spin

As I see it, we all tend to retroject christianizing ideas into what Paul described. I'm trying actively not to do that and look for what he might have meant, if it weren't what the christianizing interpretation says.

Of course the assemblies in Judea (it is the geographic term, from ioudaia) would have been happy that Paul stopped his harassment and took up something he thought was messianism.

Paul is packaging his conflict with the pillars in the best light. They shook hands (we got rid of this whacker); he shook hands (they're shaking hands with me! but what do they know).

To separate amicably? That Paul wouldn't bother them in Judea and they wouldn't bother him in the diaspora? (Package it however you like.)

The assemblies of Judea were in christ, ie they were messianic. As a zealous conservative Jew, he wouldn't have liked any deviance. So he harassed it. His revelation gave him what he considered a form of messianism, so he could tout the fact that he was now a messianist and they could praise god that Paul had stopped being such a nasty schmuck. (However, looking at his beliefs, he certainly wasn't what a "traditional" messianist might call a messianist, but reports such as those heard by the messianic groups in Judea needn't go so much into the nitty-gritty.)


spin

Chili

It was much worse than that because the messianic Jews didn't have a clue
what Paul was all about because they were from below and Paul was from above (Cephas and James were from below while Paul and Peter were from above ).

Here it is: "8 and last of all, as to the [child] untimely born, he appeared to me also." Untimely born here is like a thief in the night that can also be translated as the "natural way" as opposed to the way of the evangelist wherefore it was on the road to Damascus instead of a holy roller tent.

dog-on

Actually Tertullian's polemic contra Marcion, which if based upon actual documents from Marcion would place Tert's source at pre-150AD.

Do you have an earlier reference for Galatians?

gurugeorge

But why can't this be a peculiar bunch of Jewish Messianists who had developed a new concept of the Messiah - an inversion and revaluation of values of the traditional ideas? (That he'd already been, rather than was one to come, that he was a spiritual rather than military victor, that he died obscurely, in shame instead of being covered in glory and reknown and dying a noble death?)

This seems to fit the facts with the least necessity to alter a bunch of traditional views. The key point is subtle, but goes right to the heart of the matter: the passage in Corinthians gives no hint that any of the people mentioned (Cephas, the others, the apostles) had known personally, as a human being, the Christ figure Paul is testifying to in that passage. If one reads that passage as an interpolation it's all up for grabs, but if one takes it mostly as genuine Paul, then this missing link is perhaps the most important missing link (in terms of an HJ theory) there is. But it fits beautifully with a type of MJ theory, similar to Doherty's, that sees the original Messiah idea as the invention of a small religious community, a revision of the Christ concept itself, of an alteration from the position one takes towards the Jewish Messiah as being one of expectation to being one of enjoyment of the fruits of victory won (hence the aptness of the term "gospel"). (Note that it's also a very different position from "contemporary Messiah claimants".) Paul's wrinkle is just to extend this spiritual victory to all Gentiles (which means they don't have to observe Jewish custom to enjoy the fruits of the "victory") - but this is the sticking point with the original developers of the idea, the Jerusalem crowd, who "preach a different Christ", i.e. their more stolidly Jewish one.

It also fits in with the idea that the Judaism of the time was less of a monolithic thing in terms of beliefs, and more diverse, than is portrayed in the gospels (this being according to Price one of the things that gives the game away about their relative lateness).

i.e. such an idea would have upset some Jews of the time (perhaps, initially, Paul, although I actually think that may be an interpolation), but appealed to others, some of whom, in terms of the diversity of their beliefs, seem to have been indistinguishable from pagans anyway (they just observed Jewish customs).

Amaleq13

He doesn't say but, since we shouldn't necessarily expect him to do so in either case, that isn't particularly helpful.

What it comes down to for me is that I consider it more likely that a Jewish belief in a crucified messiah resulted from a reaction to an actual, traumatic event than any other possibility.

Amaleq13

No, I'm not. Why do you persist in this error after I have repeatedly pointed it out? The "escape clause" is part of Paul's "whole good news" and "good news" in and of itself.

I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that Paul's "escape clause" was the entirety of his "good news". If you truly still think this, you need to reread the discussion because you really haven't been paying attention at all. I've consistently argued that Paul can and does refer to both "the whole package" and "the gentile exception" as "good news". I've also consistently argued that this means you are wrong to assume that Paul means "the whole package" every time he refers to his "good news".

You stated it repeatedly but you've yet to provide any evidence establishing that Paul always meant "the kit and kaboodle" when he referred to "good news".

Yes but it was also clearly something Paul could refer to as "good news" in and of itself.

Of course I am. It is all there is Galatians.

Paul tells us he harassed the messianists then accepted their "good news" as well as "good news" unique to Paul which was specifically intended for gentiles. The combination became his "gentile good news".

Paul eventually decided to present his "gentile good news" to some Jerusalem messianists for approval. They give at least the appearance of acceptance of Paul preaching his "gentile good news" to gentiles.

Representatives of the Jerusalem messianists, however, continued to harass those who accepted Paul's gentile exception so that they would deny it because they didn't want to be harassed for accepting the crucified messiah.

Paul presented the beliefs he had accepted along with something new for gentiles to Jerusalem messianists who accept a crucified messiah but opposed what Paul specifically teaches to gentiles. The connection between the original beliefs Paul accepted and those held by the Jerusalem group should be apparent to anyone willing to think about it.

No, I'm simply thinking. You should try it.

O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you do not obey the truth? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was shown to you crucified!

No, you are misreading the text. Paul is asking how they could fail to obey the truth (ie agree to circumcision) given their acceptance of the significance of Christ's crucifixion. What follows this statement is not about the truth of the crucifixion but the truth of the sacrifice resulting in the gentile exception. They were free from the Law because Christ was crucified! How, asks Paul, could they accept the latter but not the former?

Once again, you stop and assume when you should be reading the rest of the text for understanding.

The important thing for "those of the circumcision" was that their acceptance of the crucified messiah was not exposed by non-conforming gentile converts.

6:12 says otherwise. I told you not to stop reading!

No, he's haranguing the Galatians for turning against his "gentile exception" and condemning "those of the circumcision" for convincing them to do so solely to avoid being harassed for their acceptance of the crucified messiah.

As I've said repeatedly, Paul's revelation was that 1) the beliefs he persecuted were true and 2) the gentile exception. And, as I've also said repeatedly, Paul felt free to refer to the whole and the exception, alone, as "his good news" or "the good news of Christ", etc.

As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. (6:12, KJV)

This makes it quite clear that "those of the circumcision" accepted a crucified messiah and feared being persecuted for it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Could be. The important issue for HJ/MJ is what was the Source of Jesus knowledge for Peter, James, El all. Personally I'm not really interested in HJ/MJ but instead Polemics. The important issue for Polemics here is did Peter, James, El all think that Jesus' supposed resurrection was a historical event. We have the following reasons to think the answer was no:

1) Resurrections are Impossible so they could not have been historical witnesses.

2) Christianity chose not to preserve anything from them on the subject.

3) Judaism of the time either didn't make such claims or they would be extremely rare.

4) Q has nothing to say on the subject.

5) The original Gospel has a primary theme that Peter, James, El all did not believe in a historical resurrection.

6) Christianity chose to make Paul it's star witness for the supposed resurrection and we would all agree that the original source which convinced Paul was Revelation.

7) Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians that the source for Peter, James, El all was the same source he had.

Paul's direct witness for HJ has relatively little weight because:

1) Paul lacks credibility

2) Paul emphasizes Revelation

3) Paul competed with supposed HJ witness.

4) Paul didn't know Jesus.

The only significant potential for Paul's witness is his Indirect evidence of those better positioned to know HJ. I need to continue the Paul-Bearer of the Dead (Word). Sources of Paul's Witness. Revelation, Reception or NecRomancy? to properly size up such Indirect evidence.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gurugeorge

If I may toss in another thing about this fascinating subject that I think is of note, from what I've gleaned in my haphazard way, there's quite a lot in the term "appeared to Cephas (etc.)" that's of interest. From an article on our own dear Infidels library:

This, to me, suggests the following: you have a bunch of enthusiasts who are poring over Scripture, and no doubt subjecting themselves to spiritual practices and regimes that induce in them visionary experiences, and through a combination of this kind of experience and study of Scripture, they "grok" the idea of an "inverted Christ", a value-revalued Christ, from Scripture: i.e. they think they "see" in Scripture a Messiah who has already been, they think they can "find" a Christ who fooled the Archons by coming in a totally opposite way from the way He was expected. His victory was spiritual not military, he died in obscurity rather than fame. Or rather, to be more precise: they think such a "Joshua Messiah" (like "Everyman Messiah") has revealed Himself to them in Scripture.

At this stage there's a hint of the dying/rising idea, but no more than a hint, and as Wells says in one of his books, the idea of crucifixion of good people wasn't unknown in the Jewish milieu - it has some small precedent. It's only later, as Christianity mixes more thoroughly with the Graeco-Roman milieu and becomes more eclectic that the latent parallel is expanded upon.

Cephas is the big boss of this crowd, but there are other "apostles" of this idea, which at this stage is still culturally Jewish.

Paul (if we follow the traditional idea) at first finds this idea a "stumbling block" and persecutes them, but later groks the idea himself, becomes an apostle himself, but has his own personal revelation - probably more visionary, more an experience in which this "Christ" speaks to him - I'd say that it's Paul's experience here that's more visionary or "astral" in the sense that Doherty means, or the emphasis is weighted more that way with Paul than with the original crowd, where the emphasis is more weighted towards this "Christ" revealing himself to them in Scripture in the sense I've indicated in the article above in the bolded bit. (Incidentally, this also explains at a stroke why all the references to Christ's sayings and doings in the early Christian stuff is Scripture based - at that stage he existed nowhere else than as something you could get from Scripture if you squinted at it properly.)

And Paul's vision simply extends the idea to all people. i.e. since the victory of this version of the Messiah is spiritual, and not just some military victory that puts Jews on top, there's no reason why it can't be a spiritual victory for all mankind, so no need to be an observant Jew to accept that the victory has already been won. It's a done deal. You are saved. No need to look to the future for salvation, it's already here, the Kingdom of God is at hand, if you but open your eyes.

This is Paul's special twist, and that twist is the amended (by him) good news he's talking about in Galatians - and he's counterposing that with the "Old Skool" Christians who still "follow Cephas" or the other apostles, who have to convert their students to Jewish observance before they can accept what to those apostles is still a Jewish Messiah. (i.e. they still think their good news is good for everybody, in a way, and still want to spread it, but they think everybody has to cut their winkies to reap the fruits; Paul says no, no need for that).

Later note: should make clear that what this implies is that Paul at first "receives" the idea from the Jerusalem people - as an idea - but later has his own particular revelatory experience in which he "gets" the idea (i.e. he sees the Christ in Scripture, just as the Jerusalem people do), and then later still has his own peculiar visionary experience that gives him his own unique twist on the idea. i.e. it's almost like three stages.

GakuseiDon

This is the same as Doherty's idea IIUC. Doherty posits that early Christians believed that Christ was crucified in a non-earthly realm, but details were revealed via Scriptures.

Rich Oliver

Paul may have introduced the idea that Jesus was crucified, as apposed to killed by some other/ non specific method.

Paul letters do not suggest he was on the road to Damascus. A central aim of Acts is to subordinate Paul to the Jerusalem Christians, the people that according to the Gospels / Acts had been his followers on Earth in the recent past.