Amaleq13

I can only (repeatedly) offer you an explanation, I cannot provide an understanding.* It subtly connects James to the "false brethren" Paul openly criticizes as misleading his Galatians.

The "false brethren" in Gal 2:4 appear to be the same "certain" sent by James mentioned in 2:12 or, at the very least, of a like mind with regard to their desire to have the Galatians adhere to the Law. It is difficult to understand how Paul can criticize the men sent by James without implying criticism of James as well.



*paraphrased from Samuel Johnson

TedM

Subtle indeed: "I saw no one else other than James, the brother of the Lord", sounds like nothing other than an unbiased descriptor. I see nothing that connects the phrase to anybody. All I see is a phrase that connects James to "the Lord". What is your support for concluding this and what is your support for concluding why that makes any sense?

Hard to say. Paul doesn't call them false brethren in the second passage, and he says nothing of circumcision, which was the issue in the first passage--note that Paul says there first was no pressure placed on his Greek companion Titus by those with a reputation, and that such pressure only came after the false brethren snuck in, and by them. Are you suggesting that James and the others were playing the good guys but were secretly setting Paul up? I don't think such a scenario makes any sense--especially since Paul then adds that the pillars didn't provide ANY councel, but rather gave them the hand of fellowship. Clearly the pillars had different views than the false brethren with regard to the issue of circumcision. This argues for a positive viewpoint of James with regard to the very issue Paul was writing about.

There is no evidence that his overall opinion of James was negative as a result of the meal issue, though Paul well could have been critical of James on this particular point. However, note that though he criticized Peter here, he speaks of him positively in 1 Cor. And note that his own preaching companion Barnabas joined the group from James! It would seem that since Paul wasn't writing to the Galations about meal separation, this wasn't not his focus, and it probably was a much smaller issue.

In light of James' apparent agreement with Paul's position on circumcision, the idea that Paul had motivation to take a shot at James in a subtle manner in this epistle is on pretty shaky ground.

ted

Amaleq13

That is why I have repeatedly explained it within the context of Paul's criticism of Judaizers. That you keep ignoring what I've said several times and simply repeat the same questions/concerns is annoying.

This requires more annoying and unnecessary repetition on my part.

"brother of the Lord" = reputation for Jewish righteousness

false brethren = Judaizers (ie rigid adherance to Jewish Law)

I will not repeat this connection again, Ted, so I hope you finally got it.

Wouldn't you say they all appear to qualify as "Judaizers"?

I think Paul is suggesting that the initial "approval" from Jerusalem was subsequently reconsidered. Why else would James send men to check on Paul and attempt to correct his teachings?

It is part of the larger issue of Paul's Galatians getting mislead by Judaizing "false brethren" and at least some of them appear to have been sent by James.

In light of James' apparent concerns with regard to Paul's teachings (ie sending "certain" men to check up on and correct him), that "apparent agreement" can only be understood as either based on an incomplete understanding of what it was Paul intended to teach or a change in opinion about whether it was acceptable.

jakejonesiv

Hi Amaleq,

I don't know about Ted, but the light finally came on for. me. Good point, and thanks for repeating.

Jake

jjramsey

But Paul's apocalyptic beliefs are evidence. Those are the traces of which I speak. We are simply arguing about what they are traces of: an apocalypticism that was there all along, or an apocalypticism that came later which Paul adopted.

But Paul did not acquire his beliefs in a vacuum. The likelihood that Jesus' resurrection on its own would be enough for him to conclude that the end was near is fairly small; it's just too big a leap. On the other hand, if the early Christians taught that the end was near, then it would be relatively easy for Paul to view the resurrection through that belief and see Jesus' resurrection as a sign.

What I'm doing is pointing out the Jesus-as-apocalyptic-preacher makes sense of both the later material of the Gospels and the earlier material of the Epistles.

A few problems.

First, you seem to be assuming that in the Jewish tradition, the threats came after the teachings are rejected, but not before. This is simply wrong. The Law not only prescribes behavior, but says that their well-being is tied to how they behave. Not only are there punishments delivered by the community, like stoning, but there are promises that God will prosper them if they obey the Law and curse them if they disobey. It is that background against which prophets make their threats, which are concrete instances of the general curses that one sees in, say, Deuteronomy. So there is no progression of (sapiential) ethical teaching -> rejection of teaching -> threat, but rather ethical teaching with promises of reward/threat -> rejection of teaching -> warning that the aforementioned threats will be made good. The idea that the threats are only made in response to rejection is wrong.

Second, you seem to be presuming that apocalyptic is all about threat, and that positive ethical instruction is the province of the sapiential. This is wrong. In apocalyptic, people are separated into the righteous, who are rewarded, and the unrighteous, who are condemned. I suspect that what you see as sapiential is the positive ethical instruction to show people what they need to do to be counted as righteous. Take the Beatitudes for example.

Notice that this is positive ethical teaching, but in most or even all of these beatitudes, there is a promise of future reward, which is as much a part of apocalyptic as the threat.

Third, why would those had no timetable before adopt one only after their teachings were rejected? Why not use a different threat that was more in line with previous beliefs?

Both of those things describes in that verse, mustard seeds and leavened dough, are things that are small yet grow much bigger than their initial state. Hints of the reign of God are shown in the purported miraculous healings and exorcisms, but in time it will come in full force and be obviously manifest. These implications of Luke 13:18-21 are certainly oblique, but they are followed by Luke 13:22-30, which is more blatently apocalyptic.

TedM

Thanks for your patience. I see (and have seen before) the connection you are making. And I would agree that IF that is what "brother of the Lord" meant or implied then Paul could be making some kind of sarcastic remark, but we have basically no evidence that that is what "brother of the Lord" meant nor that Paul was speaking sarcastically. I would expect evidence of at least one of those from the context. The context has neither. I therefore favor the idea that it is a descriptor to distinguish which James Paul was referring to (which could be a title or a literal brother) as opposed to some sly way of making a dig at James' Jewishness.

There is simply no evidence of any motivation for the phrase other than to describe something about James which was known to the Galations. You mentioned the context before as support, but it simply is too vague to make the kinds of connections you are making with any reasonable conviction.

I don't think we can deduce the reason why men who were from James came to Antioch from what Paul has written. Maybe it was to simply expand the mission. If they were checking up on anyone it would have more likely been Peter and not Paul, to see how things were going, since Peter went there first.

ted

Amaleq13

If it wasn't clear, then I offer my apologies to Ted for my implied criticism of his comprehension.

I almost always understand what I write.

NOGO

Your tiptoeing around the issue.
Paul knows that God himself walked the earth, teaching and performing miracles. 70 pages of preaching and not one hint of anything Jesus said while he was here. And you are trying to convince me that this is normal.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


It was not relevant to what he was trying to say.

No my problem is much simpler than that.
Paul does not teach what Jesus taught. That is enough.

I have read Gdon arguments. Where do you see a strong argument?

And I do not expect a biography.
I expect that if Paul's God walked the earth Paul would have taken notice and would be eager to learn what he did and what he preached. Incorporate Jesus' teachings in is own teachings, recognize that Jesus teachings were a revelation etc. etc.

Paul states that scriptures are a revelation but he does not state that Jesus' life is a revelation. Dah!


And the opinion of many scholars.

How do you know who got it right?
Are you also inspired by God?

No! What I am saying is that Paul got this through revelation from the risen Jesus. This is totally in context to what Paul says. He claims two revelational routes, scriptures and directly from Jesus himself. If the Lord's supper was an actual historical fact then Paul would be forced to add Jesus' life as a source of revelation. HE DOES NOT. This is not just an oversight (AND WHAT AN OVERSIGHT IT WOULD BE) it is totally in context with everything Paul says.


The date of the Didache is not relevant. The fact that there existed some Christians who did not see the communal meal as the body and blood of Christ shows a different Christianity. YES, another bunch of people who like Paul ignore what Jesus said and did. Now you are begining to see the picture.

1 Corinth 23:11
For I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,

Paul received it from the Lord.
Since Paul claims that Jesus speaks through him.
Since Paul does not acknowledge Jesus' life as a revelation.
Since Paul never quotes Jesus
Since Paul never clinches any argument by saying "Jesus said this in this situation"
THEN
Paul got it from the risen Jesus.

It does not exclude it.
But Paul always seems to exclude these possibilities which you see.


This does not help you.
Mark did not have to read Paul to know about "this is my flesh" and "this is my blood".
This bit comes from scriptures and a sense of personal revelation.
If not by Paul then someone like Paul.
GJohn has a different slant.
The Didache has another.

You have multiple versions which point to different people adding their personal inspiration to the basic myth derived from scriptures. What you do not have is the facts being laying down by God himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In the latter case everybody would have the same belief.


It happened at night because the communal meal is a corbon copy of the Jewish passover meal.
The Israelites killed the lamb at night and they ate at night. Jesus was "delivered up" not arrested. This may mean simply chosen for slaughter just like the lamb. The lamb's blood saved the Israelites and Jesus' blood will save them again. The lamb was without blemish so Jesus was sinless.
There is no history here. If Jesus had established this himself then the Didache would not do away with it nor would GJohn.

Amaleq13

Actually, we might be applying a different understanding to the term. As I think I have mentioned in a previous discussion, I am primarily influenced on this subject by Crossan's The Birth of Christianity. He makes a distinction between apocalyptic and eschatology with the latter used as a more general term than the former. It seems to me you are using the former more like I understand the latter to be used by Crossan. He goes on to differentiate between the "apocalyptic eschatology" of the redaction of Q and the "ascetical eschatology" of GTh. The initial layer of Q is described as "sapiential eschatology" or, as Kloppenborg puts it "the radical wisdom of the kingdom of God".

I think you have a valid point with regard to the analogy to Jewish tradition but I think you are wrong with regard to Q. In addition to Kloppenborg and Crossan, I find support in Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels:

"The entire development of Q, from the first collection of the sayings of Jesus and their assembly into sapiential discourses to the apocalyptic redaction and, finally, the pre-Matthean redaction, must be dated within the first three decades after the death of Jesus." (p. 170)

"Both the beatitudes and the admonitions [in Jesus' inaugural sermon in Q] are sapiential forms infused with eschatological content; both evince the presence of the kingdom, its radical nature and its radical demands" (Kloppenborg quoted in TBC, pg 263)

If you change your Apocalyptic Preacher into a Jesus who preached "sapiential eschatology", I think I can agree with you though it still needs to be acknowledged that Paul doesn't describe that guy either.

Amaleq13

That's exactly what I've been saying over and over except "some kind of sarcastic" should be "implicitly critical" and I think I put "if" in bold.

We have basically no evidence what Paul meant by the phrase. Period. We can only speculate.

My suggestion that has support from Paul's expressed desire to obtain equal standing with James, his expressed disregard for James' reputation, and his expressed displeasure with those who try to convince his people to be righteous in their adherance to the Law (some of whom apparently were sent by James). You complain that my suggestion lacks support yet you favor the notion that there was another important James despite the complete absence of any suggestion of it anywhere in Paul? It doesn't appear to me like lack of support has anything to do with the conclusion you prefer.

You are correct that the "correction of his teachings" notion comes from elsewhere (Acts) but is seems ridiculous to me to suggest we can't deduce from the fact that they disapproved of violating the Law that they should be understood as Judaizers.