Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vivisector · 05-25-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can you outline from your reading of Paul what necessitates a historical core, when Paul makes clear that his gospel doesn't come to him from other people, but from god (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16)?

This has always struck me as an interesting and somewhat problematic chapter. On the one hand, it seems unlikely that Paul would have persecuted the church in the absence of knowing what those churches believed. On the other hand, he unequivocally states that he received his gospel from revelation given by Jesus. I'm curious of your thoughts on:

1. What early church beliefs did Paul find so offensive as to persecute? I.e., what was "the faith he once tried to destroy?"

2. Relative to the above, what was new/different about the gospel Paul received by revelation?

3. How can one square 1. and 2. with Paul's later statement that he was seen as "preaching the same faith he once tried to destroy?" (especially if the answer to 2. is significant to any degree)

4. To what degree, if any, do you suspect that Paul might have been burnishing his credentials by reference to direct revelation?

Cheers,

V.

Toto · 05-25-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

...

This has always struck me as an interesting and somewhat problematic chapter. On the one hand, it seems unlikely that Paul would have persecuted the church in the absence of knowing what those churches believed. On the other hand, he unequivocally states that he received his gospel from revelation given by Jesus. I'm curious of your thoughts on:

1. What early church beliefs did Paul find so offensive as to persecute? I.e., what was "the faith he once tried to destroy?"

2. Relative to the above, what was new/different about the gospel Paul received by revelation?

3. How can one square 1. and 2. with Paul's later statement that he was seen as "preaching the same faith he once tried to destroy?" (especially if the answer to 2. is significant to any degree)

....

I don't think that Paul needed to know much of anything about the beliefs of those he persecuted. He only needed to know that they were not toeing the line on some issue and the authorities did not like them. And then he was hit with the divine revelation, and decided to join them.

Or this whole idea of Paul the persecutor of Christians could be made up.

The claim that Paul persecuted Christians is based on:

Galatians 1:13-14 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

...
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

[note: he was unknown to them, in spite of his claim that he persecuted them violently?]

23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Phil 3 If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

[I have seen some doubt as to the authenticity of this - Paul was not a modest, self-effacing type who thought he was the least of the apostles, and this follows a passage that has been marked as doubtful.]

I think a case could be made for all of these being interpolations.

Solo · 05-25-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

1. What early church beliefs did Paul find so offensive as to persecute? I.e., what was "the faith he once tried to destroy?"

2. Relative to the above, what was new/different about the gospel Paul received by revelation?

3. How can one square 1. and 2. with Paul's later statement that he was seen as "preaching the same faith he once tried to destroy?" (especially if the answer to 2. is significant to any degree)

....

I don't think that Paul needed to know much of anything about the beliefs of those he persecuted. He only needed to know that they were not toeing the line on some issue and the authorities did not like them. And then he was hit with the divine revelation, and decided to join them.

Or this whole idea of Paul the persecutor of Christians could be made up.

The claim that Paul persecuted Christians is based on:

Galatians 1:13-14 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

...
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

[note: he was unknown to them, in spite of his claim that he persecuted them violently?]

23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Phil 3 If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

[I have seen some doubt as to the authenticity of this - Paul was not a modest, self-effacing type who thought he was the least of the apostles, and this follows a passage that has been marked as doubtful.]

I think a case could be made for all of these being interpolations.

FWIW, here is my $0.02 on the matter:

Quote:

Did Paul Persecute the Church ?

I am not altogether convinced Paul persecuted the church. For one, a singular church of Christ (that thought of itself that way) did not yet exist. Also, the verses in the genuine Paulines in which Paul admits to persecuting ‘the church of God’ unfortunately all appear in passages of dubious authenticity (1 Cr 15:9, Gal 1:13, 1:23, Phl 3:6). They bear marks of later heavy-handed attempts to make Paul look like an apostolic figure converted to Christ through the confluence of personal revelation and the agency of the church as it developed later. But the mechanics of the conversion as shown in Acts look contrived and false. Paul received the Holy Spirit from God and not through church ordination (9:17). Paul had absolute certainty about his commission, and its provenance and it was not dependent on men in the least. Galatians, especially speak to Paul’s independence from Jerusalem. True, Paul went to Jerusalem but clearly it was to seek approval for his doctrine and the confirmation of his apostolic status, not to be tutored (Gal 1:17, 2:2).

The two passages in Gal 1 which mention Paul’s persecution (13-14, 18-24) look suspicious: the first breaks Paul’s expose of his credentials, uses a word not known elsewhere in the corpus (ιουδαισμος), and asserts he persecuted the church ‘excessively’ or ‘violently’ (καθ’ υπερβολην) trying to destroy it. The remarks, although not unbelievable in themselves, simply do not fit in the context. The digression to Paul’e pre-conversion status seems contrived, as is the church in singular (εκκλησια) coupled with the vehemence of Paul’s pursuit. The verses protest too much. There are similar issues with the other passage, the one dealing with Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem. Paul goes there to ‘acquaint himself’ (ιστορεω) with Peter. This again is a strange hapax legomenon, as is the classing of Cephas, as an apostle, contra 1 Cr 9:5 and 1 Cr 15:5. The ου ψευδομαι oath in 1:20 only heightens the suspicions arising from Tertullian and Irenaeus, both apparently knowing a text of Galatians that lacked the mention of Paul’s first visit. The biggest issue that I see with the 1:18-24 passage however is that Paul on the second visit does not seem to know himself who to contact in Jerusalem and relies on forward references from the church. He ends up with three functionaries of the church 'reputed to be pillars' (οι δοκουντες στυλοι). It strikes me frankly as incredible that Paul, having spent a fortnight with Cephas some time previous and naming him an apostle (by logical implication, 1:19) would not go to him directly as a known leader of the highest ranking. Surely, the grace given to Paul that Paul said Cephas thought worthy of fellowship, would not have had to wait eleven years after the two men first set sights on each other.

Paradoxically, it seems to be the epistle to the Galatians outside of these passages which suggests the likely origin of the legend that Paul persecuted the church of the Nazarenes. The tone of the letter is uncompromising: it is either Paul’s gospel or the flames of hell:

…not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:7-8
I have confidence that you will take no other view than mine and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment …I wish those who unsettle would mutilate themselves Gal 5:10-12

There seems to be a gentlemanly agreement among the learned exegets not to take Paul’s hostile outbursts and curses lobbied in the direction of the James’ missions on their face value. Most of the NT scholarship subscribes to the view that there was one mother church for all Jesus believers established by the mass baptism on the Pentecost (or a silent agreement among the disciples) shortly after Jesus was crucified. All looked to Jerusalem whence Jesus was preached as Christ. In these scholarly circles Paul’s apostolic agony tends to be discounted as a minor skirmish over observances. In my reading of Galatians, however, the issue central to Paul is his teaching of the crucified Messiah, which concept was alien to the Nazarenes in Paul’s time. They believed in Yeshua as an apostle of the last days, killed by lawless Gentiles and their temple priest collaborators (Acts 2:23, interpolated 1 Th 2:14-15). Jesus entourage was subsequently absorbed into a pre-existing congregation of James the Just whose assembly likely sheltered heterodox messianist beliefs and leaderless cults, among them the followers of John the Baptist. The martyred Galilean Yeshua was connected by midrash with the vision of Zechariah 3, and venerated in the church as a heavenly intercessor for the coming of Davidic messiah to restore Israel. This plan for the last days clashed head on with Paul’s revelation of Jesus as the resurrected heavenly messiah himself, who would in near future return and collect his faithful flock above ground. It was the resurrectional schema of Paul which came under attack in Galatia. Paul’s all-out counter, in which judgment was invoked, might have been the type of verbal assault that earned Paul the reputation as the persecutor of the Nazarenes.

None of this, naturally, excludes the possibility that Paul did speak out against the Nazarenes or other sects of apocalyptic messianism prior to his conversion. He probably did do that, as he was a man of strong convictions. The tradition that Paul was a Judaic traditionalist before receiving his calling appears genuine. I am persuaded of this by the remarkable schism on Paul’s pre-conversion view of Jesus in the NT texts. On the one hand, there is the unapologetic view written into the Gal. 1 passages and Philippians 3:6. Paul was a godly, upright learned Jewish tradesman, who was called upon by God to proclaim his revelation. This version of Paul is probably authentic tradition, as it fits Paul’s self-image he consistently presents elsewhere (Rom 1:1, 1 Cr 1:1, 7:20-24, 2 Cr 1:1, 3:5, Gal 1:15-17). There is no shame or even a shade of ‘repentance’ present in Paul’s conversion. Quite the contrary, it is very clear that Paul considered his ministry an election, a service for which he was called and for which he received adequate resourcing. Sharply contrasting with this image, is one of repentant Paul, written into the Acts legend of the Damascus encounter, 1 Cr 15:9, and what appears a shameless retroactive falsification of Paul’s mind in 1 Ti 1:13-14 (‘though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me…’). These, naturally, do not have much to do with Paul, the man who is the subject of my study.

To sum up, my scepticism touches on the level of hostile engagement against the Nazarene assemblies imputed to Paul by some texts. Let this be said plainly: there is no evidence in Paul’s writing that he was either violent personally, or encouraged physical violence against adversaries. It is unlikely that Paul’s conversion would have radically changed his behavioural patterns with respect to advocating or orchestrating the use of violence. Paul’s hostility would have been verbal and confined to denunciations of opponents.

Best, Jiri

Vivisector · 05-25-2011, 01:23 PM

Always appreciative of your thoughts, Toto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He only needed to know that they were not toeing the line on some issue and the authorities did not like them.

Do you suggest that Paul did not know the issue(s) on which the churches were failing to toe the line, or only that Paul *could* have persecuted them in absence of knowledge of the issue(s)?

Quote:

And then he was hit with the divine revelation, and decided to join them.

And this is the focal point of my curiosity - the degree to which Paul's revelation added anything to the "erroneous" beliefs he was persecuting, other than perhaps a, "Psst, Paul, they're actually right." While not wanting to appeal to personal incredulity, I've found it very difficult to come to grips with the hypothesis that, prior to Paul's revelation, he knew virtually nothing about the churches apart from the bare fact that they were possibly "bad Jews" and that his revelation supplied every aspect of his subsequent preaching and epistles.

Quote:

Or this whole idea of Paul the persecutor of Christians could be made up. ... I think a case could be made for all of these being interpolations.

Possibly, though there might be some uncertainly in exactly what Paul meant by "persecute" as well.

Cheers,

V.

Toto · 05-25-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Always appreciative of your thoughts, Toto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He only needed to know that they were not toeing the line on some issue and the authorities did not like them.

Do you suggest that Paul did not know the issue(s) on which the churches were failing to toe the line, or only that Paul *could* have persecuted them in absence of knowledge of the issue(s)?

...

I don't think that the beliefs (in the theological sense) would have been the basis of any persecution. It would be more likely to be an issue over authority or money.

Vorkosigan · 05-25-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

And this is the focal point of my curiosity - the degree to which Paul's revelation added anything to the "erroneous" beliefs he was persecuting, other than perhaps a, "Psst, Paul, they're actually right." While not wanting to appeal to personal incredulity, I've found it very difficult to come to grips with the hypothesis that, prior to Paul's revelation, he knew virtually nothing about the churches apart from the bare fact that they were possibly "bad Jews" and that his revelation supplied every aspect of his subsequent preaching and epistles.

V.

Indeed, without some knowledge of the beliefs, how could Paul have screened believers from others?

Vivisector · 05-25-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Indeed, without some knowledge of the beliefs, how could Paul have screened believers from others?

My thinking, exactly. My simpleheaded thinking has always been that, notwithstanding Paul's "revelation," if he truly did persecute (in any sense of the word with which I'm familiar) the churches, it seems reasonable that he did this on the basis of contrasting religious beliefs. Furthermore, to the extent that he knew anything at all about the religious beliefs he was persecuting, this must be subtracted from his "revelation" to get at the unique aspects of the revelation and thus to place it in better overall context.

On the other hand, Toto is one of the handful of folks on here who, when they write something, I pay very close attention. That being the case, I'd be very interested in a fleshing out (even if speculative) of the money or authority issues to which Paul might have taken such violent exception.

Cheers,

V.

Vorkosigan · 05-25-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

My thinking, exactly. My simpleheaded thinking has always been that, notwithstanding Paul's "revelation," if he truly did persecute (in any sense of the word with which I'm familiar) the churches, it seems reasonable that he did this on the basis of contrasting religious beliefs. Furthermore, to the extent that he knew anything at all about the religious beliefs he was persecuting, this must be subtracted from his "revelation" to get at the unique aspects of the revelation and thus to place it in better overall context.

Cheers,

V.

Not to mention, how could Paul have been convinced to go after the group?

BOSS: Paul, we'd like you to persecute these people, Christians?
PAUL: Who?
BOSS: Christians.
PAUL: Why?
BOSS: I can't tell you. Just go out and violently persecute them.
PAUL: Uh. Ok. How do I know who they are?
BOSS: I can't tell you that.

Vorkosigan · 05-25-2011, 05:39 PM

Another interesting thing is that Pliny makes a related objection to his emperor in the famous letter. He has never sat in on trials and doesn't know much about these Christians he is persecuting. I wonder if someone was setting up for a series of faked letters about how Pliny had converted.

Vivisector · 05-25-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Not to mention, how could Paul have been convinced to go after the group?

BOSS: Paul, we'd like you to persecute these people, Christians?
PAUL: Who?
BOSS: Christians.
PAUL: Why?
BOSS: I can't tell you. Just go out and violently persecute them.
PAUL: Uh. Ok. How do I know who they are?
BOSS: I can't tell you that.

We might find ourselves "violently" agreeing on this point, regardless of how we would render "persecute." Paul, I think, knew or supposed something about the Christians to which he took great exception. It seems most unlikely (not to say it can't be true or that this is a point in argumentation) that Paul's revelation informed him, in addition to anything else, of the reasons Paul was persecuting the Christians in the first place. So the question in my mind remains, cast in - I hope - an even less contentious light, what is the minimum Paul could have known about the early Christians that would have caused him to violently persecute them?

Cheers,

V.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-25-2011, 05:39 PM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Another interesting thing is that Pliny makes a related objection to his emperor in the famous letter. He has never sat in on trials and doesn't know much about these Christians he is persecuting. I wonder if someone was setting up for a series of faked letters about how Pliny had converted.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.