rhutchin

An interesting hypothesis, but nonetheless, out there.

It may be possible that there was some redaction of Paul's thoughts by Luke as he recorded the letters to be sent out. Thus, some material may be read as parenthetical asides meant to explain more fully the arguments Paul makes. The idea that someone (or a group) redacted the material to add "Jesus Christ" throughout seems farfetched. Given that Paul was preaching a consistent message where ever he went, his letters would have had to be consistent with that message. Only after Paul was dead could the redaction take place and it would seem difficult to track down all the copies of Paul's letters that had been made. Have you run your hypothesis by the textual critics? Bart Ehrman might be predisposed to consider seriously your opinions given his writings. Any chance you have corresponded with him?

Ben C Smith

You know how much I hate to disagree with you, Toto , but I do not think the argument here is a little contrived; it is totally contrived, and there is not one iota of a chance that either the original author of Genesis or its eventual LXX translators meant the singular seed to be applied to one single person. Seed is just an idiom meaning descendants.

Ben.

judge

The problem with this argument is that "off kilter" has no meaning. It is a meaningless label, unless one can explain what is "on kilter".

Pointing to this or that jewish interpretation of the Hebrew bible puts one in a catch 22 situation, as the Hebrew prophets themselves often point out that the jews themselves miss the boat.
If one follows the Hebrew prophets then one cant follow jewish interpretations of their works with any confidence.

Zenaphobe

The differences that strike me are that in the Synoptic Gospels salvation is based on righteous behavior, while in G John and Paul's writings salvation is based on the accuracy of beliefs.

Jesus promotes observance of the Law and even warns his listeners that to break the least commandment was a grave offense, whereas Paul totally rejects the Law and never even quotes Jesus to support his message.

I am finding that Wilson's theory and arguments account for the success of Paul's doctrines over those of the Jesus movement.

Why should one give more credence to the traditional version of Christian origins?


Paul provides no exegesis, he just says "seed" means the opposite of what any person looking at the context would take it to mean.

I find it ironic that Christians get really concerned about context and condemn quote mining of the NT by groups they consider heretical (like Jehovah's Witnesses), but throw all that out the window when it comes to the writers of the NT doing it with the OT.

I think it is wrong to say the Jews tried to circumvent the teachings of the OT, they appeared to understand, they just failed to obey the covenant.

Yahweh spends hundreds of years commanding them to follow the Law, tells them it is an eternal covenant, sends prophets to warn them to return to obeying it and then supposedly comes personally and tells them to continue to obey the Law then gets executed and later inspires some unknown to berate the Jews for observing the very thing he has harped on them about throughout their existence.

storytime

Doesn't Paul attempt to sidestep the covenant made with Abraham in circumcision with a faith acceptable through Melchizedek of non-circumcision?

When Paul speaks of the school teacher, is he indicating circumcision or laws of Moses?

The laws of Moses given 450 years after circumcision did not make the covenant of Abraham in circumcision invalid. The one seed was identified in circumcision, as perscribed by God. Without circumcision there was no "seed", no people. The cutting off of flesh[people refusing circumcision] is shown in the ritual itself. What then was the need for law of Moses? It provided civil order whereas circumcision could not. It then made the "old" covenant in circumcision a better , or what might be construed as a new covenant.

Where is there room for Gentiles[the uncircumcised and lawless] in this predetermined plan?

DCHindley

No he doesn't. He says that no-one invalidates a covenant after the fact. The faith covenant was still binding between God and anyone who believes in his "promises." Same goes with the law of Moses for Abraham's physical descendants. This is the paradox of reading Paul as a unified whole. There are two completely different concepts regarding how one can be right with God (faith in God's covenants vs faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ). These have been noticed and heavily discussed by biblical critics for 150 years. If you can find it, read Albert Schweitzer's Paul and His Interpreters (1912, you might have to get a copy used or from an inter-library loan) for an introduction of how this realization came to be seriously considered and the implications worked out in the 19th century.

I, of course, have my hypothesis to explain it (intersection of two unrelated movements with literature from one being published by the other in a redacted form), but if you would like to read a modern author who clearly identifies these themes (but thinks Paul successfully - in Paul's own mind at least - integrated these competing concepts in a more or less rhetoric based manner), read Mark Nanos' Mystery of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk), Irony of Galatians (or via: amazon.co.uk), or for more on rhetorical explanations for these competing themes in Paul read The Galatians Debate (or via: amazon.co.uk), which he edited. Very in-depth.

BTW, the Melchizedek thing is in Hebrews, which even ancient commentators though was not written by Paul.

DCH (starting late this morning due to working over yesterday, boss)

storytime

But the "promises" had required protocol of circumcision and observance of laws of Moses. Paul seems(to me at least) to be sidetracking these two "witnesses" to identity of the "seed" of Abraham. What was Paul up to? I see a conspiracy of Paul in his gospel that doesn't give Gentiles anything but hope, and not a name in Israel. But then if Jesus thought it beneficial to deceive the multitudes then Pauls gospel[lie] was meant to secure that deceit. For it was for the purpose of securing identity in that one named seed of Abraham, "a people", Israel[Jews].

arnoldo

According to James C Waters who writes in the book Paul in the Greco-Roman World (or via: amazon.co.uk), Paul wasn't so much "sidetracking" these two witnesses (as you put it) as "driving a wedge between Abraham and the Law" (as James C Waters describes it)

Toto

"Driving a wedge between Abraham and the law" is on p 59-60 of Paul in the Greco-Roman World. The wedge involves a new cosmic order.

The author claims that construing Christ as Abraham's single "seed" is crucial to this argument, as it eliminates the special status of Abraham's descendants.

It's still rather contrived.

arnoldo

Actually the argument is that Abraham's descendants are the people of faith as oppossed to those under the "law." Paul writes that the law was necessary before faith in much the same way that a child needs a guardian (the law) before becoming an entirely free person. Paul writes a person becomes free through a union with Christ which eliminates all status be it male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek. The noted author writes;