Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 06-03-2004, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

The problem is, Paul might not have cared, but his audience probably would have. Paul was not always "preaching to the choir," he was competing with other preachers who were speaking to the same congregations and he was hard-pressed to keep "his" flock adhering to "correct" doctrine.

Some of these rival preachers claimed that Jesus had not "come in the flesh" and was not crucified. Since Paul taught otherwise, if by "in the flesh" he meant a real, physical body, you'd think that his audience would ask him for more evidence that Jesus had in fact incarnated in flesh--when and where was he born, where did he live, who were his parents, when was he crucified, who ordered him crucified, and so on. And you'd think Paul himself would be forced to confront this issue more directly and explicitly, whether he wanted to or not.

But how would you show such a thing, from the handful of letters that we have from Paul? Paul's epistles were mainly to address problems within the church. Beyond names and places, Paul doesn't give any historical details about anything, much less Jesus.

rlogan · 06-03-2004, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Some of these rival preachers claimed that Jesus had not "come in the flesh" and was not crucified. Since Paul taught otherwise, if by "in the flesh" he meant a real, physical body, you'd think that his audience would ask him for more evidence that Jesus had in fact incarnated in flesh--when and where was he born, where did he live, who were his parents, when was he crucified, who ordered him crucified, and so on. And you'd think Paul himself would be forced to confront this issue more directly and explicitly, whether he wanted to or not.

Sometimes I have to say "duh!" when someone points out something that seems obvious now that you've done so.

The other position I've seen taken is that everyone knew Jesus had existed, so what would be the point of mentioning details.

To stifle the opposition.

GakuseiDon · 06-03-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Sometimes I have to say "duh!" when someone points out something that seems obvious now that you've done so.

The other position I've seen taken is that everyone knew Jesus had existed, so what would be the point of mentioning details.

To stifle the opposition.

Exactly. Who were the opposition? The Judaizers and the Jerusalem Group, possibly Ebionites and Nazareans - all with reason to focus on a more Jewish version of Jesus, and at odds to a more Gentile-friendly "Risen Christ" preached by Paul.

Vorkosigan · 06-03-2004, 09:51 PM

Don -- I have to bow out. It's the last week of the semester and work is overwhelming. On the 12th we are leaving for a three week vacation. so trip planning is also eating up my time. Very sorry.

GakuseiDon · 06-03-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Don -- I have to bow out. It's the last week of the semester and work is overwhelming. On the 12th we are leaving for a three week vacation. so trip planning is also eating up my time. Very sorry.

No problem, Vork. Thanks for your always interesting comments. Catch you next time!

rlogan · 06-04-2004, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Exactly. Who were the opposition? The Judaizers and the Jerusalem Group, possibly Ebionites and Nazareans - all with reason to focus on a more Jewish version of Jesus, and at odds to a more Gentile-friendly "Risen Christ" preached by Paul.

I see. And where is this Jesus described?

GakuseiDon · 06-04-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I see. And where is this Jesus described?

This is a part of the history of the Christian church that Doherty's thesis hasn't covered: the existence of early groups of Christians who believed in a human Jesus and regarded Paul as an apostate. We see these groups regarded as heretical by the 2nd C CE, but we never see any hints of a Doherty-like MJ sect being declared heretical at ANY stage. No-one seems to have noticed them - yet Paul was supposed to have been travelling around establishing these MJ churches, who somehow managed to keep his epistles and pass them on to HJ churches.

Anyway. The Judaizers:

Quote:

The party or rather faction of Cephas (I Cor., i, 12) very probably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, however, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. I Cor., ix, 1-5; II Cor., xi, 5-12; xii, 11-12; i, 17-20; x, 10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subsequent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's machinations. In the meantime (supposing Gal. To have been written soon after I and II Cor., as it very probably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE), and by their skillful maneuvers had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held his mission. To his teaching they opposed the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Gal., ii, 2 sqq.). He was a time-server, changing his teaching and conduct according to circumstances with the view of ingratiating himself with men (Gal., i, 10; v, 11). They argued that circumcision had been instituted as a sign of an eternal alliance between God and Israel: if the Galatians then wished to have a share in this alliance, with its blessings, if they wished to be in the full sense of the term Christians, they must accept circumcision (Gal., iii, 3 sq.; v, 2).

The Ebionites (probably a later development of the Judaizers):

Quote:

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity.

This is a speculative but fascinating extract from The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby:

Quote:

Another name by which these later Jewish Christians were known, according to the Church historians, was Nazarenes'. This name goes back to very early times, for it is found in the New Testament itself, not only applying to Jesus ('Jesus the Nazarene') but also (Acts 24: 5) to the nembers of the 'Jerusalem Church', in the denunciation by the High Priest. It seems, then, that 'Nazarenes' was the original name for the followers of Jesus; the name 'Christians' was a later development, not in Jerusalem but in Antioch (Acts II: 26). In the Jewish rabbinical writings, the name used for Jesus' followers is similar to 'Nazarenes', i.e. notzerim. Whether this name is derived from Jesus' place of birth, Nazareth, or from some other source, is a matter of scholarly debate. but it is clear that the survival of this name in sects of the third and fourth centuries points to continuity between these sects and the oiriginal followers of Jesus in Jerusalem...

In general, however, the Nazarenes or Ebionites held fast to their original beliefs which we find mentioned again and again in our Christian sources: that Jesus was a human being, born by natural process from Joseph and Mary; that he was given prophetic powers by God; that he was an observant Jew, loyal to the Torah, which he did not abrogate and which was, therefore, still fully valid; and that his message had been distorted and perverted by Paul, whose visions were deluded, and who had falsely represented Jesus as having abrogated the Torah...

The conclusion reached by most Jews, therefore, was that Jesus was just another failed Messiah. As for his alleged prophetic powers, these must have been delusions. He was not after all a genuine prophet or his prophecies about himself would have been fulfilled. The Ebionites, however, still refused to accept this conclusion; though no doubt some of them, weary of waiting for Jesus' return, went back to the fold of normative Judaism and gave up their belief in Jesus as Messiah and prophet. The remaining Ebionites, while still loyal to the Torah, built up an additional scripture or gospel (unfortunately now lost, having been suppressed by the Pauline Christian Church together with the other Ebionite writings), in which they set down the sayings of Jesus, who, to them, was just as inspired as Isaiah or Jeremiah and therefore deserved to be included in the canon...

Thus the Ebionites, by their continued beliefinJesus as prophet and Messiah, were increasingly cut off from the developing activity of rabbinical Judaism. Yet it was probably not until about AD I35 that the Ebionites were finally declared heretics by the Pharisee rabbis. This decision was no doubt influenced by the awareness of the rabbis that the Gentile branch of Christianity, following the teachings of Paul, had abrogated the Torah and developed anti-Semitic attitudes. This was the conclusive proof that Jesus' claim to Messiahship had not been 'from God'. Gentile Christianity, however, unlike Ebionite Christianity, was never declared heretical, since it was too far removed from Judaism to be regarded as a heretical form of it...

Let us look, then, more carefully at the earliest extant formulation of the Ebionite view of Paul, found in the works of Epiphanius (fourth century). 'They declare that he was a Greek . .. He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law' (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16.6-9). This account, of course, is not history. It is what Epiphanius declares the Ebionites were saying in the fourth century and is coloured both by Epiphanius's hostility to the Ebionites and by the Ebionites' hostility to Paul. Nevertheless, there is a core here that may well be true.

Two elements in particular in the story have been shown in our previous discussions to be important: that Paul was a 'Greek' (i.e. a Hellenistic Gentile), and that he was involved with the High Priest (here simply called 'the priest'). A third authentic element may be detected: a failure by Paul to achieve an ambition, and his consequent desertion of the High Priest and involvement with the Jesus movement.

Gregg · 06-04-2004, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But how would you show such a thing, from the handful of letters that we have from Paul? Paul's epistles were mainly to address problems within the church. Beyond names and places, Paul doesn't give any historical details about anything, much less Jesus.

But that's the whole point, Don. WHY is he not forthcoming with historical details about anything, even when it's in his best interests to be so?

Paul was contending with "other apostles" who preached a different Christ, one who had not "come in the flesh" and was not crucified. Yet he never makes any effort whatsoever to fix his fleshy, incarnated Christ in a specific time or place. He never makes THE slam-dunk argument against the rival apostles ("If he didn't come in the flesh, then why can I produce eyewitnesses to his earthly ministry? Why can I point to the places where he walked, preached, prayed, was crucified, and was buried?") even though--according to practically every historicist argument I've ever seen--it should have been quite easy for him to do so. After all, didn't he know the "Lord's brother" and at least one other of Jesus' disciples personally? Wasn't he aware that there were more? Didn't James tell him anything during his visit?

Amaleq13 · 06-04-2004, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

The problem is, Paul might not have cared, but his audience probably would have.

I'm not so sure that is true. This sentiment, which I have tended to accept in the past, may be an anachronistic projection of 21st century thinking. In addition, if we take Paul's letters as an accurate reflection of his gospel, his audience would have learned that the preexistent Son had incarnated into a form of uninteresting powerlessness. Why would they be interested in this temporary pitstop when the real story was about being raised in power? I fully agree that, if Paul had been even vaguely referring to the guy depicted in the Gospels, his audience would have been eager to hear more details.

Expecting Paul's audience to ask about details regarding the incarnation seems to me like expecting a Greek audience to have asked about the specific kind of wood used to build the Trojan horse.

Gregg · 06-04-2004, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I'm not so sure that is true. This sentiment, which I have tended to accept in the past, may be an anachronistic projection of 21st century thinking.

21st century? How about the Middle Ages and the relic-hunting craze?

Quote:

In addition, if we take Paul's letters as an accurate reflection of his gospel, his audience would have learned that the preexistent Son had incarnated into a form of uninteresting powerlessness. Why would they be interested in this temporary pitstop when the real story was about being raised in power? I fully agree that, if Paul had been even vaguely referring to the guy depicted in the Gospels, his audience would have been eager to hear more details.

Expecting Paul's audience to ask about details regarding the incarnation seems to me like expecting a Greek audience to have asked about the specific kind of wood used to build the Trojan horse.

For Paul, the crucifixion itself was also of vital importance. No one would have been interested in the slightest in knowing why the incarnate Christ was crucified?

Of course, one can still be a mythicist while arguing that Paul believed the Christ had incarnated in actual flesh in some unknown time and place (to Jewish mother whose husband was a descendant of David, of course!), had lived an obscure (but supposedly blameless) life, and had somehow been crucified. Just because Paul believed that he had existed, doesn't mean he did exist, just as William Tell didn't exist just because some people still believe he did.

But then you have the fact that Paul apparently knew some other details about this obscure individual, such as that he had disciples and had eaten a sacred meal with them on the night before his crucifixion. He mentions the "Lord's brother" and talks about the post-resurrection appearances as if they happened fairly recently, indicating that Jesus' ministry and crucifixion was not so long past either.

Anachronistic projecting or no, I find it hard to believe even first-century people would to a man (and woman) not be interested in this figure, no matter how little Paul was interested in him, no matter how vehemently he insisted the details just weren't important. Especially when other apostles were coming around telling them that Jesus had not come in the flesh and had not been crucified.

I think the anachronistic projecting is being done by those who insist that Paul couldn't have meant anything other than an actual incarnation in flesh. This reflects on our materialistic age, where even among believers (in the monotheistic religions especially) a sharp distinction is drawn between the realm of matter and the realm of spirit. In antiquity that line was much blurrier.

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

06-03-2004, 09:51 PM	#174
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Don -- I have to bow out. It's the last week of the semester and work is overwhelming. On the 12th we are leaving for a three week vacation. so trip planning is also eating up my time. Very sorry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.