Rick Sumner

I'm talking about within Judaism. Enoch was, at one point, made the "lesser YHWH," but even earlier, the Teacher of Righteousness seems to have deified himself (4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7). Melchizedek seems to have become more than a man as well (11QMelch), and the author of 11QMelch goes so far as to ascribe feats to Melchizedek that were explicitly reserved for God himself (11QMelch v.4-6).

We do well not to paint the "Judaisms" of the first century with one brush. We do even better not to anachronistically assume that it looked anything like Judaism does today.

There's no apologetic necessary, Luke made it up.

More importantly, see it in context.

Romans, 7:1:

" Are ye ignorant, brethren -- for to those knowing law I speak -- that the law hath lordship over the man as long as he liveth?"(YLT)

Paul is saying precisely what I"ve ascribed to him. Those bound by the Law are always bound by the Law. He goes on to observe how much better to be a Gentile, who is not so encumbered. He later elaborates on this with scriptural precedent aplenty. His favorite is Abraham.

See E P Sanders _Paul and Palestinian Judaism_ and _Paul, the Law and the Jewish People_. While there are still some advocates of your end, it's straggling--the vestiges of a dying approach. Paul was first, last and always a Jew. More specifically, he was a Pharisee, and there's really no mistaking it.

Hebrews doesn't claim to be written by Paul, makes absolutely no effort to portray itself as Pauline, so your "Paul" can subsequently be dismissed as an ideology of the later church. There is no connection between Hebrews and Paul.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Made up that Paul taught this or made up the false accusation?

So it was the power of his revelatory experience that allowed him to embrace the decidely unJewish flesh/bread & wine/blood symbolism of the "Lord's Supper"?

Clivedurdle

TotoI am very interested in this standard useage "Greco-Roman".

Nowadays, we say "Anglo-American" when there is an old joke about when is Britain going to become the 51st state!

In an identical fashion to our linguistic habits tending to mislead about the actual power relationships between Britain and America, is this short hand "Greco - Roman" misleading our thinking about the Roman world?

We have a double negative - This does not mean the Gospels were not adapted from a Roman play, or a Greco-Roman play.

Firstly, is there such an animal as a Greco-Roman play? Were they not different languages? That leaves the possibility of a Roman - Latin - play.

OK, maybe there isn't an original Gospel in Latin, but what if there was an original Latin play? Could this be the elusive Q?

Let's take this a step at a time. Put aside Seneca.

I think our linguistic and historic skills are good enough to tease out the existence or not of Latin "fossils" in the sedimentation of christian based literature.

What evidence do we have that xianity got going in the Middle East? Is it accepted or not that Mark was in Rome when he wrote his Gospel?

It would not be far fetched that someone wrote a classic Roman hero play in Latin, using these funny diaspora Jews in Rome - to whom Julius Caesar had been very sympathetic - as a model. I will even allow gnostic elements of the Christ as part of the original marinade. Then I see no problem at all with it being retranslated all over the place. Translation was very common - and had been for a long time as shown by the Rosetta Stone and the story of the Tower of Babel.

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure where you're going with this, except perhaps into an attempt to trap me into giving an ambiguous answer.

Paul never taught, in any of his letters, that Jews should not circumcise their children. This verse argues for me, not against, because it addresses Pauline efforts to make Gentile converts distinct from those bound by the Law.

That said, he obviously didn't make up that Paul said that--Paul says it throughout his letters. Gentiles don't need to be circumcised. Luke simply made up the passage. It's even possible--perhaps even probable--that the accusation made against Paul is a legitimate occurrence. Paul met opposition, we know this. But Luke knew of the opposition and created a narrative, it's unlikely he knew such specific details.

It would appear that was the case, yep. Paul was a Jew who believed the Messiah had come. That doesn't make him less Jewish. Nor, for that matter, does it make him less of a Pharisee.

Do you know of any evidence that Paul's opponents said "That's it Paul, you're not a Jew anymore"? Or, for that matter, that Paul himself ever separated himself from Judaism?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

We have no evidence of Paul's existence outside of his letters and Christian writings. We don't know what his opponents said, although we know from his letters that he probably had opponents.

Whether you think his opponents said anything like that depends on the historical value of Acts. 1st c. Judaism appears to have been diverse, without a procedure for "ex-communicating" anyone on doctrinal grounds, but Acts likes to portray "the Jews" as wanting to stone Paul. But Acts also portrays Paul as preaching in the synagogues. I would guess that the conflict with "the Jews" was a later editorial revision, but it is impossible to tell.

Rick Sumner

Ah yes, we have no evidence except for the evidence. Solid reasoning.

Certainly we know what his opponents said on several issues. For example, they questioned whether or not Paul was an apostle. They questioned his stance on the circumcision.

Should we look at Acts as the primary source for identifying Pauline theology?

Wouldn't his letters be a far more apt starting point?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I guess I should have spelled it out for you. We have no evidence except for religious documents which have been preserved and interpreted by Christians, who have a record of forgery and interpolation. We have no secular evidence of Paul, no Jewish evidence, no Roman records, no mention in Philo or Josephus, no mention in the Talmud.

This is getting off topic. Perhaps I will start a new thread.

Amlodhi

I (for one) would be glad if you did, Toto. I just picked up where this left off and haven't time to participate at the moment. But I would enjoy joining an indepth discussion of this issue in a new thread.

namaste'

Amlodhi

Clivedurdle

Agreed there seems to be some topic slip! If no one responds to the original and amended asumption that the original source for the gospels is likely to have been a Latin Play I'll asume I must be right!!!

Chilli, I don't know how to respond!

Toto

Clive: there is absolutely no evidence that the source of the gospels was a Latin play. There is very little evidence for the source of the gospels to begin with, or course, so you are free to believe that it all started with a Latin play. But you cannot win by putting the burden of proof on everyone else to show that you are wrong.

If you want to support your thesis, you need to explain why there are no early copies of the gospels in Latin, and why everyone else thinks that the gospels were written in Greek (except the minority who favor Aramaic), to start out with.