Steven Carr

Romans 15
Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Paul thinks about Jesus and immediately reveals that he found out about Jesus by reading scripture - that this was one of the main functions of scipture, to give hope and encouragement by teaching about the character of Christ.

If a Muslim of today said that Muhammad behaved in a certain way, because it is written in the Koran that Muhammad did this and that, would scholars immediately assume that that Muslim had got his knowledge of Muhammad's behaviour in that way by oral tradition, and not by reading the Koran?

ApostateAbe

Your argument has good reason behind it, and your logic would certainly hold if Paul was citing a passage from a scripture that is exclusively Christian. But he wasn't. He was citing Psalm 69:9, a passage from Judaic scriptures, which presumably Paul knows well from having had Judaic religious schooling. Paul seems to use that passage to describe Jesus in a sort of poetic style.

To make up an example, it is much like saying, "Jesus as a sacrificial offering received the brutality of the Romans losing almost everything on his bones, as it is written in scripture, 'with only the skin of my teeth.'" That is an idiom that originated in the book of Job.

Steven Carr

It is indeed very like saying, "Jesus as a sacrificial offering received the brutality of the Romans losing almost everything on his bones, as it is written in scripture, 'with only the skin of my teeth.'", apart from the references to Jesus life, which are entirely missing from Paul.

And with the addition of a statement in Paul that 'with the skin of my teeth' is the thing which gives encouragement, not the episode in Jesus' life.

Apart from those two differences, your analogy is pretty exact.

And another tiny difference is a reference in Romans 13 that the authorities only punish wrong-doers and that innocent people had nothing to fear from the authorities (with the granted exception of brutality from them, and losing almost everything on your bones as a result of the brutality of the people who only punished wrong-doers.)

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right. My example is not something that Paul would have written. The analogy is meant to help make sense of Paul's use of a Judaic scriptural passage--not as source of information about Jesus, but as a way to express the oral knowledge about Jesus. If Paul at any time implies that his knowledge about Jesus comes from a written Christian gospel of some sort, I think that would be strong evidence that Paul wrote the epistles at a much later time than believed by critical scholars. In this case, he seems to be using a Hebrew scriptural passage to describe Jesus and at the same time encouraging his recipients to learn and gain moral support from the Hebrew scriptures.

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephen,

These are thought provoking comments, although I think it is post-Pauline; Marcion and Tertullian had a 14 chapter version of Romans.

It was recently brought to my attention by Robert that a similar thought is expressed in the the Preaching of Peter quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.15.
The author acknowledges that the deeds of Jesus are known from "prophecy" not eyewitness testimony. Indeed, recent human testimony is excluded. The author goes on to write, "without the Scripture we say nothing."

The phrase, "before Jerusalem was founded" is interesting in its own right. Did the author really mean "judged"? If the former, it has a mythicist ring to it. If the later, it is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

But, the words the Pauline writer atrributed to Jesus was lifted from the Pslamist David straight out of Hebrew Scripture. These words did not originate from Paul or Jesus.

The Pauline writer erroneously attributed words of Jewish writers to Jesus whom he had never heard.

The Pauline writer distorted the words of the Psalmists

The Pauline write was qouting part of KJV Psalms 69.9 KJV Romans 15.3 The Pauline writer has never claimed to have personally heard Jesus alive, the writer is not an eyewitness to Jesus. His knowledge of the word "Jesus" was derived from some already existing source. Paul did not claim he was the first to talk about Jesus.

In reality Jesus said nothing as found in the Pauline Scriptures, the Hebrew Scripture was mutilated and distorted to become the words of Jesus.

And it must never be forgotten that Paul's Jesus is the same offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, resurrected and ascended myhthical entity derived from a mis-interpreted passage in Isaiah 7.14.

The difference between Muhammad and Jesus of the NT is that Jesus was considered God and man and was not witnessed while alive by the Pauline writer, but Muhammad was considered human, his words and deeds could have been heard and witnessed without using the words of other writers, even out of context, and falsely attributing them to Muhammad.

Jesus was worshipped as a God, Muhammad was not even worshipped.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

There was a previous thread Preaching of Peter...Before Jerusalem was Founded about this passage.

Andrew Criddle

Susan2

Excellent aa! The proof is in the pudding, in a manner of speaking. Same shit different day.

Do you think the psalmist is anymore around to collect the penalty? If there isn't a God, one should be created, begs the question, if there isn't a hell should one be created?

And so they created hell. Enjoy.

Hopefully, if there is a hell, there might be two, so that the psalmist, Jesus and Paul and all the others, might enjoy theirs too.

andrewcriddle

Hi Steven

There seem to be 2 possibilities:
a/ Paul initially held this view of Christ's patient endurance and in the light of this came to regard Psalm 69 as Messianic
b/ Paul initially held Psalm 69 as Messianic and in the light of this came to believe in Christ's patient endurance.

In order to prefer b/ over a/ I think one has to show that Psalm 69 is prima-facie Messianic.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

No, one has to follow the thought patterns of religious maniacs of 2000 years ago who could not interpret a law about oxen without messing up the exegesis. The fact that Jews of the first century would often just ignore genre means nothing other than that theology has made at least some progress in the past 2000 years. Theologians no longer make the blunders that Paul did.Theology may advance very slowly, but it had made at least some progress in the past 2000 years.



All we can do is wonder where the Jesus went, and take at face value Paul's explanation of how God had explained to Christians that Jesus was patient. It had been written 'The insults of those who insult you fall on me' , which was the proof-text for Paul that Jesus had been patient.

By the way, when did the Jesus of the Gospels say that when people insulted Christians they were insulting him? Didn't the Jesus of the Gospels receive direct insults, something not hinted at in Paul's claim that insulting Christians was an insult to Christ,and therefore Christians should not insult each other even if they thought other Christians were not as strong in faith as they themselves?