ichabod crane

Interesting, because Sanders sees Paul as doing the same thing in relation to the New Covenant community. This is one of many indications of Pharisaic influences in Paul.

That's an interesting question, which I probably can't give a satisfactory answer to. What we do know is this. Hebrew is definitely the language of the Canaanites from very early on. The Ugaritic texts show this without any doubt. In fact, when the Old Testament refers to the Hebrew language, it calls it "the language of Canaan" (Isaiah 19:18). It has many common features with Semitic languages which include Akkadian, Syriac-Aramean, Moabite, Phoenician, Arabic, Ethiopic, etc (e.g. uses only consonants, triliteral verb stems etc.). I suspect it is more distantly related to Egyptian.

Regarding 'Eli`ezer, if you're wondering about connection with Osiris, I can't see how that could be. `Ezer occurs 16 times in the Old Testament and always means helper. A well-known example is Gen. 2:18, Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper (`ezer) as his partner." I don't know what Osiris means.

Why is it an embarrasment? And I don't assume a harmony between them! I think the gospels have a historical core, but that doesn't mean they don't contain additions on top of that. I was just pointing out that a late gospel on Doherty's theory would not be expected to contain anti-gentile elements.

Yes, but the kinds of things you're describing only occurred after Christianity became the state religion, which was not until the time of Constantine (who "converted" in AD 312). How could Christians make anything illegal, when they were a persecuted minority sect with no political power? The same thing happens when any group gains political power - "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Join me in my anarchism!

Maybe, but that doesn't explain why it was written like that in the first place.

By the way, can I just point out a general philosophical difference that seems to be emerging between some of you and myself. In general, I don't think we should attribute malicious motivations to the originators of religious movements, whether they be Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, or whatever. Great religions, it seems to me, come about because of sincere and dedicated people, not because of hucksters. Now maybe they were sincere but mistaken or deluded, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that they were deliberate frauds. But that's just my opinion based on obervation of human behaviour. The only religion I can think of where a good case can be made that the originator was a cynical fraud is Scientology. I'm quite sure Marcion was sincere in his beliefs also, and no doubt felt he had justification for the textual amendments he undertook.

Now that we've engaged in the ritual scholar-bashing that the spirit of the occasion demands , of course scholars acknowledge the importance of the communal meal. BUT what you claimed is that this was the centre of Pauline theology. That is a very big, and difficult to sustain, claim. The meal is only mentioned explicitly in one passage in I Corinthians 11. It's not found in any other Pauline epistles. Whereas the centres which various scholars have postulated (soteriological, eschatological, Christological) are undeniably found throughout all his writings. Now it's not impossible that other passages may have significance relating to the meal. But you would have to do some mighty impressive exegesis to show that it was the Pauline Centre. In addition, it doesn't seem to me to be so clearly pagan. It is highly questionable whether it was anything more than a simple remembrance meal. The elements, bread and wine, are found in the passover meal. You have to argue for pagan origin, not just assert it.

Yes, indeed. But he is never portrayed as seeking them out - if they come to him he will deal with them, but his mission wasn't to them. The comparison of the unbelieving Jews with gentiles of faith doesn't imply so much a positive view of gentiles as a negative view of "the Jews". It's like if I say "even a monkey could do a better job of that than you". Does that mean I have a high opinion of monkeys?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Why would the gentiles be portrayed negatively?

I don't find much here to disagree with, although I think we can know about the Jerusalem groups believe than you presumably do. The problem with Maccoby's claim that the disciples saw Jesus as a Messiah before his death, or that Jesus claimed any Messianic status, is the well-known problem of the so-called "Messianic Secret" in Mark, which counts strongly against his argument. Obviously, after his death they began to see him in Messianic terms.

But Acts puts the origin of the Christian sect proper in Jerusalem. It would certainly have been the centre of the sect for some time until Paul came along. It's not suprising that Tacitus identified it with Judea under these circumstances.

Paul mentions that he briefly went to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion, but didn't see anyone except Peter, and that it was another 14 years before he got there again. So we are talking about a 17 year period elapsing between when he persecuted the church there and when he returned. It seems reasonable under those circumstances to say that they only knew him by reputation.

That depends on what you take as evidence. You're obviously discounting the gospels and Acts, so that leaves you with the accounts of Paul. But how likely is it that a sect would have divisions from the outset? Surely the usual pattern is a single origination, followed by division as time goes on.

Haven't read it. But I don't see why what you're saying in itself is any big problem. I could just argue that apocalyptic elements were omitted from the GTh, rather than added to the gospels. That seems a more likely explanation, since GTh is probably later.

Yes, that's true. But why would Jesus' preaching be the firstfruits? Paul is alluding to the day of firstfruits in the festival of weeks (Num. 28:26, Deut. 16:9-12), which occurred on the same day as the resurrection (i.e. Sunday). There are a number of parallels between the day of firstfruits and the resurrection, which is what Paul picked up on. What parallels are there between the day of firstfruits and Jesus' preaching?

I didn't say he did. But the problem is, that (in my view) Jesus had made those predictions when he was alive, and the fact that it didn't seem to be happening was leaving the new sect with a problem. Paul solved the problem by developing a new eschatology unrelated to Jesus' teaching.

On this question, I can't answer, because I'd need to check the actual writings with claimed similarities. As we have seen, it is not always obvious how similar is similar.

Because he was a highly articulate, charasmatic figure who came to the sect at a time of crisis, claiming wonderful visions of the risen Christ. What's the problem? That seems highly believable.

Yes, he will present his message in the cultural manner of the people he is addressing. But that's not the same thing as allowing his audience to shape the message. Where are there examples of that in Paul?

That explains the negative view of the Jews, but it does not explain the negative view of the gentiles. In fact, it makes it harder to explain!

Yes, but why would they include negative evaluations of the gentiles? There's plenty of material to go on without needing to do that. And a creative exegete, like Paul in Romans, could find plenty of basis for a gentile mission.

Nope. I think the evidence is too uncertain to make any judgement. I wouldn't put any weight on Josephus.

OK, now that I've responded to y'all, and since yesterday's objection didn't find so much favour, I have two new problems with Doherty's thesis which I humbly submit for your consideration.

(1) The lack of explicit gnostic-bashing in the gospels. You argue that the Judaism-bashing in the gospels is a reflection of antipathy towards Judaism. However, early forms of gnostic thought were just as obnoxious from the point of view of orthodoxy and were around at the same time. So why don't we see explicit anti-gnostic diatribes in the gospels? This problem is compounded by the fact that we DO see anti-gnostic diatribes in some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles which were written later. For example, Colossians contains a number of gnostic-bashing passages. So why ain't they in the gospels? I think one good guide to the date of canonical works is the extent to which they have gnostic-directed antipathy. In Paul there is none, and not only that, but he himself exhibits gnostic-like tendencies. In later works, there are anti-gnostic ramblings.

(2) Exegetical objection #1: Hebrews. Doherty regards Hebrews as an example of early, Hellenistic Christianity. For example, he says "However, it should be noted that earliest Christianity conceived of Jesus only as raised in the spirit, exalted to heaven immediately after death (eg, Philippians 2:9, 1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 10:12, etc.)". So I will start my criticism with it. I submit that there are many passages in Hebrews which emphatically teach that Jesus was a real human being, and indeed that this is central to the theology of the book. Consider the following:

Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared THE SAME THINGS, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters IN EVERY RESPECT, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because HE HIMSELF was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested ... For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who IN EVERY RESPECT has been tested as we are, yet without sin ... For it is evident that our Lord was DESCENDED FROM JUDAH,

In fact, in terms of Old Testament background, a priest had to come from among the people. He couldn't be an alien. So the writer of Hebrews argues that our great high priest, had to become one of us, in order to be able to perform that function. As for Doherty's reference to Hebrews 10:12, in context the sacrifice in question was of his body (soma, verse 10), his flesh (sarx, verse 20), and his blood (haima, verse 19). Surely that is not a "spiritual" offering? And I don't see how you get a spiritual resurrection from this verse.

rlogan

hello Ichabod...

I don't know that malicious is being offered. Traditional selfish, power-hungry economic motivations.

I still do not forgive them for stealing in the name of God. A thief also deludes himself into thinking the property owner does not deserve his T.V.


Scientology.

Elijah muhammed. Jim Jones. Baker. The Maharishi. endless list.


I have a problem with Josephus having written so much about, for example, the kook Jesus wailing "woe unto Israel" who gets squished by a block from the temple; The 26 or so Jesus' who lead revolts, make waves and sometimes are executed; expositions of the various Jewish sects; other odds and ends stories -

But nothing on these Christians. Or any big time leader. (Hence my question on the TF, although we also did not address the James passage)

Something wrong there.


tsk tsk.


I thought about this when I was writing my last response. The HB actually has a lot of gentile ass-kicking in it. And it occurred to me that the Christians need to gloss this over or the Romans will smush them, and because they are a recruiting base.

I think we'd have to go passage by passage though to really evaluate this issue. Their non-christian habits can be criticized for recruitment purposes without threatening the Roman powers.

Interesting.




There wasn't an orthodoxy then. The gospels are an attempt at making one though.

I think we'd have to examine what passages specifically you refer to.

Need to look at them.


well Ichabod - I think we're reading into the text here. I see them Hebrew Bible dumpster-diving all over Hebrews 10. What I do not see is a solid specific earthly reference:

"Hey, remember how they nailed him to cross #2 at Calvary hill?" What the hell was Pilate doing asking the crowd for its opinion in that kooky trial?"

You know, we have all kinds of imagery about sitting on the right hand of God, enemies as his footstool, writing laws into hearts, etc.

So we're long on imagery and short on real specifics. We got some blood of Jesus. Well, that's just the same old blood of the lamb talk.

The things you capitalized I didn't find convincing. Statements like Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph - that would be more indicative of the HJ.

- I'm just junior varsity around here. You'll get more challenge from the first string...

[edited- nicknames changed -V]

Magdlyn

Frivilous, OT, again,

"The devil?" Again, what is the original word here? I am suspicious of that word as it does not exist in Greek. I looked the passage up in my Oxford Annotated, but all it did was refer me to Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death.

Whew, I first read this as gentle ass kicking and thought that is what I will do to my dh and dc's next time they misbehave. Because I don't really want to hurt those I love. LOL

Amaleq13

It is clearly FAR more than just a "communal meal". It is a practice Paul claims was directly revealed by the risen Christ specifically to commemorate the most important sacrifice in the history of humanity and unquestionably the center of Paul's theology. It is simply insane, IMO, to downplay the significance such a practice had to have obtained in the communities to whom Paul wrote. His reaction to apparent misuse of the ceremony, alone, is sufficient to establish its importance.

I believe I claimed it was a central feature. Given the claimed origin and purpose, it makes no sense to think otherwise. I think it was the most important ceremony for Christians though one could argue that the initiation ritual of baptism should be considered a contender.

And, in that brief passage, it is identified as coming directly from the risen Christ and intended for the communities to recall the sacrifice central to their beliefs as well as provide a ceremony whereby the initiates literally join with their Savior Christ. Paul is clearly upset by what he perceives as abuse of the ceremony to the point where he accuses the abusers of despising the church and risking damnation. Yeah, that sounds like a relatively unimportant "communal meal".

First, please do not misrepresent my position with this strawman. I have not claimed that the practice has a "pagan origin". It very clearly has roots in the traditional Jewish thanksgiving meal but it just as clearly has roots in paganism. And those roots are entirely antithetical to traditional Jewish beliefs. Eating one's "god" is something one finds in many Mysteries but it is inconceivable in Judaism. The idea of explicitly connecting the consumption of blood is entirely antithetical to Jewish sensibilities. This is entirely consistent with my actual position that the belief system originated from within an existing synthesis of Judaism and paganism.

Even the Fourth Gospel acknowledges that this practice was abhorent to Jewish beliefs when it claims Jesus lost many followers after preaching on the symbology incorporated in Paul's "Lord's Supper". This can only be a reflection of the actual reaction of Jews to the practices of Christians.

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 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. The best explanation for this apparent conflict is that there is a motivation other than writing history for portraying Jesus' ministry as originally exclusively Jewish. This depiction is entirely consistent with the general theme of portraying "the Jews" as rejecting Christ which, in turn, is entirely consistent with Jewish antagonism at the time the Gospel stories were written.

We only know what Paul and Acts tell us and there is a very obvious concern about their reliability. Clearly, both sources have downplayed the tension and differences between the two.

How does an allegedly persecuted sect establish a center in Jerusalem? Why didn't Paul persecute any Judean churches if their beliefs were the same as the ones he did persecute?

Acts may identify Jerusalem as the point of origin for Paul's Christ cult but that completely ignores legitimate concerns about the true nature of the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem group.

You are ignoring the clear dichotomy described by the evidence. We've got a rural, Galilean "community" of wandering prophets who disdain rigid adherence to the Law and associate that sort of Jew with Jerusalem somehow turning into devout Law-followers residing in that very same city. We move from gentile inclusion to gentile exclusion or, perhaps more accurately, Jewish focus. We move from persecuted in the countryside to allowed to live securely in Jerusalem.

The conclusion I cannot seem to avoid is that, assuming some sort of historical figure is involved, he was entirely artificially grafted onto the theology preached by Paul. If Paul understood his Incarnated Christ to have been a real guy, it clearly was not the guy depicted in the Gospel stories.

I agree that Mark's "Messianic secret" argues against Maccoby's main thesis but I don't necessarily accept his main conclusion. I have found his arguments about Paul's alleged Pharisaic training and the mixed message of the Gospels on Jesus-Pharisee relations more compelling.

[QUOTEPaul mentions that he briefly went to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion, but didn't see anyone except Peter, and that it was another 14 years before he got there again. So we are talking about a 17 year period elapsing between when he persecuted the church there and when he returned. It seems reasonable under those circumstances to say that they only knew him by reputation.[/QUOTE]

Paul states he was "unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."(Gal 1:22-23)

If he had persecuted churches in Judaea, they would have known him by more than what they had heard. Why weren't the churches in Judaea persecuted if they held the same beliefs as the ones Paul did persecute?

BINGO! It is extremely unusual to find such a pattern but that is precisely what we have.

I encourage you to do so if only to avoid the flippant dismissal you offer above. The issue requires far more consideration than you have given it. The implications are obvious even if I hadn't already noted them.

You are missing the point. Have you forgotten the question? If so:

Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher?

Paul preaches that he knows the End is approaching because the risen Christ has appeared to some. What is does not claimed is that he knows the End is approaching because that is something Jesus taught during his ministry.

Reading Paul? None. Reading the Gospels? They are plentiful though often reserved solely for the disciples.

I absolutely agree that Paul is introducing something unrelated to Jesus' teaching. In fact, we have nothing in Paul to suggest that Jesus ever made any such predictions. The Gospels were trying to solve a problem that Paul created.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I think Ichabod is making a good point here. I've been saying the same thing too in the past. The fact that the gospels portray Jesus as a Jewish prophet, who's not being particularly interested in the gentiles, is rather difficult to square with the idea of the Mythical Jesus, who was invented rather late by the gentiles.

So this is one of the big problems that the mythicists have to deal with.

The mythicists would like to tell us that Matthew was concerned with "Judaizing" Mark. So this is the very odd idea that the Jews hijacked Christianity!

That's right... If Christianity was originally a "Gentile invention", then the Jews must have hijacked it later, by introducing all those Jewish elements at a later date (such as in Mt).

Well, I beg to disagree.

Strangely enough, these ideas do have some sort of a parallel with those embraced by some racist Christian groups (the so-called Identity Christians), who want to see Jesus as a Gentile.

(But the whole idea of Markan priority is deeply involved here, and is to be blamed for all these misconceptions. Myself, I reject Markan priority.)

As far as Paul's role in any of this, there I'd disagree with Ichabod. I see the "7 authentic epistles", so-called, as full of interpolations. These interpolations were introduced by Gentiles. So I doubt that anything worthwhile will ever emerge from dealing with this so-called "authentic Pauline corpus" uncritically -- there are just too many irresolvable contradictions in there. This is the real Black Hole of biblical scholarship, where 99% of biblical scholars are either confused or lying through their teeth.

Best regards,

Yuri

Vinnie

I wrote an article on Mark's paucity of Gentile-related material a while back. It really needs an update but still has a lot of useful information and is a great springboard for discussion:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/paucitygentile.html

Vinnie

Magdlyn

Who is saying Jesus was invented by "the gentiles?" I agree with Amaleq. It was a syncretization. Perhaps it was a breakaway sect like the Essenes, members of the diaspora, perhaps a few God-fearers banded with these disaffected Jews.

The sect may have had more time than Amaleq thinks to branch out and become diverse.

I don't know as much as some here, so I may be off base, but for all I know, a kind of Xtianity might have evolved 1st cent BCE, not "late." Is that what those pre-Pauline hymns were all about?

You seem to be generalizing again. Saying "the Jews" went out with GJn! Judaism was, and is diverse.

rlogan

Hi Magdlyn.

spin offered a citation from one of the church fathers that placed the origin mid-1st century B.C. and there was a short thread on it. The Roman occupation at the time may have given motivation for a "Savior" movement, or at the very least provided disillusionment within Judaism.

That citation was an anomaly, and the thread didn't go very far. I can't recall the citation though.


But regardless, if there was a movement it escaped the attention of Josephus and therefore if it existed was quite limited.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure what you mean here. The earliest evidence of Christian belief we have (ie Paul's letters) shows an existing diversity. He argues against false apostles preaching a false gospel and "another Jesus". He even talks about some in the church at Corinth who apparently denied resurrection of the dead!

In Q we have Jesus depicted as the incarnation of God's Wisdom but not acting as an atoning sacrifice or even claiming to be the Messiah.

How can we speak of "a" sect with this kind of diverse early evidence?

Vinnie

Because Jesus gave techings and was crucified. It serves as the homebase for both streams that followed. Some made his death and him the ultimate sacrifice and dwelled on that, others more so on his teachings and what he spoke about the KoG.

Vinnie