Vinnie

I'll probably end up revising this. It seems somewhat choopy and disorganized right now but noting any errors in it would be greatly appreciated.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/paulandjesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/paulandjesus.html</a>

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Well, if it is meant to balanced, citing 5 conservative (Brown) to far right scholars (Wright) is a bit much. Perhaps your arguments would be more effective if you used mythicists. For example, Wells argues against Doherty's position in his review of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle posted to Doherty's site. I believe he does think Paul knew of an HJ, citing "born of a woman" and a couple of other things in the conventional Christian way....

Most of the arguments you present have been disposed of, but you do not really address the counterarguments, nor the negative evidence (1st century writings that do not know James is the brother of Jesus)...and so on. Perhaps a broader consideration? I'll write more on Saturday when I'm back with my library.

Vorkosigan

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Steven Carr

Wright writes ' It should be clear from all this that if Paul had simply trotted out, parrot-fashion, every line of Jesus’ teaching – if he had repeated the parables, if he had tried to do again what Jesus did in announcing and inaugurating the kingdom – he would not have been endorsing Jesus, as an appropriate and loyal follower should. He would have been denying him. Someone who copies exactly what a would-be Messiah does is himself trying to be a Messiah;'

Could you explain why Paul mentioning that Jesu taught in parables or alluding to a parable or two would mean that Paul was trying to be the Messiah?

How did the parables get spread if the people who taught them were denying Jesus and setting themselves up as Messiahs?

CX

I would recommend reading "St. Peter Versus St. Paul: A Tale of Two Missions" by Michael Goulder for more material on Pauline Xianity which cannot be accused by nontheists as engendering theistic bias since Goulder is an atheist (and former Protestant minister).

Vinnie

Brown and Johnson do not come off as conservative to me. I wouldn't object to Wright and Bruce being labeled conservative. But Wells is hardly qualified in this area as far as I know so I wouldn't use him as an authority or make a point of quoting him. The only point in quoting him is to say "Even a myther (or former myther or whatever Wells is) grants this. Wright as far as I know, has the qualification to at least write something on Paul. Whether he is acurate or not is another matter. Bruce is just citing Gospel evidence. A monkey could do that but Bruce had a nice summary of all the usaully used verses in paragraph form. So did Luke Timothy Johnson.

That would mean I would have to actually read mythicists.

Well, I am sure others will be along to point out the errors in my page. That is why I posted it.

By do not know, do you mean do not mention? I am aware of nothing that argues that James who is known as the brother of the Lord isn't the brother of the Lord in the first century. I think the Proto-evangelium of James (second century) might say he is Jesus' half-brother (I read it a while ago and don't fully remember) and others who need to have Mary as an "ever-virgin" interpret James the "brother" of the Lord differently (which reeks of "hamronization" to me).

It wouldn't and that is not what N.T. Wright said. Paul likes to use the Jesus story in his apeals. The Jesus story is what Paul thinks Jesus ministry, death and resurrection meant. What Jesus did (e forest of his life, not the trees). Yes, the forest takes precedence over the exact details (trees) of his ministry in the Pauline epistles. "Jesus believed it was his vocation to bring Israel’s history to its climax. Paul believed, in consequence of that belief and as part of his own special vocation, that he was himself now called to announce to the whole world that Israel’s history had been brought to its climax in that way." Paul uses the Jesus story. But the evidence indicates Paul accepted and a historical Jesus and REALLY thought there was one. He even mentioned a few trees along the way and alluded to others.

You've misunderstood what was read. N.T. Wright said (ibid p. 182), "Despite the popular impression, there are in fact a good many echoes of the actual sayings of Jesus in the letters of Paul . . ."

The N.T. Wright quote seemed clear on this:

"if he [Paul] had tried to do again what Jesus did in announcing and inaugurating the kingdom – he would not have been endorsing Jesus, as an appropriate and loyal follower should. He would have been denying him. Someone who copies exactly what a would-be Messiah does is himself trying to be a Messiah; which means denying the earlier claim. When we see the entire sequence within the context of Jewish eschatology, we are forced to realize that for Paul to be a loyal ‘servant of Jesus Christ’, as he describes himself, could never mean that Paul would repeat Jesus’ unique, one-off announcement of the kingdom to his fellow Jews. What we are looking for is not a parallelism between two abstract messages. It is the appropriate continuity between two people living, and conscious of living, at different points in the eschatological timetable.[/quote]

I think I may have caused this confusion. If you read my intro to Wright, "Wright also touches on why Paul does not seemingly mention any parables." That is not meant to be "Wright touches on why Paul would never dare to repeat a parable." Touches on does not mean exhaustively explain either.

Steven Carr

I think I will repeat what Wright wrote 'It should be clear from all this that if Paul had simply trotted out, parrot-fashion, every line of Jesus’ teaching – if he had repeated the parables, if he had tried to do again what Jesus did in announcing and inaugurating the kingdom – he would not have been endorsing Jesus, as an appropriate and loyal follower should. He would have been denying him.'

So Wright states clearly that repeating the parables is not what a loyal follower would do,and would have been denying Jesus.

SO how did people learn them if they were never repeated as being teachings of Jesus?

Wright is clearly rationalising away that Paul never refers to a parable or miracle of Jesus and hardly ever refers to any incidents in the life of Jesus. And his rationalisation is silly. It does not explain why there is no mention of them (and no mention of almost every other Gospel detail) in Paul.

Wright also writes , as quoted in your web page, 'He was calling the world to allegiance to its rightful Lord, the Jewish Messiah now exalted as the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be. A new mystery religion, focused on a mythical ‘lord’, would not have threatened anyone in the Greek or Roman world. ‘Another king’, the human Jesus whose claims cut directly across those of Caesar, did.'

Bede on his web page writes 'Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him. '

So Wright claims Paul and other Christians were teaching that Jesus was King, and that this threatened the Romans (Wright also claims that this is continous with what Jesus taught).

Bede claims that the Romans never bothered with Christianity because they were not threatened , except by Kings. But Wright says the claims of Christians that Jesus was King cut directly across the claims of Caesar.

Some contradiction surely?

Steven Carr

ilgwamh writes 'Despite the popular impression, there are in fact a good many echoes of the actual sayings of Jesus in the letters of Paul . . ."'

Was that on your web page?

Examples of echos, please.

Why does Paul hardly ever attribute them to Jesus?

Layman

Our sources for Jesus' sayings, of course, are the various gospels sources of Mark, Q, M, and L. However, it is almost universally believed that the Gospel traditions are independent of Paul's letters. In other words, the Gospels did not base their account on Paul's account and vise versa

Some comparisons:


Allusions to Jesus' Teachings

1. Bless Those Who Curse You

Romans 12:14

"Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse."

Luke 6:27-28

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"

2. Do Not Pay Back Evil with Evil

Romans 12:17

"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men."

Matthew 5:39

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"

3. Render to Caesar What Is Caesar's

Romans 13:7

"Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Mark 12:17

"And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.''"

4. Love You Neighbor As Yourself As Fulfillment of Law

Romans 13:8-9:

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.''

&

Galatians 5:14

"For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Mark 12:31

"The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.''

5. Do Not Judge Lest Ye Be Judged

Romans 14:10

"But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God."

Matthew 7:1-2

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."

6. All Things are Clean

Romans 14:14

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Luke 11:41

"But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you."

Matthew 5:13

"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.''

7. Wise in Good, Innocent in Evil

Romans 1619

"For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil."

Matthew 10:16

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves."

8. The Sermon on the Mount (and the Lukan version)

Too much to reprint here. But compare Romans 12:17-20 with Matthew 5:38-43 (and Luke 6:27-28)

9. Faith to Move Mountains

1 Cor. 13:2

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing"

Mark 11:23

"Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, "Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him."

10. Eschatological Similarities

Compare 2 Thess. 4:15-5:4 with Mark 13 and Matthew 24:42; Luke 12:39.

Paul's teaching here on eschatology are similar to the Gospels. Note especially the references to a "thief in the night."

Specific References to Jesus' Teaching

1. Jesus expressly forbid divorce

1 Cor. 7:10 (see Mark 10:6-10)

2. Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching

1 Cor. 7:11; 9:14 (see Luke 10:10)

3. Jesus initiated the Lord's Supper

1 Cor. 11:23-25 (see Matth. 26:26-29)

4. Jesus taught about the end-time/eschatology

1 Thess. 4:15

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Steven Carr

Let's just take the first one as an example of the desperate nature of Christian apologetics.

There is no mention in Romans 12 of Jesus ever having said anything similar (and it is certainly not an exact quote) , and if we look at Romans 12:20 '"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

we see Paul is getting it all from the Old Testament.

However, we can also see the double-standards used. Luke quotes'kai edoken auton te metri auto' direct from the Septaugint, and Christians here deny plagiarism, despite word-for-word quoting.

But when Paul says something which is vaguely similar to something in the Gospels, the cry goes up that he is quoting Jesus, even when it is clear ,as in the cite from Romans 14, that Paul is appealing to the Old Testament, and not any teachings of Jesus.

King Arthur

This is not an exact quote, but it is very similar. Contrary to what your post seems to later imply, I do not believe this was taken from the OT, at least I can find no similar wording. If you believe the things you still have posted on your website, Steven, why would you not accept this parallel in Paul to Jesus' teaching? Where did Paul get such a similarly worded idea if not from his very own savior, Jesus?

Here are the two verses:

Luke 6:28
eulogeite tous kataromenous humas proseuchesthe peri ton epereazonton humas
bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you

Romans 12:14
eulogeite tous diokontas humas eulogeite kai me katarasthe
bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse

Assuming that Paul was mainly referring to the first part of the same saying that Luke recorded, they seem quite similar.

They start the same with "eulogeite tous" and use the same word for curse, "kataraomai". The idea underlying both is the same. Paul wouldn't have copied Luke because Luke probably had not been written. It is very doubtful that Jesus' words were recorded in exactitude, so a little deviation is probably to be expected as long as the idea is the same, which it obviously is. I have a hard time believing that Paul was not trying to get across the ideas of what Jesus taught, just like Luke.

Big difference. Most scholars would agree that this phrase definitely comes from wholesale, word-for-word (with the exception of the synonym used for "feed" - "if your enemy is hungry, feed him) from the Septuagint.

However, if you'll notice, Paul acknowledges with a common formula that he is quoting directly from his scripture in the previous verse (Rom. 12:19) "for it is written".

This paragraph is why I responded. It was obviously targeted at me. I'll never convince you, so I don't know why I'm trying to be honest, however, the phrase "and he gave him to his mother" is simply a much more common phrase than either of the two you presented above. The first parallel you criticize has a few more intimate ties to the other text than what you present and does not seem to be from the OT at all. The second one which you bring up is said to be "written", so it is obviously a direct quote for which I have no problem.

I don't think he was quoting Jesus per se, but I do think he was trying to convey the same ideas that Jesus had conveyed. The parallel to his teaching is too obvious. As far as Romans 14, I don't know what the problem is. Perhaps you meant Romans 12:14.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>