Ben C Smith

Besides, the argument falters of its own accord. Here is the argument:

1. The Jews did not believe that the messiah died and rose again.
2. The pillars were Jews.
3. Ergo, the pillars did not believe that the messiah died and rose again.

And here is where the argument falters:

1. The Jews did not believe that the messiah died and rose again.
2. Paul was a Jew.
3. Ergo, Paul did not believe that the messiah died and rose again.

Ben.

spin

Einstein said to make analyses as simple as you can, but no simpler. In reducing things to syllogisms here, Ben is guilty of being too simple.

The messiah of the Jews (the only type of messiah) does not die before fulfilling his messiahship. Death in this situation is failure. This is why the Jews tended to ridicule christians for their dead Jesus messiah. The people who Paul opposes shows its Jewishness in its torah observance. That Jewishness is what would points to a Jewish view of messiah for Paul's opponents. Paul rejects torah observance and would ostensibly lapse from being Jewish except for his birthright, though while he advocated the uselessness of torah observance he would have been ostracized by conservative Jews, as was the case with the minim in rabbinic literature.

The false notion of messiah that he teaches is out of line with Judaism and not in keeping with people who were torah observant. This is probably why Paul opposed torah observance with his version of messiah.

But to go back to your attempt at a syllogism, this would be closer:

1. The Jews did not believe that the messiah died and rose again.
2. Paul believed that the messiah died and rose again.
3. Ergo, Paul was not a Jew.

I'd think that Paul would have been considered what was later called a min.

This syllogism is not correct, but it is closer. As stated, torah observance is the key issue for deciding who was Jewish. Holding a wayward notion as Paul does regarding the messiah would be the somewhat equivalent of a christian repudiating baptism.

The late Hyam Maccoby wrote: "Paul's use of 'Christ' .. as a divine title has thus no precedent in Judaism, and would be felt by any Jew to be a complete departure from Jewish thinking about the messiah." (The Mythmaker, 1986/1998 Barnes & Noble) Maccoby also argued from Ebionite sources that Paul was a convert to Judaism and so didn't have the birthright.


spin

spamandham

Rom. 1
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

- The gospel revealed through scripture is that God would send his son. The proof that it was fulfilled is that Jesus rose from the dead (presumably, he must have died first)

1 Cor. 15 1-7
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, ...

...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

- the gospel revealed in scripture is that Christ died for sins and was resurrected

Gal. 1
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Even in Gal, the context is "the gospel of Christ", just as it is in Romans and 1 Cor.

...But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

...obviously, there is contention going on as to the content of the gospel of Christ. Someone (Peter) is teaching that something other than the gospel of Christ (god sent his son who was resurrected) is necessary for salvation. In particular, it looks like some group is teaching that only Jews can be saved.

...I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

...just like the scriptural revelations in Romans and 1 Cor...

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

...hold the presses!!! If Paul invented the idea of gentile Christianity, then why is he emphasizing his prior zealotry for Jewish traditions! All of Christianity was engaged in Jewish tradition prior to Paul, right???!!

He's telling us right here, right now, that the church was not engaged in Jewish traditions...and that's why Paul had previously persecuted it. That being the case, "gentile salvation" is not the gospel Paul is referring to here. The gospel he's referring to is the same gospel he refers to in Romans and 1 Cor - the gospel of Christ.

renassault

I've seen Hyam Maccoby make ridiculous claims. I've also seen scholars say that Christ is the best way Paul could explain Jesus' role. Paul being a convert to Judaism is unlikely since in Philippians he relates he is from the tribe of Benjamin and is the son of a Pharisee.

aa5874

And to augment your position, there is Galations 1.21-23 "Paul" is NOW preaching the Gospel he used to destroy.

The apostles got their gospel from Jesus directly when he was on earth, but "Paul" got the vey same gospel by revelations from the very same Jesus who was crucified and in heaven.

gurugeorge

Well tbh our theories aren't all that far apart, what you're calling my "complication" others might call "fleshing out slightly". It's all very well to say "the Jesus story is written by an unknown author" - but it's a bit like having a theory, leaving a gap and saying, "and then a miracle happens" (old science joke).

Part of the interest of all this stuff is to figure out the genealogy of the idea, and some of the religio-politico-sociological curiosities involved.

spin

That's one of the issues that Maccoby discusses (pp.95f). Read it and don't shoot the messenger before reading the message.


spin

aa5874

Do you know the authors of the Gospels? Not knowning the author is not a "gap" or like a miracle, it is the lack of chronological information and the abundance of miraculous events in the NT which create gaps.

And, my theory is far more coherent and comprehensive.

The Jesus stories were written about or sometime after the end of the first century but before Justin and "Paul" and his "gospel" were manufactured sometime after Justin Martyr.

gurugeorge

Well, I come around to the thing I said before: you have to account for why orthodoxy would invent something with odd, unorthodox elements - why didn't they just invent something without those elements, it would have been easier.

Again, when you say "Do we know the authors of the gospels?", I'd respond, "Well of course we bloody don't, we're trying to find out who they were!"

Ben C Smith

But after you read it... fire away.

Ben.