ben put my hypothesis out there as a courtesy, although I believe he thinks it is truely a bit "out there," if you know what I mean. However, it was (and is) a serious attempt to make sense of the sources.

DCH

Zenaphobe

That's a rough synopsis of his theory, but I wouldn't phrase it that Paul "hijacked" it as much as several types of Christianity had developed and Paul's version survived and the writer of Acts appears to smooth over the differences between Paul and the Jesus movement headed by James.

In all honesty, when I was a practicing Christian it became apparent to me that there was a sizable gap between Paul's teachings and the teachings attributed to Jesus and the Epistle of James. It was hard to unsee once I realized it.

Have you never just in a fleeting moment asked yourself why Jesus would hand pick, live with, and train 12 (or 11 considering Judas absence) apostles throughout his ministry and appear to them after his resurrection, only to knock some guy off his horse and reveal a totally different sounding message to?

Sure Paul was controversial, he never spent a single day with Jesus nor ever quotes him one time, but is to be considered the grand repository of knowledge beamed to his mind in some close encounter with a voice from the sky?

None of that even raises a little red flag? I realize faith is prescribed as the cure to all these questions, but it all sounded rather fishy after I began to dig beneath the official traditions offered up for consumption.

Really? It is all so clear that in Genesis any one with a half a brain could see that "seed" really doesn't mean decendents of Abraham but some single entity hundreds of years in the future?

Those silly Hebrews and their scriptures they couldn't understand until some guy got knocked off his steed and was given the secrets every Jew missed for ages.

But how do I know that Wilson wasn't given a special revelation one day when he saw a light and fell off his ten speed? :Cheeky:

Your ultimatum lacks clarity, who's Paul should I follow?

The Catholic Paul? The Orthodox Paul? The Baptist Paul? The Reformed Paul? The Quaker Paul? The Mormon Paul?

I think I will have to stay uncommitted until I get my own personal revelation from Yahweh to settle all these issues. :huh:

rhutchin

By several types, I get the sense that you mean primarily that type promoted by Paul and that type promoted by James. I don't see any real differences between Paul and James if all we have are the writings in the Bible attributed to them.

Can you describe the sizable gap that you discovered between Paul, James, and the teachings of Jesus.

Paul's story can seem strange, but it is documented fully and we do find Paul having to defend his claim to be an apostle. The plot line does not seem strange given its beginning on the road to Damascus and verification to Barnabas of God's actions and intent. When you dug beneath the official traditions, what exactly did you find?

Apparently so. Paul provides his exegesis of the language in Genesis. Given the acceptance of Paul by the Christian community in the 1st century, I see no reason not to accept Paul's explanation. The Jews were notorious for misunderstanding (or maybe of always trying to circumvent) the teachings of the OT. Why should we think they got this part right?

Simple; ask him. Is he making that claim? Does he say this in his book?

That Paul whose writings have been included in the Bible.

As is the case for all people.