Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 05-27-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I see more than one 'Paul' at work. A 'cosmic christ' 'Paul' who wrote before the Gospels were composed, and after the composition of the Gospels, a totally different set of 'Jebus in the flesh' 'Paul's' who took over, edited, revised and greatly expanded that original 'Paul's writings.
Thus the Pauline epistles are really neither before or after the Gospels, but are compromised compositions straddling the Gospels with elements that are both earlier and latter, all being cobbled together and revised to suit Christianities evolving religious conceptions.

The writings we do have are pretty obviously writings that have been given numerous work overs. I don't think 'Paul' wrote before the JC story - and by that I'm not referring to the storyline we now have in the gospels. The gospel storyline is the end product. The miracle worker story in Slavonic Josephus, the Infancy gospel of James - indicate, to me, that the JC story has a much older tradition than the story recorded in the gospels. Hence, a story that preceded 'Paul's' writings or the gospel writings. So, with 'Paul' and the gospels it's perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. One storyline fed off the other and developed into the NT. But that there was a pre-gospel JC storyline - a Jesus storyline that preceded 'Paul' - would be my basic starting position - which simply means that the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.

My post was brief, and perhaps did make my position entirely clear.
I thoroughly -agree - with your statement that 'the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.'

My recent post HERE will further present my position, to which for purposes of this thread, I will add that the original 'Paul' in my opinion was a 'messianic Jew' who lived sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events.
As a messianic Jew he dealt in midrashim (meaning "that which is explained") explaining the 'Christ' of the 'messianic' texts as found within the TaNaKa.
(no 'earthly' flesh and blood Y'shua/Jebus or messiah/christos yet present, thus no flesh and blood details of any human messiah/christos)
Following the events of 70 AD and destruction of the Temple, messianic hopes ran high, and it was natural that old Saul/Paul's messianic musings would grow in importance and authority.
But as they were, they did not exactly fit the situation, but nothing that couldn't be remedied with a bit of editing and a whole lot of interpolation, and additional writings composed under the pseudonym of 'Paul'.

Now, that's an interesting idea - 'Paul' lived "sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events". I've been playing with the idea that 'Paul' is more than he seems.....I've long held to the idea that the 'Paul' story is not historical but pseudo-history. I'm beginning to think along the lines of a composite figure (as is JC) but had not gone so far as what you are suggesting. But yours is an intriguing idea! Early 'Paul' and later 'Paul'. Early 'Paul' being prior to events in gospel JC story - which of course makes sense as someone had to conceive the idea in the first place. I did mention, in some other post, that I would place my money on Philo as being the originator of the JC story - so now perhaps I can include him under the 'early Paul' category...which would mean that it's 'early Paul' that was the originator of the JC story and 'later Paul' its developer. Interesting.......Philo, of course, fitting the bill, for 'early Paul', in every way. The NT storyline is simply a condensed version, a pseudo-history, of early christian origins. Necessitating name changes, time changes, composite figurers. A long, slow development of ideas as history played out and required, and generated, further insights into both Messianic ideas and spiritual, wisdom, insights. The re-telling, the preserving of what was deemed meaningful within that history, being preserved within a snapshot, a picture - that is what the gospel story attempted to do.

(I'm not suggesting that Philo - and even Josephus -or whoever is writing under that name, became christians - christians were late to the party.....Jewish Messianic ideas and Jewish spirituality/wisdom ideas laid the groundwork - and I suppose maybe, from a Jewish perspective, the groundwork opened up the way for weeds to grow alongside the daisies. And all the wonderfully laid out plans were misinterpreted and led to christian literalism.)

jgoodguy · 05-27-2011, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I see more than one 'Paul' at work. A 'cosmic christ' 'Paul' who wrote before the Gospels were composed, and after the composition of the Gospels, a totally different set of 'Jebus in the flesh' 'Paul's' who took over, edited, revised and greatly expanded that original 'Paul's writings.
Thus the Pauline epistles are really neither before or after the Gospels, but are compromised compositions straddling the Gospels with elements that are both earlier and latter, all being cobbled together and revised to suit Christianities evolving religious conceptions.

The writings we do have are pretty obviously writings that have been given numerous work overs. I don't think 'Paul' wrote before the JC story - and by that I'm not referring to the storyline we now have in the gospels. The gospel storyline is the end product. The miracle worker story in Slavonic Josephus, the Infancy gospel of James - indicate, to me, that the JC story has a much older tradition than the story recorded in the gospels. Hence, a story that preceded 'Paul's' writings or the gospel writings. So, with 'Paul' and the gospels it's perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. One storyline fed off the other and developed into the NT. But that there was a pre-gospel JC storyline - a Jesus storyline that preceded 'Paul' - would be my basic starting position - which simply means that the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.

My post was brief, and perhaps did make my position entirely clear.
I thoroughly -agree - with your statement that 'the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.'

My recent post HERE will further present my position, to which for purposes of this thread, I will add that the original 'Paul' in my opinion was a 'messianic Jew' who lived sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events.
As a messianic Jew he dealt in midrashim (meaning "that which is explained") explaining the 'Christ' of the 'messianic' texts as found within the TaNaKa.
(no 'earthly' flesh and blood Y'shua/Jebus or messiah/christos yet present, thus no flesh and blood details of any human messiah/christos)
Following the events of 70 AD and destruction of the Temple, messianic hopes ran high, and it was natural that old Saul/Paul's messianic musings would grow in importance and authority.
But as they were, they did not exactly fit the situation, but nothing that couldn't be remedied with a bit of editing and a whole lot of interpolation, and additional writings composed under the pseudonym of 'Paul'.

Now, that's an interesting idea - 'Paul' lived "sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events". I've been playing with the idea that 'Paul' is more than he seems.....I've long held to the idea that the 'Paul' story is not historical but pseudo-history. I'm beginning to think along the lines of a composite figure (as is JC) but had not gone so far as what you are suggesting. But yours is an intriguing idea! Early 'Paul' and later 'Paul'. Early 'Paul' being prior to events in gospel JC story - which of course makes sense as someone had to conceive the idea in the first place. I did mention, in some other post, that I would place my money on Philo as being the originator of the JC story - so now perhaps I can include him under the 'early Paul' category...which would mean that it's 'early Paul' that was the originator of the JC story and 'later Paul' its developer. Interesting.......Philo, of course, fitting the bill, for 'early Paul', in every way. The NT storyline is simply a condensed version, a pseudo-history, of early christian origins. Necessitating name changes, time changes, composite figurers. A long, slow development of ideas as history played out and required, and generated, further insights into both Messianic ideas and spiritual, wisdom, insights. The re-telling, the preserving of what was deemed meaningful within that history, being preserved within a snapshot, a picture - that is what the gospel story attempted to do.

(I'm not suggesting that Philo - and even Josephus -or whoever is writing under that name, became christians - christians were late to the party.....Jewish Messianic ideas and Jewish spirituality/wisdom ideas laid the groundwork - and I suppose maybe, from a Jewish perspective, the groundwork opened up the way for weeds to grow alongside the daisies. And all the wonderfully laid out plans were misinterpreted and led to christian literalism.)

Interesting. How would the many many Christian cults prior to the orthodox enter into this mixture?

maryhelena · 05-27-2011, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Now, that's an interesting idea - 'Paul' lived "sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events". I've been playing with the idea that 'Paul' is more than he seems.....I've long held to the idea that the 'Paul' story is not historical but pseudo-history. I'm beginning to think along the lines of a composite figure (as is JC) but had not gone so far as what you are suggesting. But yours is an intriguing idea! Early 'Paul' and later 'Paul'. Early 'Paul' being prior to events in gospel JC story - which of course makes sense as someone had to conceive the idea in the first place. I did mention, in some other post, that I would place my money on Philo as being the originator of the JC story - so now perhaps I can include him under the 'early Paul' category...which would mean that it's 'early Paul' that was the originator of the JC story and 'later Paul' its developer. Interesting.......Philo, of course, fitting the bill, for 'early Paul', in every way. The NT storyline is simply a condensed version, a pseudo-history, of early christian origins. Necessitating name changes, time changes, composite figurers. A long, slow development of ideas as history played out and required, and generated, further insights into both Messianic ideas and spiritual, wisdom, insights. The re-telling, the preserving of what was deemed meaningful within that history, being preserved within a snapshot, a picture - that is what the gospel story attempted to do.

(I'm not suggesting that Philo - and even Josephus -or whoever is writing under that name, became christians - christians were late to the party.....Jewish Messianic ideas and Jewish spirituality/wisdom ideas laid the groundwork - and I suppose maybe, from a Jewish perspective, the groundwork opened up the way for weeds to grow alongside the daisies. And all the wonderfully laid out plans were misinterpreted and led to christian literalism.)

Interesting. How would the many many Christian cults prior to the orthodox enter into this mixture?

Do you have any dates for these early christian cults? When are you dating the orthodox?

'Late Paul' would be, in my thinking, and I think also that of Sheshbazzar, post 70 c.e. That would be when 'later Paul' started his development program of the ideas of 'early Paul'. And would have met with opposition from those who wanted to stay with the ideas of 'early Paul'. So there you have it - 'Paul' and his 'persecution' of those who came before him, ie ideas being 'persecuted', faulted or deemed insufficient for the current situation. I would think it's only in the development stage that various christian cults or sects would have the opportunity to function. However, I can't for the life of me see any christian sects in Jerusalem prior to 70 ce - and even after that date - their existence in Jerusalem would be extremely precarious. That the gospel JC story centers on Jerusalem is not history but pseudo-history. Yes, of course, Jerusalem is important in Jewish history - but that importance does not translate into Jerusalem being important for early christian origins. The historical christian beginnings, the root, most likely stemmed from Alexandria with 'early Paul'. And 'late Paul'? Well now, that would depend upon who is writing under that name........

(OK - 'late Paul' is, to my thinking, Marcus Julius Agrippa, Agrippa II (Stephan Huller notwithstanding.......) So the seat of operations would be - Casearea Philippi. Interesting connection between the father of Agrippa II, Agrippa I, with the brother of Philo - even a family connection at one time. A daughter of Agrippa I being married to a son of Philo's brother. Thus, strong ties between Alexandria and Casearea Philippi...)

Sheshbazzar · 05-27-2011, 08:45 AM

I see this 'early Paul' (Shaul) as being thoroughly Jewish in religious thought, yet because of close Greek cultural associations and training, attempting to reconcile the Scripturally revealed divinely favored position of Israel, with the promised ultimate extension of YHWH's grace and blessings to the Gentiles.

It appears that this Pharisee Shaul had close relationships with the ger to'shavim (strangers of the gate) That is to say 'righteous' gentiles who believed in the Jewish God as being the only true god, yet were non-Jews, and thus exempt from the requirements of circumcision and the Levitical laws.
Shaul (Paul) and them both holding to an understanding that if they underwent circumcision and followed Levitical Laws, they would -become Jews, and would no longer be accounted 'of the Gentiles', thus not fulfilling the promise of that extension of grace and acceptance -to the Gentiles.
Thus the big brouhaha about YHWH accepting -Gentiles as Gentiles- through faith while they were yet in uncircumcision, thus forgoing any requirement for them to undergo the 'conversion' into becoming 'Jews'. (all this was far before latter 'christian' religion developed)
Of course along with this extension of divine grace to the Gentiles were all of the old prophecies of Israel and all of the Gentiles living in perfect peace and all being ruled by One Annointed King. Among devout JEWISH messianists and the ger to'shavim Gentiles this was a common hope and expectation.

This 'early' Shaul was somewhat exceptional as a Pharisee, because in a religious tradition that held that it was worse for a Jew to learn Greek than to eat swine flesh, Shaul was well trained in the Greek language and rhetorical skills, and naturally reaching out to, and addressing the non-Jewish Greek speaking community in language and in terms, and in a rhetorical fashion that they were accustomed to and could relate to.
This Shaul with his skills in Scriptural exegesis and midrashim and strong Greek composition and rhetorical abilities was able to compose very convincing arguments against the need for Gentile circumcision or obedience to the letter of the (Levitical) laws.

Keep in mind I am positing that all of this took place before there was even any specific concept of a 'christian' religion as separate from Judaism. This was then an as yet wholly internal JEWISH matter, and debate, the views of one devout Jew amongst Jews, with his Gentile friends only as bystanders.
But out of this 'early' Shaul's writings and Greek rhetorical narratives about The coming Christ, a seed was sown, and it only required the events of history to bring it into full bloom and fruition.
Old Shaul's writings had informed and inspired the eventual creation of the Gospels.
(and provided the -literary fodder- for a multitude of latter pseudo-Paul's to mutilate, interpolate, and add on to, at will.)

.

jgoodguy · 05-27-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Now, that's an interesting idea - 'Paul' lived "sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events". I've been playing with the idea that 'Paul' is more than he seems.....I've long held to the idea that the 'Paul' story is not historical but pseudo-history. I'm beginning to think along the lines of a composite figure (as is JC) but had not gone so far as what you are suggesting. But yours is an intriguing idea! Early 'Paul' and later 'Paul'. Early 'Paul' being prior to events in gospel JC story - which of course makes sense as someone had to conceive the idea in the first place. I did mention, in some other post, that I would place my money on Philo as being the originator of the JC story - so now perhaps I can include him under the 'early Paul' category...which would mean that it's 'early Paul' that was the originator of the JC story and 'later Paul' its developer. Interesting.......Philo, of course, fitting the bill, for 'early Paul', in every way. The NT storyline is simply a condensed version, a pseudo-history, of early christian origins. Necessitating name changes, time changes, composite figurers. A long, slow development of ideas as history played out and required, and generated, further insights into both Messianic ideas and spiritual, wisdom, insights. The re-telling, the preserving of what was deemed meaningful within that history, being preserved within a snapshot, a picture - that is what the gospel story attempted to do.

(I'm not suggesting that Philo - and even Josephus -or whoever is writing under that name, became christians - christians were late to the party.....Jewish Messianic ideas and Jewish spirituality/wisdom ideas laid the groundwork - and I suppose maybe, from a Jewish perspective, the groundwork opened up the way for weeds to grow alongside the daisies. And all the wonderfully laid out plans were misinterpreted and led to christian literalism.)

Interesting. How would the many many Christian cults prior to the orthodox enter into this mixture?

Do you have any dates for these early christian cults? When are you dating the orthodox?

'Late Paul' would be, in my thinking, and I think also that of Sheshbazzar, post 70 c.e. That would be when 'later Paul' started his development program of the ideas of 'early Paul'. And would have met with opposition from those who wanted to stay with the ideas of 'early Paul'. So there you have it - 'Paul' and his 'persecution' of those who came before him, ie ideas being 'persecuted', faulted or deemed insufficient for the current situation. I would think it's only in the development stage that various christian cults or sects would have the opportunity to function. However, I can't for the life of me see any christian sects in Jerusalem prior to 70 ce - and even after that date - their existence in Jerusalem would be extremely precarious. That the gospel JC story centers on Jerusalem is not history but pseudo-history. Yes, of course, Jerusalem is important in Jewish history - but that importance does not translate into Jerusalem being important for early christian origins. The historical christian beginnings, the root, most likely stemmed from Alexandria with 'early Paul'. And 'late Paul'? Well now, that would depend upon who is writing under that name........

(OK - 'late Paul' is, to my thinking, Marcus Julius Agrippa, Agrippa II (Stephan Huller notwithstanding.......) So the seat of operations would be - Casearea Philippi. Interesting connection between the father of Agrippa II, Agrippa I, with the brother of Philo - even a family connection at one time. A daughter of Agrippa I being married to a son of Philo's brother. Thus, strong ties between Alexandria and Casearea Philippi...)

At the moment, I am not dating anything. I am just trying to put the pieces together.

What about early Jewish Christians like the Ebionites? Are they really a 'Jesus' cult as opposed to a Christian cult.

A pet theory of mine is that 'Paul' took used the names of the officials of the 'Jesus' cult at Jerusalem to give his ministry creditability. Assuming a ministry existing at Jerusalem with a reputation. A family business, as it were, into faith healing, charity for the poor and preaching. Then either the credibility and reputation of that Jesus cult was folded into the new direction or the memory and tradition of that cult was adopted.

Maybe what happened is that refugees from Jerusalem (60-70s) fleeing to Alexandra allied themselves with the 'Late Paul' advocates giving the resulting Jerusalem story. As time passed, the Jerusalem story gradually deteriorated in theological importance until just a fragment remained.

Sheshbazzar · 05-27-2011, 08:59 AM

Out of 'early' Paul's writings dozens of different sects could have easily developed, both those in accord with, or out of reactionary disagreement with his premises.
The early messianic movements were never any monolithic bloc.

maryhelena · 05-27-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I see this 'early Paul' (Shaul) as being thoroughly Jewish in religious thought, yet because of close Greek cultural associations and training, attempting to reconcile the Scripturally revealed divinely favored position of Israel, with the promised ultimate extension of YHWH's grace and blessings to the Gentiles.

It appears that this Pharisee Shaul had close relationships with the ger to'shavim (strangers of the gate) That is to say 'righteous' gentiles who believed in the Jewish religion, yet were non-Jews, and thus exempt from the requirements of circumcision and the Levitical laws. Him and them both holding to an understanding that if they underwent circumcision and followed Levitical Laws, they would become Jews and would no longer be accounted 'of the Gentiles', thus not fulfilling the promise of that extension of grace and acceptance to the Gentiles.
Thus the big brouhaha about YHWH accepting Gentiles through faith while they were yet in uncircumcision (all this was far before latter 'christian' religion developed)
Of course along with this extension of divine grace to the Gentiles were all of the the old prophecies of Israel and all of the Gentiles living in perfect peace and all being ruled by One Annointed king. Among devout JEWISH messianists and the ger to'shavim Gentiles this was a common hope and expectation.

This 'early' Shaul was somewhat exceptional as a Pharisee, because in a religious tradition that held that it was worse for a Jew to learn Greek than to eat swine flesh, Shaul was well trained in the Greek language and rhetorical skills, and naturally reaching out to, and addressing the non-Jewish Greek speaking community in language and in terms, and in a rhetorical fashion that they were accustomed to and could relate to.
This Shaul with his skills in Scriptural exegesis and midrashim and strong Greek composition and rhetorical abilities was able to compose very convincing arguments against the need for Gentile circumcision or obedience to the letter of the (Levitical) laws.

Keep in mind I am positing that all of this took place before there was even any specific concept of a 'christian' religion as separate from Judaism. This was then an as yet wholly internal JEWISH matter, and debate, the views of one devout Jew amongst Jews, with his Gentile friends only as bystanders.
But out of this 'early' Shaul's writings and Greek rhetorical narratives about The coming Christ, a seed was sown, and it only required the events of history to bring it into full bloom and fruition. Old Shaul's writings had informed and inspired the eventual creation of the Gospels.

Thanks, Sheshbazzar, for explaining how you see things. I don't think we are too far apart in the general picture you have painted. My own perspective resolves around naming names - trying to root the type of picture you have painted to the historical figures of the time. I think we have to get names on the table if we are ever to understand early christian origins. Nameless figures, non-historical figurers, can't add any credibility or allow for developments to be observed in early christian history. Sure, these names are going to be Jewish - that is where even the gospel JC story places christian beginnings. But JC was never history - although of course that pseudo-history, taken literally, has caused Jewish/Christians problems. Perhaps it's time for the Jews to claim their own - that that gospel JC story reflects, albeit symbolically, their own troubled Roman and Herodian past. Unveil the symbolism and Christianity's historical Jewish origins are given the light of day. Thereby confirming that age old Jewish preoccupation - history matters. Reality matters. Flights of intellectual fantasy with 'Paul' are all very well - but it's keeping our feet rooted to terra firma that provides stability in our lives.

Sheshbazzar · 05-27-2011, 10:00 AM

I think the important thing we are seeing eye to eye on is that messianism or 'christianity' did not just spring up full-blown in the First Century.
That groundwork was being laid much earlier, particularly under the influence of The LXX vorlage, where 'christ' (christos) occurs in Moses, and Yah'ho'shua, 'Joshua' the deliverer of the people to the Promised Land, becomes 'Ie'sus' the deliverer of the people to The Promised Land.

With a little literary license I'll state; "Thou shalt call his name JOSHUA (Yah'ha'oshea) for he shall deliver his people" as the story goes (or at least as it should go

)
But often all we get is what Christian religious tradition hands us.

It would be nice to find material evidence and be able to pin-point specific names and time of writings for these pre-christian Jewish innovators, one can only hope that archaeology will finally dig up such evidence. Until then we will just have to make the best sense of what we do have.

maryhelena · 05-27-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I think the important thing we are seeing eye to eye on is that messianism or 'christianity' did not just spring up full-blown in the First Century.
That groundwork was being laid much earlier, particularly under the influence of The LXX vorlage, where 'christ' (christos) occurs in Moses, and Yah'ho'shua, 'Joshua' the deliverer of the people to the Promised Land, becomes 'Ie'sus' the deliverer of the people to The Promised Land.

With a little literary license I'll state; "Thou shalt call his name JOSHUA (Yah'ha'oshea) for he shall deliver his people" as the story goes (or at least as it should go

)
But often all we get is what Christian religious tradition hands us.

It would be nice to find material evidence and be able to pin-point specific names and time of writings for these pre-christian Jewish innovators, one can only hope that archaeology will finally dig up such evidence. Until then we will just have to make the best sense of what we do have.

I like that - "we will just have to make the best sense of what we do have". I think that includes getting a wider picture than just arguing about interpolations and translating NT greek words.....OK - I'll run before someone might give me a slap on the wrist......

maryhelena · 05-27-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Do you have any dates for these early christian cults? When are you dating the orthodox?

'Late Paul' would be, in my thinking, and I think also that of Sheshbazzar, post 70 c.e. That would be when 'later Paul' started his development program of the ideas of 'early Paul'. And would have met with opposition from those who wanted to stay with the ideas of 'early Paul'. So there you have it - 'Paul' and his 'persecution' of those who came before him, ie ideas being 'persecuted', faulted or deemed insufficient for the current situation. I would think it's only in the development stage that various christian cults or sects would have the opportunity to function. However, I can't for the life of me see any christian sects in Jerusalem prior to 70 ce - and even after that date - their existence in Jerusalem would be extremely precarious. That the gospel JC story centers on Jerusalem is not history but pseudo-history. Yes, of course, Jerusalem is important in Jewish history - but that importance does not translate into Jerusalem being important for early christian origins. The historical christian beginnings, the root, most likely stemmed from Alexandria with 'early Paul'. And 'late Paul'? Well now, that would depend upon who is writing under that name........

(OK - 'late Paul' is, to my thinking, Marcus Julius Agrippa, Agrippa II (Stephan Huller notwithstanding.......) So the seat of operations would be - Casearea Philippi. Interesting connection between the father of Agrippa II, Agrippa I, with the brother of Philo - even a family connection at one time. A daughter of Agrippa I being married to a son of Philo's brother. Thus, strong ties between Alexandria and Casearea Philippi...)

At the moment, I am not dating anything. I am just trying to put the pieces together.

What about early Jewish Christians like the Ebionites? Are they really a 'Jesus' cult as opposed to a Christian cult.

A pet theory of mine is that 'Paul' took used the names of the officials of the 'Jesus' cult at Jerusalem to give his ministry creditability. Assuming a ministry existing at Jerusalem with a reputation. A family business, as it were, into faith healing, charity for the poor and preaching. Then either the credibility and reputation of that Jesus cult was folded into the new direction or the memory and tradition of that cult was adopted.

Maybe what happened is that refugees from Jerusalem (60-70s) fleeing to Alexandra allied themselves with the 'Late Paul' advocates giving the resulting Jerusalem story. As time passed, the Jerusalem story gradually deteriorated in theological importance until just a fragment remained.

The Ebionites? According to Wikipedia they accepted JC as the Jewish Messiah and gave 'Paul' short shift. Early 'Paul' or 'late Paul' - who knows....

I may be mistaken here, but I don't see Jerusalem being the center of Jewish religious interest during Herodian times. Remember Herod had the last Hasmonean High Priest, Aristobulus III, drowned. Herod set up his own High Priests and, of course, set about re-building the Jerusalem Temple. Sure, the temple carried on doing it's sacrifices etc, but it must have been, for the Hasmoneans anyway, a bitter pill to swallow. A double tragedy - Roman and Herodian. The people of an occupied land are not going to be putting all their cards openly on the table. Give Herod's temple it's due - but look elsewhere for the real Jewish intellectual/spiritual developments. Jerusalem was being 'trampled upon' - the seat of authentic Jewish practice was elsewhere - the 'new Jerusalem' - Alexandria. (who knows - but maybe something like that....)

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

05-27-2011, 08:45 AM	#134
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I see this 'early Paul' (Shaul) as being thoroughly Jewish in religious thought, yet because of close Greek cultural associations and training, attempting to reconcile the Scripturally revealed divinely favored position of Israel, with the promised ultimate extension of YHWH's grace and blessings to the Gentiles. It appears that this Pharisee Shaul had close relationships with the ger to'shavim (strangers of the gate) That is to say 'righteous' gentiles who believed in the Jewish God as being the only true god, yet were non-Jews, and thus exempt from the requirements of circumcision and the Levitical laws. Shaul (Paul) and them both holding to an understanding that if they underwent circumcision and followed Levitical Laws, they would -become Jews, and would no longer be accounted 'of the Gentiles', thus not fulfilling the promise of that extension of grace and acceptance -to the Gentiles. Thus the big brouhaha about YHWH accepting -Gentiles as Gentiles- through faith while they were yet in uncircumcision, thus forgoing any requirement for them to undergo the 'conversion' into becoming 'Jews'. (all this was far before latter 'christian' religion developed) Of course along with this extension of divine grace to the Gentiles were all of the old prophecies of Israel and all of the Gentiles living in perfect peace and all being ruled by One Annointed King. Among devout JEWISH messianists and the ger to'shavim Gentiles this was a common hope and expectation. This 'early' Shaul was somewhat exceptional as a Pharisee, because in a religious tradition that held that it was worse for a Jew to learn Greek than to eat swine flesh, Shaul was well trained in the Greek language and rhetorical skills, and naturally reaching out to, and addressing the non-Jewish Greek speaking community in language and in terms, and in a rhetorical fashion that they were accustomed to and could relate to. This Shaul with his skills in Scriptural exegesis and midrashim and strong Greek composition and rhetorical abilities was able to compose very convincing arguments against the need for Gentile circumcision or obedience to the letter of the (Levitical) laws. Keep in mind I am positing that all of this took place before there was even any specific concept of a 'christian' religion as separate from Judaism. This was then an as yet wholly internal JEWISH matter, and debate, the views of one devout Jew amongst Jews, with his Gentile friends only as bystanders. But out of this 'early' Shaul's writings and Greek rhetorical narratives about The coming Christ, a seed was sown, and it only required the events of history to bring it into full bloom and fruition. Old Shaul's writings had informed and inspired the eventual creation of the Gospels. (and provided the -literary fodder- for a multitude of latter pseudo-Paul's to mutilate, interpolate, and add on to, at will.) .

05-27-2011, 08:59 AM	#136
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Out of 'early' Paul's writings dozens of different sects could have easily developed, both those in accord with, or out of reactionary disagreement with his premises. The early messianic movements were never any monolithic bloc.

05-27-2011, 10:00 AM	#138
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I think the important thing we are seeing eye to eye on is that messianism or 'christianity' did not just spring up full-blown in the First Century. That groundwork was being laid much earlier, particularly under the influence of The LXX vorlage, where 'christ' (christos) occurs in Moses, and Yah'ho'shua, 'Joshua' the deliverer of the people to the Promised Land, becomes 'Ie'sus' the deliverer of the people to The Promised Land. With a little literary license I'll state; "Thou shalt call his name JOSHUA (Yah'ha'oshea) for he shall deliver his people" as the story goes (or at least as it should go ) But often all we get is what Christian religious tradition hands us. It would be nice to find material evidence and be able to pin-point specific names and time of writings for these pre-christian Jewish innovators, one can only hope that archaeology will finally dig up such evidence. Until then we will just have to make the best sense of what we do have.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.