The Paulina as Epoch-Making

[Peter Kirby]

Leaving aside the question of authenticity, enough of the Pauline letters do seem to come together enough to suggest a strong theme. That theme, I suggest, is an extension of (what's being called) "God's Kingdom" and consequent preaching to Gentiles without requiring obedience to the law, with all the problems that caused. The point and counterpoint are sharp, the controversy is real, the opponents and confusion lie just under the surface, the arguments need to be made, the issues are diverse, and, without these problems, the letters as a whole simply have no sufficiently good reason to come into being. You may disagree; that's fine.

What are the implications though?

What kinds of texts could come prior to the Pauline letters? Some suggestions are possible:

(1) Texts that could be completely independent of this opening up to Gentiles and that weren't trying to lay claim to being the continuation of Judaism. This could include, for example, Eugnostos the Blessed.

(2) Texts that show no awareness of the inclusion of Gentiles in this way and which are compatible with Jewish authorship. There are no non-hypothetical examples I know about off the top of my head. Maybe Q for a hypothetical example.

Anything else?

Now back to the premise. Is it completely wrong? Were the Pauline letters marginal, or were they epoch-making?

[perseusomega9]

Leaving aside the question of authenticity, enough of the Pauline letters do seem to come together enough to suggest a strong theme. That theme, I suggest, is an extension of (what's being called) "God's Kingdom" and consequent preaching to Gentiles without requiring obedience to the law, with all the problems that caused.

The Law caused, or the preaching to the Nations caused, or both?

[Peter Kirby]

Leaving aside the question of authenticity, enough of the Pauline letters do seem to come together enough to suggest a strong theme. That theme, I suggest, is an extension of (what's being called) "God's Kingdom" and consequent preaching to Gentiles without requiring obedience to the law, with all the problems that caused.

The Law caused, or the preaching to the Nations caused, or both?

The latter (bolded) of course.

[perseusomega9]

Leaving aside the question of authenticity, enough of the Pauline letters do seem to come together enough to suggest a strong theme. That theme, I suggest, is an extension of (what's being called) "God's Kingdom" and consequent preaching to Gentiles without requiring obedience to the law, with all the problems that caused.

The Law caused, or the preaching to the Nations caused, or both?

The latter (bolded) of course.

Thanks for clarifying. English to English translation is tricky and nuanced. I always appreciate your insights and questions, and your Socratic methods, so thought I'd help this most interesting OP along by making sure WE all understood the details and could tailor our responses to the question accordingly.

I am pondering the times when that question would be important enough to spend money and travelling resources and other such expenditures.

eta: And who would really care (besides the nascent church teehee)

[Peter Kirby]

I am pondering the times when that question would be important enough to spend money and travelling resources and other such expenditures.

I'm not so simple as to say the motive was greed, but couldn't it have been remunerative and covered all expenses on its own? 1 Corinthians 9 says that people were saying that the author was making a living off the gospel:

https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bibl ... COR+9.html

There is a little protestation in 1 Cor 9:12 that says Paul didn't make use with the Corinthians of his right to make a living off the gospel, so how is that to be interpreted? Perhaps only in a local and temporary way, as though Paul were expanding his franchise to the Corinthians and had not yet started to charge for the service. It's difficult to understand the accusation and long defense if Paul were not supported by other people already (speaking here to answer your question on the assumption that the author was also the one who did the things written about in the letters). And, indeed, the ability of the author to write long letters does suggest either wealth or a lot of support.

Jews who had settled throughout Asia Minor and Greece are said to have supported the Temple with a tax. The letters speak of a collection that was set up in a mirror image of this kind of tax, but this only for "the poor" instead of the Temple. Let's suppose that Paul never stood to make any personal gain from these funds. It's still a remarkable little slush fund, which could also pay for materials to write letters and other needs. In addition to special access to this collection, the author had the same right of support he said other apostles had as well.

eta: And who would really care (besides the nascent church teehee)

Suppose that I'm a servant in Corinth. It's my fate in life to be born, labor, let others enjoy the fruits, and die. But I am told that, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). And that "we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). It's a simple enough premise, but it works. It's always worked.

[maryhelena]

Leaving aside the question of authenticity, enough of the Pauline letters do seem to come together enough to suggest a strong theme. That theme, I suggest, is an extension of (what's being called) "God's Kingdom" and consequent preaching to Gentiles without requiring obedience to the law, with all the problems that caused. The point and counterpoint are sharp, the controversy is real, the opponents and confusion lie just under the surface, the arguments need to be made, the issues are diverse, and, without these problems, the letters as a whole simply have no sufficiently good reason to come into being. You may disagree; that's fine.

What are the implications though?

What kinds of texts could come prior to the Pauline letters? Some suggestions are possible:

(1) Texts that could be completely independent of this opening up to Gentiles and that weren't trying to lay claim to being the continuation of Judaism. This could include, for example, Eugnostos the Blessed.

(2) Texts that show no awareness of the inclusion of Gentiles in this way and which are compatible with Jewish authorship. There are no non-hypothetical examples I know about off the top of my head. Maybe Q for a hypothetical example.

Anything else?

Now back to the premise. Is it completely wrong? Were the Pauline letters marginal, or were they epoch-making?

Is it not simply a question of timing for NT Paul ? Were not the Gentiles, the nations, going to come to the Lord sometime in the future - re OT prophets. So - the question becomes why now for Paul? Dating Paul aside, what in history would suggest that the time for the Gentiles had come ? 63.b.c., 37 b.c., 70 c.e., 135 c.e. Four dates all dealing with the Roman occupation of Judaea. Basically, loss of sovereignty, loss of independence, eventually leading to a going out into the non-Jewish world. A situation only concluded with the British Government's Balfour Declaration of 1917.

[davidmartin]

(1) Texts that could be completely independent of this opening up to Gentiles and that weren't trying to lay claim to being the continuation of Judaism. This could include, for example, Eugnostos the Blessed.

(2) Texts that show no awareness of the inclusion of Gentiles in this way and which are compatible with Jewish authorship. There are no non-hypothetical examples I know about off the top of my head. Maybe Q for a hypothetical example.

Anything else?

(3) Texts that were also trying to lay claim to a continuation of Judaism and inclusion of gentiles but are Jewish

The Odes of Solomon

I would ask if Paul is doing more than making it about mere gentile inclusion, when his theology would have Christ representing the law on the cross and being done away with - just a means for God to convict the world of sin. Paul's opponents appear to take the opposite view. What the Odes do is suggest this controversy is somewhat later, and that gentiles already were included. This makes more sense because wouldn't that already have been worked out in any reconstructed historical Jesus movement?
If Jesus had included them without requiring observance then it simply means the opponents of Paul were deviant in this area
If Jesus hadn't included them without requiring observance then it makes him look unprepared (to say the least) and makes Paul look deviant

It's smoother to think he did include them, it fits with the character of the gospel Jesus who is not known as a stickler for the law

So in other words, Paul's opponents misrepresent the original thing and Paul is continuing that tradition but he builds his theology on top of the debate which is also what his letters are for, to advance his version of the gospel

Looking back at the Odes - the simple statement is that circumcision is spiritual, there is no mention of the law but it's requirements appear spiritualised much like Paul does in a more roundabout way later. In the Odes the law is not nailed to the cross, it is just fulfilled by adherence to its spiritual meaning (as Paul says in one of his swings the other way). It's simpler, it's earlier

The resolution is introducing an earlier iteration prior to Paul and his opponents which is evidenced in the Odes which are a Jewish Christian document.

[Peter Kirby]

(1) Texts that could be completely independent of this opening up to Gentiles and that weren't trying to lay claim to being the continuation of Judaism. This could include, for example, Eugnostos the Blessed.

(2) Texts that show no awareness of the inclusion of Gentiles in this way and which are compatible with Jewish authorship. There are no non-hypothetical examples I know about off the top of my head. Maybe Q for a hypothetical example.

Anything else?

(3) Texts that were also trying to lay claim to a continuation of Judaism and inclusion of gentiles but are Jewish

The Odes of Solomon

I would ask if Paul is doing more than making it about mere gentile inclusion, when his theology would have Christ representing the law on the cross and being done away with - just a means for God to convict the world of sin. Paul's opponents appear to take the opposite view. What the Odes do is suggest this controversy is somewhat later, and that gentiles already were included. This makes more sense because wouldn't that already have been worked out in any reconstructed historical Jesus movement?
If Jesus had included them without requiring observance then it simply means the opponents of Paul were deviant in this area
If Jesus hadn't included them without requiring observance then it makes him look unprepared (to say the least) and makes Paul look deviant

It's smoother to think he did include them, it fits with the character of the gospel Jesus who is not known as a stickler for the law

So in other words, Paul's opponents misrepresent the original thing and Paul is continuing that tradition but he builds his theology on top of the debate which is also what his letters are for, to advance his version of the gospel

Looking back at the Odes - the simple statement is that circumcision is spiritual, there is no mention of the law but it's requirements appear spiritualised much like Paul does in a more roundabout way later. In the Odes the law is not nailed to the cross, it is just fulfilled by adherence to its spiritual meaning (as Paul says in one of his swings the other way). It's simpler, it's earlier

The resolution is introducing an earlier iteration prior to Paul and his opponents which is evidenced in the Odes which are a Jewish Christian document.

Fundamentally, I agree, we need another category for things similar to the Odes of Solomon, creating the need for a third category of things that could be independent of the Pauline lineage.

I also tend to agree with the assessment that Paul did things quite differently, eventually leading to the category of a "new religion" or "tribe" (Christians), separate from both Jews and Greeks, although this concept is not yet present in the Pauline corpus.

The idea of the Paulina as epoch-making can be intact insofar as these strategies for inclusion are fundamentally different and that the letters of Paul are different in that they attempt to redefine God's Kingdom, essentially also claiming that the law-based covenant was now invalid. This claim is incredibly contentious when put forward in the letters of Paul. In other texts, it just becomes the received teachings of the apostles.

There is much profitable study to be done on those who attempted to pay special attention to the Torah/Pentateuch in the sections before the calling of Abraham, looking for some kind of loophole to allow non-Jews to have access to the biblical God without keeping the law of Moses. The speculation on the meaning of Genesis and the scriptures was very creative. The NHL has much to contribute to this study.

I say this now so that I can come back to this later, perhaps, with more organized thoughts. But, yes, fundamentally, I agree.