Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-28-2012, 02:25 PM | #251 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Sotto,
So, you ARE an editor! Or a teacher. Or a wag. I did not call it a quote, I let the software do that for me. I was commenting on your prose, good sir. Since it is pregnant with unusual turns of phrase, it was only natural to Google them. So, I got Calvin's Institutions on "not one syllable," a lot of Sociologically oriented sites on "propinquity" and a number of others kept bringing me to Barzun. The first 100 pages can be found here, so lurkers can see for themselves. Sorry that I bolded some of these passages and dared to make comments, but I just didn't think the average person would know what seemed to be a turn of phrase in the ET of Calvin's Institutions, so it is appropriate to point it out. DCH Quote:
|
|||
01-28-2012, 04:21 PM | #252 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Do you think that people interested in Christianity were drawn from those elements linked to the philosophers who accepted only monotheism and who likely had an affinity to Judaism. so that the NT texts were appealing to such people?
Quote:
|
|||
01-28-2012, 05:15 PM | #253 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
In my opinion, Dave, no. While Philo of Alexandria and various Christian writers claimed that Plato, Socrates, etc, derived their doctrines from the Jewish creation stories of Genesis, the philosophers probably didn't buy into that. I think that once the Jesus Movement centered on the fulfillment of a Messianic kingdon on earth, became transformed into a sort of mystery religion centered on the symbolism of the death of "Christ," it started to appeal to city dwellers. By then, of course, it wasn't a Jewish messianic movement anymore. Itw as a mystery, and oriental style mystery cults were the "new age" rage of the day.
Those among them who had received any significant education were, with a couple exceptions, from the retainer class, and thus probably had only handbook understanding of the various philosophical positions. The exceptions, such as Clement and Origen of Alexandria, adopted a lot of Philo's speculations, but it doesn't appear to me that they really tried to recruit "real" philosophers. They would have simply been out of their league. The only ones to seriously try were the Gnostic teachers with roots in Alexandria. The Neoplatonist Plotinus wrote against the Gnostics, some of whom they actually liked on a personal level and who must have been attending lectures to ask questions, and they did look into it. X. He, therefore, who investigates many other particulars, or rather every particular respecting their opinions, will be able to show copiously what the nature of them is. We, indeed, are ashamed of certain of our friends, who before they were intimate with us were conversant with these opinions, and who still, I know not how, persevere in them, and endeavour to render them credible. We, however, speak to those with whom we are acquainted, and not to the many who are auditors of these men. For we shall effect nothing by endeavouring to persuade them not to be disturbed by the arguments of the Gnostics,His successor Porphyry seems to have made a real attempt to study Jewish and Christian scripture to argue against them. That doesn't mean that the Christian intelligentsia didn't try to polish up the sacred mysteries with philosophical ideas. By the 4th century, all the important bishops were conversant in the vocabulary of Philosophers. Now we're talking thinkers like Jerome and Rufinus, who refined the thinking of Origen (actually, restated and/or censored some of his more "out there" actual doctrines when they translated them into Latin), and even Syriac church leaders were quite conversant with philosophy as it pertained to the nature of God. DCH |
01-29-2012, 09:37 AM | #254 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
I am noticing that the strongest correlations/similarities with Acts in the list in the archive from 2003 are in Galatians and Corinthians...
Quote:
|
|
01-29-2012, 05:31 PM | #255 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
I am not sure if this helps you. My take on it is that they both draw on common tradition, but not exactly the same tradition. DCH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
01-29-2012, 05:43 PM | #256 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
That's very useful indeed.It looks like we're on the same wavelength here.
If most of the vague similarities are mostly only with Galatians and Corinthians, what does that suggest about the authors of the other epistles in relation to a Paul tradition compared to Acts? |
01-31-2012, 04:30 AM | #257 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
David Hindley, how would you see the separate origins of Acts and epistles?
Quote:
|
|
01-31-2012, 07:06 PM | #258 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Dave,
The way I see things, we have two separate movements meeting at the crossroads. There is a Jesus movement, centered on his predictions about the immanent dawn of the messianic age. There is also an independent Paul movement, which knows not a thing about Jesus, with an emphasis on accommodating god-fearing gentiles who wished to lay claim to a messianic future age. About the only thing these movements have in common are a hope in a better future messianic age. For Paul, this age is off in the distance, but very real. His followers are gentiles who are slaves in and retainers of the households of the many Herodian princes. They have developed a sincere reverence for the God of the Jews, and want to inherit the fruitful land promised by God to Abraham's offspring. The traditional means of entry into this elite group was to accept circumcision and all that it entails. However, that is not always such an easy thing to accomplish when you were born and raised in pagan culture. There was an increasing trend among urban Jews to associate with faithful gentiles. Paul at first opposed this trend, but after his vision, came to the conclusion it was a message from God. He hit on the fact that Abraham was justified before God on the basis of his faith before he circumcised himself and his household. As the promise was to Abraham's children and the covenant of circumcision was imposed on Abraham as an individual, Paul concluded that faithful gentiles were also justified before God and were as it were Abraham's spiritual children, but without being obligated to receive circumcision. Not everyone was happy with Paul's new POV, perhaps feeling that opening the inclusion in the people of Israel to those who merely had faith could endanger the significant privileges that Jews had earned through the efforts of members of the Herodian family, and pushed back against him forcibly. Paul took his new conviction to the extreme of declaring himself an 'apostle' tasked with collecting goodwill offerings and temple tax and delivering it to Jerusalem for charity. He probably hoped to get some priestly faction to accept the temple tax from his faithful gentiles as a way to legitimize his appeal to their faith. I think he may well have made it to Jerusalem with some sort of offering, but he soon found out that the issue was far more divisive in Judea than it was among Hellenized Jews of the cities, where he was beaten up and forced from town more than once. Riot and arrest ensued, and he was sent to Rome for judgement, probably at the request of one of his Herodian patrons (I don't know for sure whether he really was a Roman citizen as Acts says, the letters make no such claim). Either he didn't live to make his appeal (died of illness?) or he was ruled against and executed (Herod, who had earned a tremendous amount of goodwill among the Roman aristocracy, was a circumcised Idumean, and lived a faithful Jew regardless of his failings as a human being, so the emperor may well have ruled against Paul's liberal interpretation). Still, many of these faithful gentiles clung to the hope that their POV might one day win the day, and so the Paul Movement struggled on. Now the Jesus Movement was at first all about Jesus' predictions that the Kingdom of God was immediately near. There was a sizable faction that thought that he was the anointed king that would lead it in. Whether he actually tested the waters or not, he was arrested for expressing (or not denying) royal ambitions, and executed. A core would not abandon him, and racked their brains to figure out where they had gone wrong in their expectations. Various ones among them kept thinking they saw him or had visions where Jesus spoke to them, and they concluded that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead and was next to God awaiting the moment when he would return in triumph with God's angels to establish that kingdom by force. At this point, the Jesus movement was predominantly Jews with a few gentile converts among them. Then came the first Jewish revolt of 66-74 CE, and circumstances changed dramatically for both of these groups. For Jesus movementers, the great revolt against the Romans must have seemed like a fulfillment of their prayers to God. Its messy collapse and the consequences of the war likely turned most all Jesus Movementers off tho the message. The gentile converts, on the other hand, had given up family ties and were pariahs among their own kin. Jewish converts such as the Adiabene princes who fought among the rebels may have been seen as the cause of the extremism that caused the war to begin with, and Jews too began to shun them. Like refugees everywhere, they gravitated towards the cities. There they set up private associations dedicated to the Jewish God who they still respected, and (between love feasts) meditated about the "real" message that God had told them through the Jewish scriptures. Through this reflection, the royal messianic edge was filed smooth and the mystery of Jesus' death was established. Meanwhile, the war had also put the remnants of the Paul movement in an even greater pinch. It was after the point when the gentile ex-convert Jesus movement remnants came up with the mystery of Jesus as a universal savior dying for the sins of many, that the remnants of the Paul movement were exposed to the Jesus mysteries. I guess for many of them it seemed like a safe alternative to continuing to claim the same privileges as Jews. This is all happening before the beginning of the first century. Early on in this process someone from the Jesus mystery faction managed to get his hands on letters that he and his associates believed were written by Paul himself. These were not in conformity to their thinking, so they wrote commentaries on some, showing where Paul would have been better off thinking their way. They decided that these commentaries were worth publishing if only to recruit the last vestiges of the Paul movement that had not already come over to them, and so we have the epistles as they have come to us. What about Acts? Well, not all Jesus mysterites were the same. Other more sophisticated followers of the Jesus mysteries than those who had already produced the edited Pauline corpus came to write Gospels as apologies for their reverence of Jesus. One among them seems to have felt the need to integrate into the history of Christian development as it was commonly accepted the Paul revered by the Paul movementers that had come over to them, and the result was Acts. The writer of Acts was not aware of the letters (these may not have been in general circulation at all, or among specific communities only) but knew traditions about his movements and other legends that had grown up around him. Apparently some of the legendary movements and events known to the author of Acts overlapped with those revealed in the letters. However, like most legends, the details get confused or are wrong, so not everything will agree 100% with letters originally written by the real Paul. How could they? That is how you can have Pauline letters and Acts grow up independently of one another, drawing on two sources (pious traditions vs. actual letters). Sermon ended ... DCH Quote:
|
||
02-02-2012, 05:20 AM | #259 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Thanks David. I would mention that it's worth noting that there is no evidence that the epistles ever existed as individual letters because they are always identified as a group and I doubt they were even ever actually sent to their target audiences individually at all.
And whatever inspired the author of Acts to write so much about this fellow Paul as an apostle who never actually knew the historical Jesus figure of Acts, it obviously had an urgent need for there to be this one apostle as part of the religion rather than only the hallowed apostles who DID know him. And of course we don't see that the author of Acts knew any aphorisms or stories from the gospels because none are referenced. I am not persuaded that the author of Acts knew of GLuke either. An appeal to a single story or aphorism of the GLuke Jesus is never made when the travelers are seeking new converts. |
02-02-2012, 06:18 AM | #260 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|