Steven Carr

The passage does seem to be about Christians insulting each other. Some were strong in the faith and some were weak in the faith.

It seems to me that Paul is saying that if Christians insult each other, they are really insulting Christ.

And it is *those* insults that Christ bore.


But surely Jesus was supposed to have borne a lot worse insults than that in his lifetime, but there is no reference to any such idea in the passage.

Steven Carr

I cannot explain why Paul took a law about oxen and wrenched it out of context.

I am not a psychiatrist.

But I don't have to be able to explain why X is a fact to know that X is a fact.

Paul applied Psalm 69 to Jesus. That is a fact.

Paul never quoted Jesus in the passage or alluded to any sufferings or beatings of Jesus in the passage. That is also a fact.

I conclude that Paul thought Psalm 69 was far more relevant to the idea of Christ being insulted than any episode where human beings flogged , mocked and spat on the person Paul worshipped.

show_no_mercy

I don't think that can be "demonstrated", but there are probably a few explanations. Paul was simply crazy, or a non-Jew, or pulling the wool over his non-Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites said that Paul was a non-Jew, and it doesn't seem as though Paul could read Hebrew. Though the last point doesn't exclude him from being Jewish.

Philo also had some strange ideas regarding the exegesis of the LXX due to his desire to fuse Judaism with Stoicism (and wasn't popular with Jews), so maybe Paul did the same with his idea of the messiah - trying to make a more philosophical, Hellenized messiah instead of the more traditional Jewish one.

Doug Shaver

It doesn't have to say it right there. Whenever Paul gives any source for anything he says in any of his writings, he attributes the information either to scripture or to some personal revelation he got from God himself. According to his own words, he knows nothing whatsoever about the gospel that he didn't learn by direct divine revelation or by reading the scriptures.

Susan2

You have asserted subtly that there was an historical disconnect, using a single verse, and subtly comparing Christians/Judaism, against Mohammad/Islam. Is there an historical disconnect and if so what is it?
My inserts, in the above passage. Mariology in a nut shell.

God in Genesis one calls the light from the darkness. Lord God plunges (broken promise) man in the darkness, pulls the light out of the darkness, then creates the darkness, then pulls the light out of the darkness, then creates the darkness, then pulls light out of the darkness...........

Lord God, the existing one, or Jesus, as known in the NT, are each Christ.

Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nothing changes.

Like sheep lead to the slaughter, and like cattle driven from behind? A bloody pulpy mess.

andrewcriddle

I don't think these suggestions could really help us understand Paul. They might, I suppose, form part of an argument that Paul is not worh understanding, but that is a somewhat different matter.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Steven

I would prefer to say that Paul, in presenting and justifying his idea of Christ's humiliation to the recipients of Romans, chose to quote Psalm 69 instead of, for example, appealing to what Peter had told him about the death of Christ.

This seems different from the claim that the source of Paul's beliefs about Christ's humiliation was his reading of Psalm 69.

To take your example about Paul's use of the law about oxen: I find it wildly unlikely that Paul first realised that congregations have a responsibility to support their preachers when reading the halakah about oxen. Surely Paul started off believing (for obvious reasons) in the right of preachers to get paid, and this led to his unusual interpretation of the law about oxen.

A similar state of affairs seems IMO likely for Paul's use of Psalm 69 when presenting Christ's humiliation.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

"Paul" did not appeal to the Jewish scriptures for authority. he claimed authority by the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. The appeals to scripture are proto-orthodox interpolations.

From the beginning, the Septuagint was the early proto-orthodox Christians' favored recension of the Jewish Scriptures, and many alleged prophecies of Jesus were found by non-literal readings of the Septuagint. This process continued at least until the middle of 2c; Justin was first to discover that Jesus had been nailed through the feet as well as the hands. And this revelation came not from any eyewitness testimony or oral tradition, but from pondering the 22nd Psalm. Going beyond allegorical interpretations, we find record of Jews accusing Christians of outright forging the Septuagint to support Christian doctrine (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho).

Marcion insisted upon a literal reading of the Old Testament. For this reason alone, many imaginitive prophecies and references to Jesus Christ were eliminated. This common sense approach aligned Marcion with the Jews on this subject, as was noted by Tertullian, who railed against both. Marcion was likely not as antisemtic as he is often portrayed; he just didn't think the Jewish scriptures applied to Christians. The Jewish scriptures were perfectly valid for the Jews, and he agreed the Jewish Messiah would yet come; it just wasn't Jesus Christ.

Marcion established the earliest known canon of Christian scripture. It consisted of one gospel (The Evangelion), and ten Pauline Epistles (the Apostilicon). The Apsotilicon did not included the
Pastoral Epistles, which did not yet exist. The other epistles existed in a shorter and simplier recension. These circulated with Marcion's own composition (the Antithesis) in which he attempted to prove that the God of Jesus, the Father, was not the same as the God of the Jews. This was done by juxtaposing OT passages along with NT from his canon, showing the harshness and cruelty of the OT god vs the loving kindness of the NT God. Marcion did not consider the god of the Jews (the Demiurge) as absolutely evil, just ignorant with an inflated sense of his own justice. According
to Marcion, this obsession with justice resulted in the atrocities found in the Old Testament.

The authority of Old Testament concerning Christians was rejected in its entirity. For this reason, Marcion with perhaps the aid of Valentinus, wrote his own Psalms to be used in litugury rather than the Davidic psalms of the OT.

For the most part, Marcionite services were so similar to those of the proto-orthodox, that proto-orthodox Chrsitians were warned to be careful not to attend a Marcionite service by mistake. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechisms 18.26)

Marcion's church was very large. It rivaled in size the proto-orthodox sects of the time. Already, about 150 CE, Justin Martyr acknowledged that Marcion's influence extended all over the Empire. (Apol. 1.26 cf. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 5:19). Marcionism challenged the Roman church for the rights to be called the Universal (i.e. Catholic) church.

Marcion and the Gnostics appealed to Paul. In fact Basilides the heretic (about 138 CE) was the first to elevate any Christian text (in this case Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians and Ephesians) to the level of Scripture (Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7,13-14). The proto-orthodox were forced to lay claim to Paul also, to prevent the charge of not perceiving and preserving the Gospel in all its newness. But this was a grudging process. Irenaeus quotes from the Pauline epistles 206 times, and never introduces it with "scripta ait" or any similar formula. (Werner, _Der Paulinismus das Irenaeus_ (1889), pp. 21-46. Footnote 3, page 31, of _Marcion and his Influences_, E.C. Blackman, 1948)

Lying behind the twisted image of Paul (meaning "the small") is the shadow of Simon Magus, "the Great." Thus even Paul's name is an ironic twist on Simon's description. Irenaeus linked Marcion with Simon through his teacher Cerdo. (Adv. Haer. 1.27). Even the titles of Simon Magus' alleged works (non-extant) bear the mystery of heresy; "The Four Quarters of the World" and "The Sermons of the Refuter."

The proto-orthodox New Testament arose as a mere new edition of the Marcionite canon, revised and largely rewritten. There is no adequate evidence for the the existence of the fourfold Gospel before Irenaeus, 185 CE. Adv. Haer. 3.11.8. Ireneaus admits that the four gospels have authority because various heretics used them first. (Justin Martyr in the middle of 2c. never
called any gospel by the name it is now known by. They are always the catch-all "Memoirs" of the Apostles.

Justin seldom quotes exactly the words from our present gospels, but seemingly some sort of harmonization mixed with heretical and unknown gospel material.

To be clear, the Pauline Epistles we find in our Bibles today are not the same ones found in Marcion's version. The Heresiologists accused him of cutting down the epistles, but it is more likely that the proto-orthodox interpolated them heavily to the "tame the Apostle of the Heretics." That is why when we read the alleged writings of Paul today, the logic seems so convoluted and strange. The text is the result of multiple redactions with clashing theological agendas.
This makes Paul seem to talk out of both sides of his mouth. As van Manen noted, the Marcionite recension is smooth and elegant and proceeds logically. This could hardly be the result of mutilating a previous text; the Marcionite version is more original.

Jake Jones IV

spamandham

...or did he apply Jesus to Psalm 69?

Interestingly, Psalm 69 was also borrowed by the writer of the passion (eg., Psalm 69:21 "They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.").

But Psalm 69 is not about a messiah, instead, it's a poetic description of the Jewish people themselves. So why do both Paul and the passion author pull from Psalm 69, a lamentation of the Jewish people - and relate it to Jesus?

...maybe because Jesus was originally the allegorical embodiment of the Jews, not a myth, not a mystical being, but a personification much like 'old man winter' - later historicized by non-Jews who didn't get it or by Rome hoping to pre-empt yet another Jewish war.

When Jesus is beaten, it's really the Jews being beaten. When Jesus is crucified by Rome in Jerusalem at the goading of riotous Jews, it's really the Jews being crucified by Rome in Jerusalem at the goading of riotous Jews. When Jesus is resurrected, it's really the rising up again of the Jewish people...etc.

God's anointed savior (aka Jesus Christ), is his chosen people, the Jews?

Susan2

I guess he had to claim some authority. Moses preformed supernatural miracles to show his authority was from God. Jesus, who has come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law, has to do like wise; preform miracle, in that he refers to Moses, and is called The Son Of God.

What is Paul's authority? What evidence does Paul use to show his authority?

A divine revelation, from the mouth of Jesus?

Would, I have not come to bring peace but a sword, do?



Pauls authority is the either the Roman government, or vigilante-ism. Paul was a violent man, who encouraged violence, especially against women.

Perhaps much of Pauls vigilante-ism was carried out in private homes.