Toto

The comments on Amazon are instructive. It appears that Wenham is doing ideologically motivated theology.

I thought this book would be more convincing. I wasted almost $10 on this book. That money could have gone towards better use such a charity donation. I am going to be more careful before I purchase religious books (especially ones that claim the Christian way to be the only way backed up by evidence).

***

In order for Wenham to find the maximum number of congruences, he fequently abstracts concrete statements and terminology to a higher interpretive level. For example, the Kingdom of God concept was very important to Jesus but relatively minor to Paul - unless you start theorizing what the Kingdom of God MIGHT mean and then show that some of Paul's teachings MIGHT mean the same thing.

***

In particular Wenham never deals with Paul's own claim (in 1 Corinthians 15) to have received his "gospel" by direct revelation rather than from the apostles in Jerusalem. This single verse alone would topple Wenham's case -- yet he NEVER ONCE addresses Maccoby's cogent arguments in favor of this reading.

In short, this book leaves Pauline scholarship very much where it was: with Paul as the true founder of Christianity. Wenham's work will be convincing only to those who already believe.

This sounds like that tired "why would they die for a lie?" argument.

Presumably Paul did not think it was a fake religion, and was not amenable to loving correction from any so called disciples - after all, he heard from the Lord himself. And we have no actual evidence that he was beaten up in a most horrendus way or ultimately killed for his beliefs, outside of the dubious stories in Acts and one section in his letters that has been analyzed as a dramatic take-off on Greco-Roman theater.

yinyang

Thanks John. That was the primary, original point of the OP. I was hoping to find someone with some expertise in the original languages. I realize that may be a tall order, but you never know. On this site there should be about a dozen people with that capability.

That being said, given the claims made by the "faithful", god should have known how to communicate whatever he wanted, unambiguously and with a transcendent morality. This not having been achieved, proves beyond reasonable doubt, that the passages are man made. Any man not having any more reliable insight into god's mind than you or I is therefore to be considered HIGHLY suspect if they dare to make such claims to divine knowledge.

One does not need to be Einstein to sus this out. It is remarkably uncomplicated. One only has to be honest, which is, apparently, infinitely complicated.

Amaleq13

Feel free to start a thread on the subject but I think it will show that, absent faith, the "debate" is neither substantial nor lengthy.

Jane H

Toto- Thanks for putting the link in.

I notice you quote the three bad reviews, rather than the nine good ones! Although I would certainly agree that Wenham goes for quantity rather than quality, with some tenuous links, but there is enough material in total to make a pretty strong case. I’m intrigued by the 1 Corinthians 15 comment- Wenham certainly deals with v3; I wonder if the writer meant chapter 11?

I can’t access the JSTOR article, but I‘m not aware that mainstream scholarship challenges the idea that Paul suffered to a significant extent for his faith.

Anyway, my argument is a bit more than “why die for a lie?”, (which may be tired but still does a good job after a bit of a rest,) because it also asks why Paul would have changed his theological outlook. Where did he get his new material from, why would he not listen at all to what the Christians around him were saying, and why did the disciples and early church support him and not kick him out? Clearly there were major (and very predictable) debates over the application of Jewish law within early Christianity, but there must have been agreement on the basics for Paul to be allowed to operate at all.

Toto

I assumed the good ones were fellow believers. :Cheeky:

I think that mainstream scholarship has tended to retreat from the idea that anything can be known about Paul as a historical figure. If the "mainstream" scholar is a Christian, he probably accepts the basic historical nature of Acts and the idea that Paul suffered for his faith; otherwise not.

I beg to differ. All I have to whisper is 9-11 hijackers and it falls over again. If it tries to get up, I can mention a variety of other nutcases who have died for bizarre beliefs. Besides which, it is fairly clear that the Christians who were martyred were not punished for their belief in a risen Christ that they might have known, but for their actions in refusing to worship the emperor in even a token fashion.

You are making some assumptions with no evidence. We don't know that Paul operated out of the early church, we don't know that an early church even existed, much less what its theology was based on. We don't know that the early church, if it existed, had enough discipline to kick someone out - heresy hunting was a later church phenomenon, and the fact that there were heretics in the second and third centuries indicates that the early church did not weed out dissenters.

As to where Paul got his theological outlook, you can choose among the mystery religions, Hellenistic philosophies, or whatever else was current in the Roman Empire at the time.

Cheerful Charlie

Luke 19, its a punch line of a parable. "Those who would not have me rule over them, bring them before me and slay them".

Though probably not meant to be taken literally, Chistianity has done just that to justify forced conversions, wars, inquisitions et al. The other great parable that caused trouble was the parable of the wedding, "Compel them to come in", also used to justify forced conversions and more.

St Augustine most notably held "Compel them to come in" to justify such things.

In the OT, Phineas lead a massacre against some Israelites who had rebelled against God. This also has been used to justify cruelties by some.

CC

mountainman

More notably Constantine himself.
See his nasty Dear Arius Letter.

(39.) But again I return thither.
You say that there is a multitude
of persons wandering about you.
That is likely, I think;
and take them, then, I say, take them,
for they have given themselves
to be eaten by wolves and by lions.

However, each one of these,
oppressed by additional payment
of ten capitation taxes
and by the expenses of these,
immediately will sweat, unless,
running as speedily as possible
to the salvation-bringing Church,
he has chosen the peace of love
through affection for harmony.

Constantine again threatens Arius' associates: ten-fold taxation.

Heavy.


Constantine discloses that Arius has alot of support. He acknowledges that this support in number is a multitude. And that this support will be destroyed. Constantine continually gathered intelligence. Knowing the names of the key figures, the larger estates. Arius' associated were going to both die and be taxed. The taxation amount is to be tenfold. There will be interest and additional expenses.

Of course, the Christian mafia boss and malevolent despot offers an alternative to the associates of Arius: they can seek the salvation of the new christian church. The political motivations of Constantine and the religious motivations of Constantine are difficult to actually separate. Either way, they were corrupt.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

storytime

But.. it was Peter who first thought to bring Gentiles into equality with the Jews in the kingdom of God by way of his vision. (visions were condemned in OT)

Peter declared by his dream vision that "salvation" had come to the Gentiles, while during his ministry. Jesus had excluded the Gentiles in declaring "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel".

Peter also declares that God had specifically chosen him from the 12 to speak for God. Peter is the first to call the anti-Christ Jews "Christ killers" and begin his anti-semitism against the those particular Jews who didn't believe Jesus was "the Christ". Paul later takes up the salvation story and begins his ministry the way he thinks the churches should be run. Paul also takes the kingdom from the Jews by saying they refused it, so he would take the gospel to the Gentiles who would gladly accept it.

Both Peter and Paul declared what God had not spoken. A faith based religion was not an acceptable form of offering to a god who required blood-letting via circumcision and loyalty via obedience to laws, the same laws and ritual that Jews were expected to observe. ( For god was no respector of persons. What was expected of the Jew was expected of the Gentile also)

Paul's teaching that Gentiles were "a people" of God through faith alone would have set his Jewish brethren (who were Pharisees in the law, and knowledgeable about faith, grace, and acceptance into their Judaism), in a raving fit to kill him. I don't think tolerance would have been discussed in those pagan and primitive Jewish minds. Do you?

Toto

The first century Jews were Hellenized, had adopted many Greco-Roman habits and though patterns, and were hardly primitive, even by the standards of the time. They lived in a multicultural society, and had a wide range of opinions even among themselves. I don't see any basis for this.

storytime

Then you are saying that those first century Jews in their multi-culturalism were not opposed to upsetting the standard of their religious belief? That they were accepting of Gentile claims?