l-bow

Vorkosigan:


Can you please explain the difference between the two?

Chris Weimer

Peter = Jews only
Paul = everybody

l-bow

What about the Christianity of James?

Amlodhi

CJD

So much for that …

I suppose the OP must do better at defining "Christianity" before this answer can be truly answered. In my opinion, confessing Jesus as both Lord and Messiah (Christ), both of which were vindicated by his bodily resurrection (according to Paul), are in essence what it means to be "Christian." As such, there is not much difference between Pauline and Petrine "Christianity." There are numerous peripheral differences, to be sure. But that is another matter.

Someone please enlighten us regarding the essential difference between these two,

CJD

Amlodhi

Hi CJD,

I don't think there is an essential difference in these given statements.

However, I do think there was an essential difference between the original Christianity of the apostolic church in Jerusalem and the later "orthodox church" Christianity which was based on interpretations of Pauline doctrine.

From my perspective, it appears that the original apostolic Jersualem church considered that the "man" Jesus was elected by YHWH as messiah; either at his baptism or upon his resurrection. The Jews were to continue temple ritual and adherence to Mosaic law; including animal sacrifice for remission of sin. Jesus, as messiah, would soon return, vanquish Israel's enemies, and establish his (world encompassing) kingship in Jerusalem. Gentiles who expressed their belief in, and acceptance of, this soon to return king, would be spared the coming annihilation (i.e. saved) and allowed to serve and worship; not as priests/Jews, but as "fearers of YHWH". These believing Gentiles, who were never obligated under Mosaic law, were expected only to express their belief and allegiance to this returning messiah, and to adhere to the basic Noahic restrictions placed upon them by the Jerusalem council, i.e. "no fornication, no meat offered to idols, etc.".

The later "orthodox" interpretation of Pauline doctrine, on the other hand, developed into the doctrine of the "veil" over the eyes of the Jews. In this "orthodox" interpretation, temple ritual, altar sacrifice and adherence to Mosaic law was denounced as being non-efficacious. In short, the gentiles, who were originally deemed to be allowed the opportunity to ally themselves with the Jewish nation (and their messiah) and thereby save themselves from annihilation upon the return of this messiah, had, through their "orthodox" doctrine, usurped this original Jewish eschatology, altered it to elevate their status, and ultimately (and ironically) "turned the tables" on the original Jewish doctrine.


JMHO,

Amlodhi

CJD

Hello, Amlodhi.

You've brought up some great points. There is no doubt in my mind that later "orthodoxy" has screwed up some major bits in Paul. If the contention is that "orthodoxy" (based on a certain interpretation of Paul) and apostolic Xianity are at odds on some things, I agree wholeheartedly. But again, are the differences essential? For both camps, "Christianity" arguably consists of what I wrote previously: "… confessing Jesus as both Lord and Messiah (Christ), both of which were vindicated by his bodily resurrection … ."

I am not sure about the early church being "adoptionistic." I do think that Jesus was clearly seen to have been appointed or installed upon his vindicating bodily resurrection. Paul wrote as much in Romans 1:4: "(… who is marked out [horizo] Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord … ."

The point doesn't seem to be adoptionistic so much as it seems to be the notion that this Jesus, who was previously lowly and limited, was now shown to be Lord and Messiah of the entire cosmos (Caesar had better take note, etc.).

As far as the Jewish followers of "the way" are concerned, I think it is likely that they continued doing the rituals they had always done, because these were the very things that marked them out as the people of God. I don't think they suffered under the delusion that these rituals were efficacious ex opere operato (to use a medieval phrase). Also, I think Paul considered these things permissible—for a time, at least. There was freedom not to do them, of course, but if one's conscience demanded it, so be it. The problem Paul had with the Law was not its use; rather, it was its use as that which marked out the people of God in the new covenant. No, Paul said, that place is reserved for faith alone.

I agree with this description. It wasn't monolithic or anything; but it's a good description. The whole reason that Paul started addressing some of the issues that he did was precisely because this vision did not pan-out the way many had thought it would. Remember, too, that most of the Gentiles in the early church were not pagans and skeptics; rather, they were already "God-fearers" (and happy to remain just that, since to be allowed more privileges meant circumcision—ouch!).

As long as you're saying that this was indeed interpretations of and not Pauline doctrine itself, I agree. Romans 9–11 cannot be interpreted in this way (as a means to elevate status). Paul clearly denounces such haughtiness:
I think these usurpations on the part of Gentiles began to happen during Paul's ministry, and much of what he wrote sought to correct it. Much of this aberrant theology, however, won the day in "Christendom."

Regards,

CJD

Toto

Back to the question in the OP:

Ferdinand Christian Baur of the Tubingen School was a 19th century German theologian who applied the Hegelian dialectic to Biblical criticism. You will not find evidence of Petrine vs. Pauline Christianity in the Book of Acts, because that dramatic narrative was invented to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline branches of the church (according to this theory). Acts has Peter announcing that all food is clean, although in Paul's letters we learn that he was equivocal on the question. Acts also has Paul performing various Jewish rituals, including circumcising one of his companions himself, although this goes against his own writings on the question.

Most scholars now believe that Paul's letters were written well before gMatthew, so it is hard to say that the "Petrine" version of Christianity in Matthew is more primitive that the Pauline. But there is a lot of evidence of conflict between difference branches of Christianity. Paul's letter to the Galatians 2 describes some conflict between Peter and Paul, and the Clementine Homilies portray a debate between Peter and Simon Magus (who was identified as Paul by Baur.)

Chris Weimer

Just because he says that they are acceptable to the Lord doesn't mean he was pro-conversion. But yes, if you think of the nature of Judaism during the Roman occupation, it was very zealous. Instead of converting Gentiles to Christianity, the main force was converting gentiles to Judaism, which the Nazarean sect was a part of. All were Jews.
1 Peter 2:9, 1 Peter 2:25, 1 Peter 4:3,

Toto, you got there first on the inaccuracy of Acts. Bravo

CJD

Baur's view is largely discredited today, and for good reason: it is terribly overly simplistic. Choosing Baur to fight this battle is nothing short of a sleight of hand ["Acts contains historically reliable information about the early tendencies and tensions of early Christianity." Baur replies: "Na-ah. The Great Hegel tells me Acts is a synthesis." ].

Toto is right in saying that there is "a lot of evidence of conflict between different branches of Christianity," and no one should deny it. Another matter entirely, is whether there were any essential differences among the NT documents (like those I described above, if you'll allow me to do the defining). Answering in the affirmative is not as easy as one might think.

Regards,

CJD

Georg Wilhelm Hegel, on his deathbed, complained, "Only one man ever understood me." He fell silent for a while and then added, "And he didn't understand me."

[Hengel, Martin. Paul between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years, (London : SCM Press), 1997. On some counts probably parallels Goulder's views. He is also Baur reincarnated.]