Amaleq13

That makes sense if we assume Paul established all the Gentile churches. It seems to me, however, that at least some of "his" churches had already been established. Presumably, they would have been established by the Jerusalem group directly or by followers of that group. I don't see Paul's claim of equal authority being accepted by anyone who considered the authority of the Jerusalem group as based on their previous relationship with the living Jesus.

One of the most frustrating things about this whole mess, IMHO, is the fact that our only "evidence" of the beliefs of the Jerusalem group comes from Paul and he is clearly motivated to downplay any differences. We can also consider Acts, ala Maccoby, but we run into the same problem there.

GakuseiDon

This is what Doherty says (my emphasis):

"Inconceivable"? "Dumbfounded"? Where is the analysis? The more I read of Doherty the less respect I have for him.

GakuseiDon

Magdlyn, what does the numbering on the Utterances mean?

Amaleq13

Paul's description of the practice and his condemnation of those who he considers are misusing it clearly establishes the importance of this communal meal of remembrance. Scholars who do not acknowledge this seem to me to be less interested in the facts and more interested in avoiding the problematic nature of Pau'ls emphasis on such a clearly pagan practice. Especially given that it was antithetical to deeply held Jewish beliefs. I'm sure these same scholars gloss over this as they argue for Paul's Jewish background. How could a practice Paul asserts comes directly from the risen Christ be considered anything other than central?

Maccoby makes a good argument, I think, that the Jerusalem group did not share this practice. That certainly makes sense if they are assumed to champion continued following of the Law.

Frankly, I think the best argument for a Jewish origin (of at least some aspect of the belief system) are the depictions of Jesus in the Gospels you have pointed out where his ministry apparently avoids gentiles. However, Q depicts prophets of the Kingdom of God who do not exclude gentiles from their preaching and even hold believing gentiles up as a condemning example against their fellow Jews.

Is it not possible that this Gospel depiction of Jesus' ministry (ie 1st Jews, 2nd gentiles) be nothing more than a reflection of the Jewish reaction to the Christian message?

Surely you must be aware that the truth is not determined by vote?

Given the generally poor state of the evidence, that is unfortunately often the best anyone can do.

Except for the "after his conversion" part, Maccoby says much the same thing. Given that Paul repeatedly asserts his gospel comes from no man but directly from the risen Christ, it is difficult to see why we should consider him "converting" to anything. If I understand your position correctly, this still holds true. Paul's beliefs differed from those of the Jerusalem group far more than either his letters or Acts suggests. What the latter's beliefs actually were, however, is the big unanswered question. You insist they believed in an apocalyptic prophet while Maccoby insists they believed in a traditional Jewish Messiah.

If the Gospel stories are true, Tacitus is wrong. The origin of the sect was in rural Galilee.

Amaleq13: If the origin of the sect was Judea, why didn't Paul persecute anyone there?

Why would you take Acts over Paul's own claims? That makes no sense. Paul clearly asserts that he was unknown to the churches in Judea except by reputation. The question stands.

You've still not established we are talking about a single sect. There is a clear diversity in "Jesus believers" as far back as Paul. It is misleading and inconsistent with the actual evidence to suggest there was ever a single sect that constituted "followers of Jesus/Son/Christ". Our earliest evidence shows division.

I encourage you to read Crossan's The Birth of Christianity. He does an excellent job, IMHO, showing how Q and GTh reflect a separation from a shared core of sayings into very different directions. The community GTh represents is not concerned about any future apocalypse because, to them, the Kingdom of God is already present.

The Gospels are full of a lot of stuff that didn't originate with Jesus. It is not so difficult to believe if one considers the generally accepted view of the formation of Q. Apocalyptic pronouncements are a later development from a core collection of wisdom sayings.

I certainly agree that the coming End was central to Paul's preaching but please note that he never bases this on anything allegedly preached by a living Jesus. It is entirely based on the resurrection appearances! Christ's resurrection is the "first fruits", not Jesus' preaching.

Jesus makes no such prediction anywhere in Paul. His eschatological beliefs are derived solely from the resurrection experiences.

As Mack and others (eg Carrier) have pointed out, none of this is unique. Similar sentiments can be found from Cynics, Stoics, and others. Again, this makes sense given an origin in an existing synthesis between Judaism and pagan beliefs.

I agree with Vork that this, simple as it seems, does not appear to me to be credible. If they already accepted the authority of the "original movement", why would they have any interest whatsoever in Paul's claims?

Paul bases his authority on his experience of the risen Christ and asserts this to be the same basis for the authority of the Jerusalem group. I don't see how any of the gentile communities, who presumably knew otherwise, would give him even a moment's notice.

Amaleq13

That is the opposite of what Paul actually tells us. He freely admits that he is willing to "become" whomever he is preaching to in order to share his gospel.

CX

In a sense. Obviously I'm only speculating. From the texts we have it seems pretty clear that there were some who rejected Paul because he was, in their view, a self-proclaimed apostle ostensibly because he didn't know Jesus the flesh and blood man. Naturally he wants, we can surmise, to downplay the importance of knowing the HJ and focus on the spiritual nature of Christ. Additionally, if we accept for the sake of argument that there was an HJ, Paul may have had little knowledge of the details of his earthly life and ministry if the only thing to go on was some written sayings material and oral traditions.

Amaleq13

To expand on my earlier comment, this aspect of GMt has to be taken in the context of all the other changes the author makes to Mark. For example, as Maccoby points out, GMk portrays the Pharisee-Jesus relationship nowhere near as black & white as the later Gospels. They are not bitterly opposed to him as a whole (representing all Jews) but at least one is depicted as accepting Jesus' teaching and, in turn, being accepted by Jesus. This is completely erased in the Mathean rewrite of the story. IMO, this has to be understood as a reflection of the existing conditions at the time the story was rewritten (ie Jewish persecution of Christians) more than a retained historical core. When Mark was written, the Jews were likely more concerned with their own survival than persecuting a small group that undermined the importance of adhering to the Law.

rlogan

ichabod crane asked a question we've not addressed, and I think it deserves an answer. I do not recall Doherty addressing his point that Jesus is portrayed in the gospels as asserting his role as strictly for the Jews.

His claim is that this supports the theory of Jesus being an apocalyptic Jewish preacher and defeats Doherty's thesis. An "early gospel dating" heresy. (Someone kill this guy)

My first response is that I am looking for the argument of best explanation, and incorporating all of the other "evidence" is important in addressing this point. At the same time, I don't want a "just so" story to fit in with my existing paradigm.

Some thoughts:

1) The apologists of the 2nd century seemed especially keen on establishing the ancient roots of Christianity. Portraying Jesus as a newfangled prophet was apparently an indictment of their cause. So strategically speaking they must lash him tightly to the Jewish heritage.

2) In so doing that simultaneously restricts them to what the Jewish texts actually say. The Jesus of the gospels is a shameless quote-mining of the HB texts. There isn't much in the way of gentile-savior prophesy in the Jewish texts. "he shall speak before the gentile nations and blah blah blah"

I have a couple of other thoughts but for some reason I feel like just developing a list is kin to apologetics and I want to see if these points have merit first. Or if anyone has any other ideas.

I'm guessing, ichabod, that you are also a *gasp* Josephus TF supporter? Partial interpolation brand, right?

GakuseiDon

Which 2nd century apologists seemed especially keen, and how do you prove such a thing?

What other texts should they have used?

What is wrong with that?

rlogan

Hi GD. hey, didn't I see you coming out of a Doherty's Anonymous meeting last week? Come on out of the closet, buddy.


OK, Take anyone you like. How about Tatian? Ch XXXI - in demonstrating the Philosophy of the Christians is older than that of the Greeks. He latches on to Moses for that.

I see the apologists:

a) wanting a "pedigree" and

b) utilizing HB prophesy to legitimize JC as the messiah

I did not mean to confine this to the second century, as it is still true today. I mean that this arose then. You don't have 1st century apologists for an HJ. or 1st century gospels...

Perhaps you misunderstood. If they want the pedigree they are also confined by what is contained within it. They can "bend the truth" and play loose with scripture, but it is a constraint nonetheless.

oh, I suppose it's like leprosy. Folks will pretend to still like you but you don't get invited to parties.