Solo

Absolutely: there were whole classes of educated slaves, running households or estates, acting as private secretaries, and serving as tutors or subject matter experts. The word "pedagogy" derives from Greek paidagogos, which was a name for a slave assigned to tutor and oversee young boys.

See e.g. James S.Jeffers, Greco-Roman World Of The New Testament Era. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jiri

avi

Thanks Jiri, Peter, and Don.

The Paidagogos represents the antithesis of "slave". These were trusted people, who were regarded as members of the family, according to Frederic A.G. Beck. Are we hanging our hat on the quantity of 'paidagogos', to explain the notion that a significant number of early Christians, who read the gospels, hot off the scribes' sweaty palm, in Greek, were trusted household slaves who were responsible for indoctrinating, and instructing the young generation, the progeny, of ruling class aristocrats? Is that even logical?

This entire notion strikes me as absurd, and very poorly thought out.

How many wealthy families were there, 1800 years ago in the Mediterranean basin? How many of them purchased slaves? How many of those slaves functioned as paidagogos, i.e. literate in Greek? How many of those paidagogos were interested in reading the Gospels? Would they have identified with the aspirations of the poor free man, the wealthy free man, or the wealthy slave of the wealthy free man? How many of the paidagogos understood that retaining their lofty status within society depended upon instructing their youthful charges with traditional Greek axioms, particularly with respect to theos.

Christianity was an invention of the financially secure, well educated, literate, free man, not his slave. The money to build all those temples came from the wealthy, not the impoverished.

Sorry, I am not buying this myth about Greek-literate slaves being the target audience of the gospel writers.

avi

gurugeorge

Not in the sense of "taking it lightly".

As I said, I have no problem believing that there are some lies in the NT Canon - membership numbers being one. "Our vast numbers" is just the sort of thing you'd expect people to hype up.

Gods, spirits, etc., less so - those are more something that people are mistaken about, have superstitious beliefs about, have visionary experiences of, have mystical experiences of union with, etc., etc.

Sometimes they lie about those things, but most often it's error: they are experiencing something that's a natural function of the brain under certain conditions, that's misleading them into thinking they're seeing and communicating with an entity that in fact doesn't exist.

But that experience is the source of a genuine belief - it's not a lie, from the point of view of mystics and visionaries, when they say something like "Jesus spoke to me". They have simply had a false experience, a hallucination, or a vision, of Jesus speaking to them - something that seemed real, but wasn't in fact real.

Again, this is the primary source of religion. Without human beings happening to have these kinds of experiences occasionally, to a degree that gives them conviction when they speak of them to others (just as you'd have natural conviction about having just spoken to your grandmother on the phone), no such terms as "gods", "spirits", "demons", or "Jesus Christ" for that matter, would have ever entered discourse - especially not as causal terms. The rational mind that doesn't have these kinds of experiences (or has them, but for one reason or another doesn't take them as objective) only proposes natural causal solutions.

mountainman

Thank f******* christ for that avi!
Let me know when you find some alternatives.

The money to build all those "christian temples" came from two source. The first was massive imperial taxation (of the Graeco-Roman populace, particularly the wealthy) in gold bullion (not coins but bullion) and the second was the imperial pillaging (ie: robbery) of the pagan temples and shrines. Archaeologists suggest that this first happened in the early 4th century.

aa5874

So, why do you have problems when I say there are some lies in the NT Canon?

Now, once Jesus did not exist and there were no vast numbers the evidence supports LYING.

Why do you invent a JESUS cult without any historical source? Just say they were LYING and forget about your unsubstantiated TEENSY-WEENSY JESUS CULT before the Fall of the Temple.

There is no need to go beyond the evidence.

I have already asked you to name a single vision from Jesus to the Pauline writer that is not a lie.

I need to see you produce a true vision from Jesus to Paul.

Once you admit that people sometimes lie about visions then you must admit that Saul/Paul or the Pauline may have been LIARS.

I have isolated lies in the Pauline writings. The PAULINE WRITERS could not have been contemporaries of Jesus called Messiah. Jesus the Messiah was a fictitious character in the Jesus fiction stories.

The Pauline writers could not have persecuted Jesus believers before the Fall of the Temple. There was no Jesus fiction story yet.

But, the Pauline writer could not have been mistaken when he claimed he met PETER and stayed with him for 15 days.

The Pauline writer was LYING.

Peter was a fictitious characters in fabricated fiction stories after the Fall of the Temple.

But, it is absurd or irrational to suggest that fabricating events which did not happen, (hearing the voice of non-existing entities at a time when the recipient of the vision was also not alive), is like "talking to your grandmother on the phone".

And, again I am dealing specifically with the Pauline writers. Please demonstrate the exact vision from Jesus to Paul which was not a LIE.

Please state exactly where the Pauline writers got the name JESUS the Messiah.

Please state exactly when the Jewish populace heard for the first time of JESUS the Messiah, the Son of God.

Please state exactly when it was known on earth that there was a CIRCUMCISED Jew who was worshiped as a God.

Loomis

Right. Fwiw the practice of replacing YHWH with ‘the Lord’ is even evident in Hebrew. Look at Psalm 68:11.

Adonai gave a word; and great was the company of those who proclaimed it.

Also Psalm 78:65.

Adonai awoke as from sleep, as a man wakes from the stupor of wine.

But afaik Philo never made a blunder like Paul did in Romans 10:5-13.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

That passage requires ‘Lord’ in Joel 2:32. That passage requires the absence of YHWH. Further there is no hint of a prohibition against speaking the divine name. In fact Paul instructs his readers to “confess with your mouth.”

Philo, on the other hand, was aware of YHWH and the prohibition. Get a load of On the Life of Moses, II 115.

And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters.

Also On the Life of Moses, II 132.

… and above this cidar is a golden leaf, on which an engraving of four letters was impressed; by which letters they say that the name of the living God is indicated …

Do you understand my point?

Do you see the difference?

Philo was aware that kurios was a placeholder for a proper name. In fact he wrote a whole dissertation on the subject.

Paul on the other hand was clueless. He didn’t know. He never knew. He was writing generations later – at a time and place where YHWH was long forgotten.

Loomis

Jesus/Joshua was an honorary title bestowed on messianic figures. You can see it in Philippians 2:9, Ephesians 1:20-21, Numbers 13:16, Sirach 46:1, Barnabas 12:8, Matthew 1:21, and John 10:25-26.

If Philippians 2:6-11 is an older hymn (and it looks to me like it is) then why would ‘Paul’ have to understand it?

Maybe ‘Paul’ just plopped it into his letter to appease someone.

Maybe ‘Paul’ didn’t notice that it used Jesus/Joshua as an honorary title.

Loomis

My post sucked. What I meant was this:

Philo’s generation understood that kurios was a placeholder for an unspeakable divine name.

Paul’s generation was completely unaware of any unspeakable divine name - at least as far as Joel 2:32 is concerned; they thought that kurios was original.

How many generations would it take for them to forget?

Loomis

Get a load of Leviticus 24:16 MT

He that curses the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death.

Compare that with Leviticus 24:16 LXX.

He that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death: let all the congregation of Israel stone him with stones; whether he be a stranger or a native, let him die for naming the name of the Lord.

In Leviticus 24:16 LXX the sin has changed from cursing the name to identifying the name.

Now compare that with Romans 10:9

…if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Do you think Paul drew any relationship between Joel 2:32 and Leviticus 24:16 LXX?

It’s a fun subject. Isn’t it.

spamandham

Since you apparently find the evidence for dating Paul's letters to the first century so overwhelming...so much so that anyone who disagrees is simply being 'silly'... would you mind sharing what that evidence is?