Amaleq13

There is no evidence that the crucifixion death of Jesus was unique to Paul's "good news" for gentiles so there is no reason to treat it as such. The evidence of the text indicates that it was only Paul's gentile-specific interpretation of the significance of that death which was opposed.

According to Paul's "good news" for believing gentiles, yes. His opponents felt otherwise about that particular claim. There is no evidence that they disputed anything else that Paul taught.

I do no such thing. What I do not do is pretend that Paul's belief in a crucified messiah was unique to Paul when the evidence indicates it was his gentile-specific interpretation of the significance of that sacrifice that set him apart from those who opposed him.

Wrong. It is the interpretation of the salvation the death offered as it pertains to believing gentiles in Galatia that is essential to the contrast. There is no evidence that the bare notion of a redemptive death was disputed. It is consistently about what Paul believed that meant for gentiles.

There is no evidence that the notion of a crucified messiah was ever disputed by his opponents in Galatia and it is simply absurd to suggest they would ignore such a claim if they did not share it.

That means his opponents also believed in a crucified messiah but did not agree that this somehow let gentiles off the hook regarding adherence to the Law.

As I eventually stated in the original thread when you repeatedly asked the same question, I can't be any more clear than I already have been and I'm tired of repeating myself. As I also indicated in the previous thread, I asked a few of the other participants, via PM, if my posts were in some way unclear and failed to find anyone sharing your confusion. Everybody else seemed to understand why I conclude that Paul's opponents shared his belief in a crucified and resurrected messiah named "Jesus". If you are genuinely interested, reread my posts. hint -> why did he go to "the pillars" for approval and why didn't his Galatian opponents deny such an absurd notion as a crucified messiah?

There's no other credible reason for Paul to go to the pillars for approval and no other credible reason for Paul's opponents to only contradict him on the subject of gentile Law adherence.

No, that burden in upon you. Why would your position identify that, alone, as a shared belief? Both groups believed in a resurrected messiah but not that he died by crucifixion? Where is the evidence for that line?

The evidence indicates it was Paul's gentile-specific interpretation of the death of Jesus that was opposed. It does not indicate that the bare fact of that death or the means of the death or that it had salvific implications was disputed by his opponents.

See above.

Why did you avoid my questions?

Please take your own advice.

gurugeorge

Seemingly. And yet strangely Justin, like some of the other early 2nd century proto-orthodox Christians, complained of finding "heretics" already established wherever they went. This is the great giveaway according to W Bauer. What it lets slip is that the majority of extant churches in the early 2nd century weren't proto-orthodox. So Justin, the first proto-orthodox spokesman, is covering something up (or puffing something up).

For sure, and we have precious little external evidence of any of it.

What I'm saying is that most other Christians who actually existed in the early 2nd century looked like "heretics" to the proto-orthodox (starting with Justin that we know of), but that the proto-orthodoxy was actually a minority, and a relatively new development at that time. (Again, I'm basing this on my reading of W Bauer, it kind of stands or falls with the solidity of that scholarship, which I've seen doubted.)

What eventually came to be orthodoxy was a relatively late development in earliest Christianity, and what the majority of early Christianity was like, what the proto-orthodoxy found itself in a sea of, was Churches practicing charismatic religion (i.e. participatory religion, much as you see in tribes - ecstatic, visionary, maybe sometimes even sexual). This is the kind of Christianity "Paul" is talking about (in terms of what actually happens at Christian gatherings). This is the Christianity that further diverged and developed into full-blown Gnosticism (and much later eventually died meekly as an orthodox-tamed "Docetism").

The final expunging of charismatic religion even within orthodoxy was when the Canon was finalised (300-400CE?), and no new gospels allowed.

Well no, it seems like the hypothesis that makes the most sense of the evidence to me. The cute reversals of the Joshua Messiah trope are just too cute (not future, past; not king, nonentity; not military victor, crucified as a criminal; not military, sagely and spiritual).

Joshua Messiah was first an idea; a new form of the Messiah myth, whose proponents were claiming basically that everyone else had gotten it wrong about the Messiah, and that actually he was like THIS.

If that's posited, a coherent story automatically crystallizes that fits the evidence and yet still accepts a good deal of standard scholarship.

Yeah but don't forget Simon Magus was a Christian even in Justin's eyes, just a deviant one.

But your idea isn't as daft as you might think: consider the way "Paul" talks about the intimacy between himself and Christ - he dies in Christ, with Christ, etc. It's possible for someone to look at "Paul" and think he's suffering from delusions of grandeur, is it not? That would be a sensible reaction to "Paul". Or was it "Simon Magus", "Paul" seen through a glass darkly?

The proto-orthodox were sensible Christians - they didn't like much of all that kind of stuff, the prophecy, the glossolalia, being "moved by the spirit" - in fact, they were probably the most rational of the Christians, they probably thought all that stuff was "woo-woo" and just liked the Platonic philosophy and dug the symbolism of Christianity as a philosophy (IOW they liked the Philonic side of Christianity.)

I think the truth about "Paul" is probably somewhere inbetween the pious "Paul" of Acts (and the tweaks to the letters) and the crazy magician guy of "Simon Magus" fame.

And again, remember, if the hints of charismatic religion in the letters were left in there, they had to be left in there for a good reason, because they're quite un-orthodox. (And, as I say, there would have been no reason for a later orthodox "Paul"-invention to write something that had charismatic elements - why invite controversy in something you're making up?)

spin

You sound like mountainman: there's no evidence that christianity existed before Eusebius.

As Jesus's death is used against the notion of performing the law, it should be obvious to you that Jesus's death doesn't appear to be part of the other gospel. Jesus's death renders the law obsolete. This is tantamount to saying that Jesus's death is contrary to the other gospel.

So no evidence against is equivalent for your lack of evidence for.

Steel trap.

Read: You omit the death by crucifixion of Jesus as a key to Paul's unique gospel, 2:21. And don't whinge. It should have been obvious to you what I intended.

When the crucifixion of Jesus is used in contrast with the acts of the law, it is not of the other gospel. Thus for us it's unique to Paul's.

Reread 2:21. That says nothing about gentiles, because ultimately the notion of "gentile" is irrelevant to Paul's gospel. He just preaches it among the gentiles.

Why does Paul contrast the crucified christ with torah performance?

Because Paul doesn't talk about their beliefs you can construct those beliefs because he didn't say that they didn't disagree with his crucified christ.

I can understand that you can't be any clearer. You've been supporting something that isn't from the text.

They aren't unclear. Just not derived from the text.

Because an even more important issue was at stake: the Galatians were not performing the law. This is the first and foremost requirement of being Jewish, as were the pillars and the religion centered around them. You can believe anything you like (within reason) when you are a Jew, but if you do not perform the law, you aren't Jewish. Can you see the problem yet?

the "messianist" Paul wanting support and approval is sufficient reason to go to the Jerusalem messianists. The meeting clarified the gulf between them, rather than garnered approval.

This doesn't seem to follow what you are responding to.

It is not gentile-specific. You don't seem to grasp the significance of 2:21.

Paul's chosen mission was to the gentiles. His gospel made it possible.

To repeat: the juxtaposition of justification through the death of Jesus with obsolescence of the law puts the death of Jesus in contrast with torah praxis.

Where exactly was the evidence above? You don't cite the text. Not even to try to justify your conjecture about Paul's gospel revelation.

Oh, but I have answered them. Several times. Torah performance. Either you are Jewish or you aren't, so the issue is paramount.

I did. That's why I cut out my empty responses to your empty responses of the type exemplified in your empty response above. It was a procedural request in order to reduce the size of the posts.


spin

aa5874

You have a very complex theory with lots of unanswered questions. How come there are already heretics in the middle of the first century, yet "Paul" was before the the gospel stories?

gurugeorge

They are only "heretics" in the eyes of the orthodox; prior to early 2nd century they are actually the majority and orthodoxy is in the minority; after that point, the combination of political/organisational power, financial power and literary/intellectual acumen eventually brings everyone into the fold, at least nominally.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh there's plenty of evidence Doug (that Paul's opponents did not think Jesus was crucified):

1) That Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and his followers were left to promote him in Jerusalem is not believable. Nothing else is needed to doubt that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

2) Paul never claims that there was historical witness to Jesus' crucifixion.

3) In the disputed Corinthians (which I think is original) Paul only says that historical witness agrees with him that Jesus died (doesn't really narrow it down, does it?). That would have been a good time to mention the crucifixion, yet not only does Paul not mention crucifixion, he phrases historical witness as opposed to him.

4) Paul's emphasis is Revelation and Faith and he thinks Jesus sacrificed himself to his father, thereby conquering death by dying in order to end a law that was eternal. It's a short put to crucifixion by revelation.

5) Paul's timing is "rulers of the age". The only detail his 1st century followers add is "Pilate". Sounds flimsy.

6) There's an implication from Paul's letters that after he proselytizes in virgin territory, historical witness comes in to clean up his shit and convinces many that Paul is not accurately promoting Jesus. The supposed crucifixion could be part of this.

7) Statistics (most people, even than, did not die from crucifixion).

8) "Mark", the original Gospel, makes clear that Peter and the disciples never believed that Jesus was resurrected and did not witness the crucifixion.

9) Paul's comment that a Christ crucified is foolishness to the Jews.

Now the above is not proof that Jesus was not crucified, just evidence, but you are a long way from proof that Jesus was crucified:

1) No extant first hand witness.

2) No extant second hand witness.

3) 1st century witness seems to be based on Paul.

4) 2nd century witness does start to claim that Peter was in there somewhere but your original narrative is clear that within the narrative Peter and the disciples did not know that Jesus was crucified.

5) The original Gospel has a Forged ending showing that Peter and the disciples knew that Jesus was crucified. All other Gospels take it from there.



Joseph

aa5874

Now, who are the "heretics" in the middle of 1st century? "Paul" was orthodox? The gospel of uncircumcision was heretical..... orthodox?

Your theory is very complex with a lot of unanswered questions.

gurugeorge

Umm, there aren't any, because there aren't yet any orthodox. There are just charismatic, proto-gnostic Christians, some of them (around Judea and Samaria) coming from the original Jewish proto-Gnosticism of the Jerusalem crowd, a greater number (and more widely spread, geographically) coming from "Paul"'s ministry.

No, he was "the apostle of the heretics", but the "heretics" were the majority before the early 2nd century. He is later touted as "one of our own" by the growing orthodoxy, through the fabrication of Acts (late dating) and the shepherding of some of his writings by orthodox bookends (and a bit of interpolation) in the Canon.

The reason for this is because of orthodoxy's drive to get power and influence, and possibly convert the "heretics" to their way of thinking: in effect, Acts says to the "heretics": "Hey, Paul your founder was a great guy - in fact he was partly our founder too, look!" (But the kicker was "but we ALSO have a lineage connection right back to Christ himself!", see below.)

And for those "heretics" who remain recalcitrant and refuse to join in and toe the party line, "Simon Magus" (who was in reality the same guy) is held to be their founder.

Both - Paul's and the "heretics"' because that was Paul's twist on the original thoroughly Jewish proto-gnosticism, that enabled his version of Christianity to spread. The orthodoxy's because they too, after all, were mostly gentiles.

But note that there's a toning-down of anti-Jewish rhetoric in orthodoxy: this is because the other half of the Acts trick is the invention of "Peter".

See, the development of orthodoxy is a post-Diaspora thing. The way I see it, starting from Mark you have the development of this notion that the early apostles knew the messiah in person. There's no conclusive implication of anything like that in "Paul" - the creed Paul confesses in 1 Corinthians: 15 talks in terms that are ambiguous between "a bunch of people who knew the cult figure personally" and "a bunch of people who had the same revelation about a mythological cult figure". It's possible to read it either way.

This is at first perhaps just an innocent variation idea - in Mark it's just a foil that enables him to paint the Jews as somewhat stupid and obtuse (and hence somewhat deserving of the terrible fate that overcame them).

But later, as this stream of thought develops, the idea solidifies that if one has a Jerusalem connection one has a direct connection to the cult figure himself, and that trumps the lineage connection of any church able to point only to "Paul" as its founder. "Paul's" connection is merely visionary; a Jerusalem connection connects directly to the founder.

I think this idea was gradually developing from 70CE, and Matthew is the first solid gospel statement of this case (ca 80-90CE - Matthew may be the very "memoir" that Justin talks about, it was held to be the first gospel by the early orthodox), but I think orthodoxy really started coming together after 125-135CE with a fresh influx of Jewish expats claiming the mantle of a Jewish original Christianity (that they remembered the facts about even less than the first influx after 70CE did). This is the time of the fabrication of Acts and Luke and the beginnings of the formation of the Canon (partly as a response to Marcion - who of course was a Christian of one of the "heretical" churches "Paul" seeded, and developed his own extension of the proto-Gnosticism of the original Christianity).

Combine this strengthened Jewish connection with the idea that a connection to the Jerusalem Church is a direct connection to Joshua Messiah, and you have, in Rome and Alexandria, a killer lineage connection, better than "Paul"'s, that gives Roman Christianity the legitimacy to go out to the boondocks and bring the growingly disparate, and growingly Gnostic "heretical" rabble into some order.

But this also necessitates a more friendly attitude towards Jews in the gospels and theology of Roman/Alexandrinian Christianity. And it also necessitates the theological fine balance, characteristic of Catholicism, between the strongly fleshly image of Joshua Messiah needed to give this fabricated lineage legitimacy, and the original strongly spiritual image (which was originally all there was to the Joshua Messiah myth - with the fleshly aspects being rather sketchy and sufficient only to make the theological point).

Later note: in this perspective, the Kerygmata Petrou, which explicitly gives the very rationale I've outlined above (that a direct lineage connection trumps a merely visionary lineage connection) I would assign a fairly early date, ca 160CE - I think an earlier version of it may have been at one time considered as a first draft of Acts, or an alternative to Acts, or a supplement to Acts or something like that, and is more clearly the voice of the Jewish half of the orthodox movement (maybe Acts won out because it's more neutral). In fact, I wonder if analysis would find some elements of the similarity that some scholars propose between the authorship of Acts and the authorship of Luke, with the reconstituted Kerygmata. Or it might have been a proposed version of what Acts was supposed to be, offered by the Jewish side of the Roman church, later rejected in favour of Acts, or withdrawn in a huff.

aa5874

I have read your post several times now, and your complex theory is now becoming very ambiguous.

What exactly was "Paul's gospel" when he was supposed to be alive up to the time of Nero?

Let me give you a little hint.

Eusebius in "Church History" claimed that all fourteen epistles of Paul are genuine. We now know that the statement is not true.

It is likely that "Paul" had NO gospel up to the death of Nero. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that.

Amaleq13

As it is Paul's interpretation of Jesus' death that is contradicted and not the bare fact of that death, it should be obvious to you that this was a shared belief since the notion of a crucified messiah would not have been acceptable to Jews and would have obtained substantial objection.

According to Paul but not according to his opponents. There is no indication in the text that they disputed the fact of his death. There is only evidence that they disputed Paul's gentile-specific interpretation of that death.

You overestimate the clarity of your writing.

It is not the fact of the crucifixion but faith in Paul's gentile-specific interpretation of the significance of that fact which stands against the necessity of the law. This is what Paul repeatedly. There is nothing in the text of Galatians that suggests anyone was denying Jesus was crucified. At no point does Paul offer a single argument to establish that Jesus really was crucified against claims that such a thing was contrary to the entire concept of "messiah". It is an uncontested assumption that Paul never feels compelled to defend.

What are you playing at? The context of 2:11-21 is quite clearly about contention over what Paul was teaching gentiles.

He doesn't. He argues for his interpretation of the significance of that event for believing gentiles.

And that was more important than Paul preaching a dead and, therefore, false messiah? So important that we find no hint that the notion of a dead messiah was ever contested? Like I said, your position has a substantial credibility problem.

Even a crucified and, therefore, false messiah? Even if it is belief in that false messiah that is supposed to negate the necessity of the Law?

No, it isn't. Why those particular men? What would make Paul think that those particular messianists might approve of him preaching a false messiah to gentiles?