ichabod crane

If the Pauline epistles were not written by a Jew trained in the Pharisaical tradition, then they were obviously written by a bare-faced liar. The author repeatedly and unambiguously claims these things about himself. That is different to people writing about someone else (e.g. the gospel writers writing about Jesus) who are going on word of mouth, stories in the community, and so forth. They need not be seen as liars, because they may well have believed what they heard was true, some of it might still be eye-witness, but some of it obviously isn't. But to claim for oneself that one is Jewish and a Pharisee when one is not, is hardly something that one could be mistaken about. In addition, the (true) works of Paul appear not as summaries of an already developed community theology, but as original works of theological thinking. He is developing a new theological system, not just describing one. This is particularly clear in Romans, but is seen in all the Pauline corpus. There is plenty of internal evidence of Pharisaical influence, so why should we not take the author's word for it, especially since the author, whoever he was, seems to have been a primary influence in shaping the whole movement?

Wait a minute. What do you mean they stole? I am your average 1st century Jew (or gentile). There is a new and exciting movement making various claims about Jesus. I get involved and as I do I hear all sorts of stories about him, maybe even meeting people who knew him. I decide to write about it. Why am I such a bad guy? We can't judge an ancient religious movement by 21st century standards of historical scholarship.

This is a good point, although it does assume that the passages in question are entirely interpolated. It probably suggests that the movement essentially died out, or became few in numbers, fairly rapidly within Judea *after Jesus' death*. Within, say 20 to 30 years of his death, there might have been hardly any of the original Jewish, apostle-of-Jesus led group left, perhaps because of disillusionment with the failure of the movement's apocalyptic fulfilments. But Paul came along during that period and transformed the religion to appeal to gentiles. He was also influenced by Greek thought, and he spent his life, not in Judea, but travelling around the Roman Empire trying to establish churches. So the new religion became established, and probably from there tried to re-evangelise Judea, leading to the condemnation at Jamnia.

But that's the problem! If the gospels are an attempt to establish an orthodoxy *at a time when gnosticism already existed*, then why aren't they anti-gnostic (in the same way, as, say, Colossians or the Pastorals)? For example:

Colossians: I am saying this so that no one may deceive you with plausible arguments ... See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ ... Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking ... These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.

I Timothy: Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [GNOSIS]; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.

There is general concensus that these and other passages are directed at early forms of gnosticism.

But what about the earlier quotes from Hebrews I posted? Like us *in every respect*? Isn't that a pretty firm insistance of being human? I can't see how you can evade the implications of these texts and their underlying logic (i.e. Christ can represent us because he was just like us).

There's no question that Hebrews downplays the historical aspects of Jesus, in favour of his heavenly role. BUT there is also a clear assertion that he was fully human and tempted in every respect like us, in order that he might play that heavenly role. So it's not nearly as clear-cut as you suppose.

There is another curious thing in this regard. Doherty seems to appeal to Paul's flesh-spirit dualism as an example of Greek influence. In that I think he is correct. But if that is true, then surely references to "flesh" (sarx) and related words such as soma and melos, should be taken as having reference to material physicality and human nature. They certainly have that meaning with regard to other humans. Why should we not take them as having the same meaning with regards to Christ? Did Paul conceive of "spiritual flesh"? I don't think so. Flesh and spirit are diametrically opposed in his thinking.

Incidentally, there is textual evidence for the earlyness of Paul's writings which I would like to point out. In Romans 6:12, it reads "do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, that you should obey its lusts". Now in the earliest and best attested manuscripts, the pronoun "its" is neuter (autou), which means that it is the lusts of the body that Paul is referring to, not the lusts of sin (soma, body, is a neuter noun, but sin, hamartia, is a feminine noun). However, in some later manuscripts the pronoun has been changed to the feminine, aute, which means that it is the lusts of sin being referred to, not the lusts of the body. This is most easily explained as an anti-gnostic editting of the text. It indicates that the text originated before gnosticism and orthodoxy had developed, and that gnostics were probably using it to support their position. Hence the alteration.

The Greek word is diabolos. It is standardly translated as devil; as an adjective it can mean malicious gossip. There seems pretty good evidence for the meaning of a malicious spirit or devil. For example, Jesus says ""Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil [diabolos]?".

Obviously Paul regarded it as important. But at the risk of being seen as "insane", why did he not mention it anywhere in any of his other epistles, if it was so important to his theology? Why isn't it even alluded to in Romans, which is his major theological work? I Corinthians is more an ad hoc response to problems in the Corinthian church. This seems an insurmountable difficulty with your theory. In other places in Corinthians, he sees other things as of vital importance, such as not sleeping with prostitutes. That could also lead to damnation. Should we say that not sleeping with prostitutes is the centre of Pauline theology?

In fact, baptism seems to have been far more important, since Paul refers to it frequently in most of his epistles, and develops it into his theology.

But that's what is in dispute. I don't see any evidence that Paul, or other New Testament writers, saw it in terms of eating one's God. That is a much later development in Christianity, due to the influence of Hellenistic thought. You have to show this from the text, not just assert it.

The problem with this interpretation is, that Jesus constantly speaks NON-LITERALLY, and the Jews misunderstand him because they interpret it literally. For example, Jesus said to Nicodemus that he had to be "born again", and Nicodemus got stuck on that because he interpreted it literally instead of figuratively. Jesus said that he would destroy the temple and in three days build it up again, but he was not speaking literally. But the Jews misunderstood him. There is every evidence that when Jesus speaks of eating his flesh he is speaking figuratively, not literally. The Jews again misunderstood him. This is the constant Johannine pattern: Jesus speaks in mysterious, figurative language, the Jews interpret it literally and go ape. But you're doing with your interpretation exactly what the Jews did!

Textual evidence, please!

Why? The gospels (OK, the synoptics especially Matthew) don't claim that no gentiles were around. They just claim that Jesus didn't go to them and left them alone.

That seems like a dubious explanation to me. It would have been easy to portray Jesus' ministry as entirely Jewish without running down gentiles or mentioning them at all. It just doesn't fit the data.

But you're ignoring the evidence! As I've mentioned, the book of Acts clearly asserts that the Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem. Now you can throw that evidence out if you like, but you can't then assert as fact that they weren't persecuted in Jerusalem. What basis do you have for saying that? Also, there is no evidence of persecution in the countryside. There's evidence of persecution in Damascus, but that was a major city. Outside of Jerusalem, there isn't any evidence of persecution until we get to the later Roman persecutions. Paul in his epistles constantly exhorts the people he is writing to to show concern and send money to the Christians at Jerusalem. Why? Because their lives were difficult due to persecution.

A 17 year gap, I think, is more than an adequate explanation. Your second question is based on the assumption that Paul didn't persecute in Jerusalem, which is what I'm disputing.

The GTh is too difficult to place in time, unfortunately, to be able to play much role in a theory of Christian origins. The only complete surviving manuscripts we have are Coptic translations from the original Greek which are much later. In any case, if there were originally Q1 and Q2 as separate streams, the obvious conclusion is that the writer of GTh only had access to Q1 and not Q2. But that doesn't mean that Q2 is not historical. It just means that the writer of GTh didn't know about it.

OK, tell me specifically what allusions there are in the gospels to the day of firstfruits in the Pentateuch.

This I can't agree with. The 7 epistles bear all the hallmarks, in terms of grammatical features and theology, of being written by the same author. Romans in particular bears an internal logic which makes interpolation difficult to sustain. I've already presented one piece of evidence that Paul's writings are early. The biggest problem with what Yuri says, though, is that there isn't manuscript evidence to support it. I'd need some manuscript evidence before I was willing to say this was anything more than very dubious speculation.

If you assume that these are the earliest evidence!

rlogan

Sure, there is a big difference. I was only questioning the use of "mailcious" in the sense of hurt. We have no argument. Point taken.

That's pretty clear.

Maccoby argues that "Paul" talks through his hat. For sure, he boasts of having such training. But when we look at specific examples, he's a bungler. Romans 7: 1-6 is used as such an example where Paul tries to argue that death breaks legal obligations. But he draws the wrong analogy and someone trained in Pharisaical law would have been more exacting.

In a way, it is like modern preachers that have pseudo-scientific rhymes that blow away the limited minds of the sheeple.

It is also alleged that Paul is a tentmaker and a "sheriff" and a Roman citizen. I use the term "sheriff" as I do not understand exactly how Paul could have been "persecuting" the Christians. It is odd that this is mentioned without the context of an official position.

So let's say I'm suspicious of this character "Paul".

spin has taken me to task over this too, and we have made peace over it. "Stealing" is literally true in my view. First, they are collecting money, are they not? regardless, they are taking the time and resources of people that could be spent on - IIDB Bible Criticism and History talking about them


I have come to that opinion, yes. Reasonable people will disagree. Except for Vinnie whom I must beat about the head with sticks while spin is gone.


This is an interesting line of thinking.

The major obstacle, of course, is the central Doherty theme of a complete lack of HJ details in the Pauline epistles.

OK. Let's say there was an HJ and perhaps the "Jerusalem Church" is the most direct descendant. Paul has a real problem. His divergent views are competing directly with Jesus.

How can Paul (who has things revealed by Spirit) compete with the direct pipeline to Jesus?

So note that in the exhortations, he does not do so. Instead it is an argument against visions and human thinking.

I would say that the gospels are anti-gnostic on the face of them. There is no more powerful anti-gnostic weapon than to say that this is the gospel of the son of God. You must listen because this is not a vision or argument. It is the gospel from the mouth of God.


Forgive me for not addressing this specifically. What I need is one unambiguous example of a real-life type of reference. The "in every respect" comment is sort of the inverse of God making us in his own image. I need where he was born, who his parents were, where he died. Chopping down the cherry tree. Straight A's in school. That sort of thing.

We are each entitled to our views.

Remember I'm just the second-string player here. But I think that when we were going over this "according to the flesh" business in threads from the past - that this meant "in the physical world", so to speak.

We can have Jesus moving in the spiritual world as well as in the physical world as the Greek Gods and every other kind of God can do. This comes down to examining specific passages to contest the two assertions of what "according to the flesh" means.

I'm not sure how to evaluate this, as i am not familiar with the distinction.

[/QUOTE]

ichabod crane

You'd have to be more specific here. Paul argues that a woman is bound to her husband only while he lives; and that seems an emminently reasonable interpretation of the Pentateuch. There were a number of different schools of Pharisaical interpretation, and the Talmud is largely a later development, so I wouldn't necessarily accept Maccoby's claims without careful consideration; but I honestly can't see why this passage is problematic. In 6:7 Paul alludes to Pharisaical doctrine regarding freedom from debts once a person has died.

Yeah, but I've heard and read what those "modern preachers" say, and it is the antithesis of the majestic and intricate theology of Paul.

It's well attested that citizens of Tarsus were granted Roman citizenship; that's an indepedent verification of the accuracy of the claim. I don't know that there were any claims to be a "sheriff" in any formal sense; only to act on behalf of the Jewish religious authorities to round up Christians. Why would you expect an official position?

Fair enough! I'm not though.

But maybe people like involvement in a religion. People spend money on all sorts of things I think are a waste - going to Madonna concerts, going to sports matches, and so forth. In addition, a great deal of the money seems to have been spent helping poor people (widows, etc.) in the community. There was a great deal of self-denial and self-sacrifice involved. It's unlikely that Paul got anything out of it except a lot of trouble. If people feel that God exists and want to spend money related to that, why should that be any worse than an atheist who feels that God doesn't exist, and so writes a book about that (and hence makes money)?

But Paul claimed to have many amazing visions. Colossians, however, was not written by Paul but written later, in a context where orthodoxy was starting to have to respond to gnosticism. So they condemned practices associated with it, including visions, intermediatry beings "elemental spirits" and "angels" or "messangers", asceticism and so forth.

By appealing just to what Colossians condemns: direct visions and supernatural experiences.

There's no direct reference to gnosticism at all. The beliefs they contain are not compatible with gnosticism, but they don't directly address it either. Jesus doesn't say, "verily I say unto you, avoid what is falsely called gnosis", or "verily I say unto you, avoid asceticism", or whatever, as Colossians and the Pastoral (for instance) do.

You're forgiven! But why *in the context of his argument* should the writer mention any such thing? He wants to establish only that Jesus was like us in every respect. If he dwelt on specifics like where he was born and which trees he chopped down, that would emphasize the differences to the rest of us from the specifics of his particular life. That's not what he wants to do. He wants to emphasize the commonality of his existence with ours, as a basis for what he now is. I can't see how "like us in every respect" can be an inverse of created in God's image.

Assuming your interpretation of kata with the accusative is correct, that will solve passages like Romans 1:3 & 9:5, although even that is highly doubtful. Paul calls Abraham his ancestor "according to the flesh" using exactly the same Greek phrase (Romans 4:1). I am not convinced that Paul ever uses sarx to refer to anything other than the physical human body. But in any case, let's look at another Pauline passage, I Cor. 15. There are a number of points that could be raised here. Firstly, verses 3-7 seem to imply a connection with the historical Jesus. But consider carefully verses 12 & 13:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;

When Paul says here that some are teaching that there is no resurrection of the dead, he is clearly speaking about dead humans. Then he says that if there is no resurrection of the dead (i.e. of dead humans), then Christ has not been raised. Now why does this follow logically, if Christ's death and resurrection are not of the same category and kind as the general death and resurrection of other human believers? In fact, isn't that the whole point of the firstfruits analogy? On the day of firstfruits, the first sheaf of the harvest was used as a symbol and promise of the rest of the harvest. The sheaf that was cut was of the same kind as the remaining harvest. Otherwise it couldn't be the firstfruit. Verses 21-22 say, "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ". Paul calls Christ here an anthropos, a human being. There just are too many holes in the theory. We have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the Pauline texts.

Vorkosigan

In Galatians he does. The passage on being born under the law. Wish I had more time to respond to this thread <gnaws knuckles in frustration>

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

The only time the phrase "born under the law" occurs in Galations is 4:4. The nearest occurrence of the word sarx is 4:13 where it clearly refers to the physical body. I've had a look through every occurrence of sarx in Galations, and I can't find anywhere that it doesn't plausibly refer to the physical body.

The irony here is that your and Doherty's position actually lines up with what conservative evangelicals say, for opposite reasons. You argue against the use of "flesh" as physical body because you don't want to admit that Paul thinks of Jesus as human. Conservative evangelicals argue against the use of "flesh" as physical body because they don't want to accept that Paul has a gnostic-like negative view of the physical world. It's a case where opposite extremes meet up, so it seems.

rlogan

OK. Paul is making an analogy

wife = Church;
former husband = Torah
new husband = Christ.

potential logic: Torah dies. Church marries Jesus. Plain as day. But here is what Paul says:

Good golly that's a bunch of barbed wire and baling twine wrapped around a tractor axle.

Wife dies? Dies to the law? You mean no longer obligated to it because she's dead? So after she's dead she marries Christ's body? Her new husband is the arisen christ? Wait - Christ dies. So shouldn't she marry someone else? Or is she having an affair with Christ and that kills the law, sort of a murder by adultery? Or is it that since she's dead and Christ is dead they're both free to marry again? What good is marrying after you're dead?

Really, the analogy in general terms is quite simple. But Paul has made it into a masterpiece of obfuscation. The only thing still alive is the law. Yet, isn't that the thing that is supposed to die? Sheesh!


I mean this kindly. They all try to sound majestic. As with the above. But when you parse it down it's a pretty leaky boat.

As with so much of the bible, we have some really sloppy stuff here. The Jews had different sects, and I'm not sure how the Christians would have been persecuted by the Jews exactly. For what? I mean precisely. And what kind of persecution, specifically? You have an existing paradigm that fits, maybe. Mine is that this is B.S. If they obeyed the law, or were even apostates there was no trouble to be had with the Jewish authorities.


Well, some do. Others are forced. History has had some bad swings there. But I think this is not a subject we need to spend a lot of energy on.


oops - duh. Like I said. Wait 'till the varsity shows up.


Quite true. I'm contending it isn't necessary.

Were it to only be in this specific place that we found the lack of such anchors then I would be more inclined to accept the argument. That is, if in some other chapter, or even another letter, we had references I could unambiguously say are HJ material - I'd go for it.


Fair enough. I agree he wants them to make Christ "human" in an empathetic way. You want to go "all the way".



Bedtime!! Will respond to other parts tomorrow...

Amaleq13

There is no crucifixion of Jesus in Q. Assuming he was dead when the document first started to form, there is absolutely no indication that his death was considered any more significant than the death the prophet were warned might occur.

Is there a crucified Jesus in GTh?

There is no teaching Jesus in Paul. There is only Christ crucified.

Your combination of the two is artificial and unsupported by this earliest evidence. Your "homebase" is an illusion.

Vinnie

Why is the lack of mention of crucifixion important? Q doesn't mention a lot of narrative details that are undoubtedly true.

Jesus' death was not significant. I'm not Tom Wright. His death was probably a surprise and pointless. Some decided to turn it into the fulcrum of faith on the basis of some sort of "Rez experiences" while others simply continued Jesus' mission by using his sayings.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Suddenly you are fond of arguments from silence? And an extremely weak one at that. It doesn't matter how many times he mentions it. You are ignoring the clear importance he gives the ceremony by his condemnation of those he accuses of abusing it. They are accused of hating the church and risking damnation! Please explain how an unimportant ceremony could warrant such consequences. Then explain why a ceremony commemorating the sacrifice that is clearly central to Paul's theology could become less than central.

Does he condemn those who do as hating the church or risking damnation?

Baptism is important because it is the initiation ceremony for the church. Without new members, the movement dies. As I already said, baptism is clearly a contender. The eucharist ceremony, on the other hand, is a sustaining practice serving as a constant reminder of the central belief of the faith as well as a symbolic joining with Christ. Every time I write a description of this meal, it astounds me that anyone could argue it wasn't considered to be a central and uniquely identifying practice for Paul's churches.

We should note, however, that Paul never connects the baptism ceremony to Jesus' own alleged baptism described in Mark. Once again, an opportunity for Paul to connect his theology to an actual guy is ignored. It is almost like he didn't know any story even remotely similar to the original Gospel tale.

You are starting to seem to me to be willfully obtuse, ichabod. There is no ambiguity in Paul's description of his revelation:

"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1Cor 11:24-25, KJV, unnecessary emphasis added)

If this same instruction were given in a pagan inscription, how reluctant would you be to describe this ceremony as constituting an example of the practice of eating one's deity?

Only the "level" of deity attributed to Christ can be seriously questioned. I don't think Paul considered him to be God but he clearly considered Christ to be a divine figure. The consumption of the symbolic flesh of such a figure is clearly more consistent with pagan beliefs than 1st century Judaism. As I mentioned before, we need look no further than the Fourth Gospel to find evidence that such a concept was quite offensive to Jewish sensibilities.

You are confused on two points. First, these are followers of Jesus who are described as abandoning the movement upon hearing this teaching. These aren't just "the Jews" misunderstanding him. These are followers depicted as being offended by the instruction. Second, there is no suggestion that their reaction was due to their taking him literally. It is the symbolism that was antithetical to Jewish sensibilities! The idea that bread and wine should be consumed as symbolic flesh and blood was a totally foreign notion to Jewish thought.

Ameleq13:Jesus is also portrayed as having his mind changed about at least one gentile so it is misleading to suggest the Gospel portrayal is consistent. In Q, gentiles are assumed present and clearly accepted.

"The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter." (Mark 7:26-29, KJV)

With regard to Q, we've already discussed Jesus' references to believing gentiles being compared unfavorably to Jews.

Amaleq13:The Gospel depictions of deliberately ignoring gentiles and focusing exclusively on Jews makes no sense within the context of a movement that has its origins in rural Galilee.

Where was there a stronger Hellenistic influence? Galilee or Jerusalem? Where were wandering prophets more likely to run across gentiles? Sepphoris, alone, establishes a greater gentile presence in Galilee.

Correct and that contradicts the depiction we find it Q. What it is consistent with, however, is a general tendency to emphasize the rejection of the Christian gospel by Jews despite (and likely because of) that gospel's claim to Judaism's history.

Perhaps it will be more clear if we work with specific examples of "running down gentiles". We've already seen with Mark above that this is clearly not a consistent depiction.

You are avoiding my question! Why didn't Paul persecute any of the churches in Judaea?

I'm not "ignoring evidence", I'm recognizing that we're dealing with unreliable evidence in this claim of Acts. This same book clearly depicts Gamaliel, revered leader of the Pharisees, arguing against persecuting the followers of Jesus. What is his reason? They might be right!

I didn't and the quote makes that clear. What I actually wrote was:

"We move from persecuted in the countryside to allowed to live securely in Jerusalem."

Who was persecuting the group in Jerusalem while Paul exclusively persecuted churches outside Judaea?

Who was persecuting the group in Jerusalem while Paul preached his gospel?

Why weren't James, John, or Peter killed until nearly 30 years after the movement continued in Jerusalem?

Paul says otherwise. He claims to have exclusively persecuted churches outside Judaea.

Please provide the passage where Paul gives that as the reason to send money to the Jerusalem group. This is a requirement they impose upon him as a condition of approving his gospel. I see no suggestion this was intended to somehow alleviate persecution. Acts suggests that the Jerusalem group has taken ascetic vows which, in turn, suggests they relied upon community support for their movement.

Amaleq13:If he had persecuted churches in Judaea, they would have known him by more than what they had heard.

The claim is made after Paul describes his visit with Peter after preaching his gospel for 3 years. Your "gap" is reduced to nonexistence. Paul is clearly claiming that the churches in Judaea knew him only by reputation because he had never persecuted anyone there.

Your dispute is with Paul because that is his claim.

I'll let Vinnie tackle that one, if he chooses. For myself, I consider scholars like Crossan and Meier to be more knowledgeable on the subject and continue to rely on their discussion of GTh evidence.

You continue to miss the significance of the observed divergence. These two groups diverge from a shared collection of sayings. As I've said before, I'm not sure how we can all either divergence "historical" given a shared source that doesn't appear to favor either. It is the divergence that is important. We can't claim that Jesus was apocalyptic because it could very well have been a development of the Q community following his death. We can't claim that Jesus was inclined to a more gnostic viewpoint because it could very well have been a development of the Thomse community following his death.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of specific allusions to "firstfruits" but to predictions of his resurrection placed in the mouth of Jesus. We find no references to any such predictions in Paul even though they would clearly have supported his gospel.

Ameleq13:The earliest evidence of Christian belief we have (ie Paul's letters) shows an existing diversity.

What is earlier than Paul or Q?

Amaleq13

You claimed Jesus' teachings and crucifixion constituted the "homebase" for the two traditions. There is no crucifixion in Q and no teacher in Paul. An actual "homebase" would be concepts shared in the earliest evidence of both traditions.

All that is actually shared is the name "Jesus".

Unfortunately, the "rez experiences" group has apparently decided to completely ignore the sayings that supposedly obtained the original following. This is only compounded by the fact that the "rez experiences" were allegedly had by former followers and, presumably, admirers of the sayings.