CJD

We must keep in mind that what we have in the first century are Judaisms — not Judaism. It is my opinion (simply because I deem, along with Paul, that the Christ has come) that Paul's views on the subject are properly Jewish. Also, please help me understand why being of Jewish ethnicity in the modern era matters in the slightest when guaging Paul's arguments? Moreover, the disparity between Jewish-Christians in the first century is interesting, but not insurmountable. Paul's position was arguably permitted by the 'Jerusalem Jews'. And that's all he apparently wanted. Be careful not to equate his opposition in, for example, the letter to the Galatians with being 'more Jewish' than Paul. What I am challenging here is your assumption that a first-century Jew who deemed Jews by virtue of their ethnicity (with Torah inextricably bound to it, since Torah was, after all, given to the Israelite nation) to be, permanently and inalienably, the covenant people of God, was somehow 'more fundamentally Jewish' than Paul's position.

Are you saying the Gospel stories are entirely reliant upon Paul?

I thought quite the opposite! It seems to me that bifurcating along Judaistic/Hellenistic lines is an oversimplification.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, if for no other reason than your wording seems to suggest that Jesus is a figment of Paul's imagination. Since no thought takes place in a vacuum, Paul's Judaism, like that of his countrymen, was influenced by his surrounding culture. If that's all you mean here, then I agree.

This notion ought to be laughed at. It's so tired and old, and on such shaky ground too. Jesus' death and resurrection as recorded by the various writers of the NT is firmly rooted in the Jewish tradition. It's main differences with any sort of mystery cult are as follows:

1. None of the so-called savior gods died for someone else.
2. Only Jesus 'condemned sin in his flesh'. It is never claimed that any of the pagan deities died for such a thing. Redeeming humanity doesn't even register on their radar screen.
3. Jesus, we are told, died once for all. The mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated death and resuscitation depict the annual cycle of nature.
4. Without doubt (yes, I scoff at mythicists), the writers of the NT deem Jesus' death an actual event in history. The death of the mystery gods reside in mythical dramas with no intent to ground them with historical ties; the continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature.
5. Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus' death was apparently voluntary. This is no small difference — especially for Paul.
6. Finally, everywhere in the NT, Jesus death is regarded as a triumph — not a defeat. The followers of the mystery gods, upon their deaths, mourn the terrible fate that overtook them.

And which mystery god experienced a resurrection from the dead?

Attis? Find me an early text that says so.
Adonis? Weak.
Osiris? After Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris' dismembered body, he became 'Lord of the Underworld'. Hardly a resurrection, since, according to Plutarch, it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying. All three are a stretch at best. Mithras is excluded outright. No textual link exists.

2 Cor. 4:4? I fail to see anything overly Greekish about this. How is this any different than calling Baal the god of Ekron (2 Kgs. 1:2, etc.)?

You mean like the best lamb in their fold, which indeed served as a sacrifice in their stead?

But of course — by the popular Judaism of that day. Why do you insist on treating this as a norm, as some kind of monolith? "Jesus wasn't the Christ because the Judaism of the first-century wasn't expecting him to show up that way"? How is this a substantial argument against anything?

Best Regards (and thanks for playing along),

CJD

Amaleq13

I understand that and that is why I am interested in support for your opinion that is not similarly based on faith in Jesus as Christ.

You don't understand why I am interested in the opinions of Jewish scholars with regard to the claim that Paul's argument is "the Jewish standpoint par excellence"? It seems entirely obvious to me so I doubt I could say anything that would make it understandable to you if it isn't already.

Arguably only because he kept a steady flow of cash coming in to them and not because his position was "the Jewish standpoint par excellence".

That is an interesting view of my position but I actually look at it from the exact opposite approach. It seems to me that a 1st century Jew who argued that a total conversion to Judaism was not necessary for gentile believers in the sacrificed/resurrected Christ to obtain the divine promises made to the Jews is a guy who has been significantly influenced by thinking unlike traditional Judaism. Given the gentile nature of his "fanbase", that seems like a good place to look for an influence.

No, I am saying they are irrelevant to understanding Paul.

I'm not suggesting bifurcation. I'm suggesting a mixture.

I don't think the concept of the sacrificed Savior was a figment of Paul's imagination because I accept his claim that he used to persecute believers before he converted.

I think we probably would never had had this discussion (at least not here) if we had a more clear definition of what was originally intended by "wholly Jewish". It seemed to me to be suggesting that Christianity had been essentially born in a Jewish vacuum.

I wish you had refrained from reading more into my question than was there. Please note that I do not claim a perfect correspondence or that the belief is entirely Hellenistic. None of the differences you describe are actually relevant to the question. What would be relevant are examples that establish the notion of a dying/rising godman has a firm foundation in Judaism. We wouldn't need to look for Hellenistic influences if such a firm foundation in Judaism is available.

The preferred deity of a particular town is quite a bit different from an evil power believed to rule the entire world. The latter concept is one that quite "Greekish".

No, that would be unlike the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus because it was clearly a personal sacrifice. In addition, IIRC, wasn't an animal sacrifice only appropriate to atone for unintentional sins? Isn't human sacrifice forbidden in Judaism?

I don't know but, then again, it isn't my argument so I don't care.

Mine would read more like this: Belief in Jesus as the Christ wasn't based on the traditional Jewish expectations of the Messiah so we should look elsewhere for an influence on their thinking.

freigeister

When Christ is specifically charged with making himself out to be a "godman", he responds (John 10:34) by citing a precedent within the Jewish tradition, ie. from Psalm 82:6. No one has ever proven any Greek influence on any of Christ's utterances. They are the purest Judaism.

CJD

More later, but first ...

I wasn't sure if that was your opinion. What I intended to tell you was that "a first-century Jew who deemed Jews by virtue of their ethnicity (with Torah inextricably bound to it, since Torah was, after all, given to the Israelite nation) to be, permanently and inalienably, the covenant people of God," was the exact position that Paul was arguing against throughout his letters. Understanding this first is necessary if we are to understand the context within which Paul's arguments work. In other words, if people weren't demanding that Gentiles become Jews, then Paul would not be seen taking such a hard line (at times) contra Torah observance. You've got to keep in mind Paul's assertion that Torah is nonetheless "holy, blameless, and from God" (cf. Rom. 7) when looking at his other statements about the darker purposes of Torah or the lack of necessity for Gentiles to circumcise themselves. It's all too easy to just assume (not saying you do) that Paul was a self-contradicting numbskull or that he was anti-Jewish, or, for that matter, heavily influenced by Hellinism.

Best,

CJD

Rick Sumner

See Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, or Paul, the Law and the Jewish People.

What could possibly be more Jewish than an argument phrased in terms of, defended with, and utterly based on, Jewish scripture? Paul makes no argument regarding the Law that isn't coached as such.

"Jewish standpoint par excellence" is perhaps stretching it a little, but it is definitely distinctly Jewish.

Are you aware of any Jewish writing--scriptural, rabbinic or otherwise--that ever once discusses how Gentiles are to follow YHWH when the Messiah comes? There's plenty of mention that it will happen, but not a word on how it will happen.

Well, not a word is perhaps exaggerating a little. There is one Jew who attempted to answer that. And he did so in a clearly Jewish fashion. Where you're finding un-Jewish thought in that is a bit of a mystery to me.

What I'd suggest we find in the Pauline epistles is a Jew who spent a great deal of time wondering how exactly he was to convert the Gentiles and usher in the Messianic age, who spent considerable time scouring scripture, and comparing it to his world, to see if he was doing it right, and decided after such study that he was.

Incidentally, Paul certainly doesn't think it appropriate to do away with the entire Law. One becomes justified without it (by faith), yet faith alone doesn't keep one justified.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Did you miss the part where I indicated that I consider the Gospels to be irrelevant to understanding Paul? Also, I question whether such a strange argument could be considered "purest Judaism" or that it even supports Paul's clear contention that Jesus was special.

Does Paul make an appeal to Psalm 82:6 to argue Christ's deity?

Amaleq13

Thank you for this reference (again). I was thinking about PMing you for it since I recalled you mentioning a good reference for understanding Paul.

I agree but his fellow Jews don't appear to have been persuaded and I wonder if that is because they considered his arguments to be nonsense. Is the notion of a crucified Messiah the only basis for Jewish rejection?

That's a good point. Aren't there stories of tribes being converted (unwillingly?) to Judaism in Hebrew Scripture? Do they specify what was required?

I did find a book that looks interesting and relevant online: Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities

And you don't find any need to look outside Judaism to understand any part of his theology?

Rick Sumner

Sanders certainly isn't the only opinion on the matter (Macoby springs to mind as something of an opponent to Sanders' ideas, and Chilton has a relatively new book out called Rabbi Paul, though I haven't read this latter yet), he's just the one I find most persuasive.

Rabbinic writing is full of contention regarding interpretations of the Law. That he didn't enjoy unanimity doesn't make his methods of reaching it any less Jewish.

Where would a Gentile get the idea that the nations are justified the same way the father of nations (Abraham) was?

Is that really analogous? This wasn't the end of a war in Paul's eyes--a war against God would seem quite impossible to him. He was trying to save lives, not end them.

That depends on how you define Judaism of the time, I suppose. Does one need to look outside Judaism to understand 1QM? The Psalms of Solomon? It probably wouldn't hurt, but that doesn't make them less Jewish.

It isn't the suggestion that Paul's writing isn't best understood entirely in the context of Judaism that I"m contesting, rather it's the more specific suggestion that justification by faith shouldn't be understood in a Jewish context.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

freigeister

Paul doesn't argue Christ's divinity:

Amaleq13

I've read Maccoby and found is arguments against Paul interesting but lacking enough referenced support.

I don't think Paul should be understood as a Gentile. At "worst", he is a (per Maccoby) a wannabe Jew and should at least be understood within that context. What I'm not clear on is whether it is sound to conclude that everything he believed about Jesus can be said to be founded in Judaism or if some of his beliefs make more sense as being more influenced by "Hellenism".

It is the only place I can think of in Hebrew Scripture that might have provided guidance on questions of Gentile conversion. I'm not sure whether the willingness of the converts would make any difference in establishing requirements.

I think we are all in agreement on this and, if I remember correctly, you have stated several times that our specific knowledge is sparse (ie what exactly constituted Pharisaic thought?).

Fair enough but it still seems to me that Paul's sacrificed Savior makes more sense if it is understood as coming from a mixture of Jewish-Messianic beliefs and pagan beliefs in the significance of a sacrificed godman.