1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:44 pm

John2,

ah indeed, my working assumption is the original Jewish Christian doctrine would have been something like Torah and Jewish customs observance for Jews - maybe without the additional requirements built around it, without so much attention to ritual purity as evidenced by Jesus's words on this. While for non-Jews no requirement to observe Torah like Paul teaches

In my mind this makes sense as a doctrine that could go back to Jesus based on what we know of him
It also ties in with Paul's teachings approximately, and i think for Christianity to be authentic this position on gentiles has to go back to Jesus

Yet i see this position as being modified a little later
The Christians Paul encounters in Galatians want non-Jews to convert fully to Judaism
So these folk have diverged and gone too far in that direction, they're now another branch of the Nazarenes with their own leaders. Proto-Ebionites

Paul in his own way also diverges by appearing to teach against the Torah or changing it's function from what saves to convicting of sin and so on. I admit this it a point of debate (long debate!) but he is radical. So he's another branch of the Nazarenes

But they both sprang from the first Nazarenes who i believe held the position closer to Paul although probably had no special theology around the Torah, and were focused on Grace as what unifies Jew and Gentile and other such things
So these first Nazarenes are the third branch, and Paul emerged from here originally and not the proto-Ebionite Nazarenes

I happen to think there was rivalry between these three for a few decades or so and Acts is the result of some early council that tries to sort things out. This results in Paul's doctrine getting accepted with some doctrinal additions from those who were partially convinced by the proto-ebionites or ex-members. But Paul basically wins out. Those who don't like it, get to become Ebionites. I don't agree these folk were the original Christians

what i found interesting was when reading the NT to try and guess which idea or teaching came from which of these three branches which might only exist in my head but that's what has resolved some of the problems i couldn't figure out before
just for what is worth

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:08 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:44 pm
John2,

ah indeed, my working assumption is the original Jewish Christian doctrine would have been something like Torah and Jewish customs observance for Jews - maybe without the additional requirements built around it, without so much attention to ritual purity as evidenced by Jesus's words on this. While for non-Jews no requirement to observe Torah like Paul teaches

In my mind this makes sense as a doctrine that could go back to Jesus based on what we know of him
It also ties in with Paul's teachings approximately, and i think for Christianity to be authentic this position on gentiles has to go back to Jesus

But since Jesus was pro-sacrifice (Mt. 5:23-24) and Christians offered sacrifices (Acts 21) I think he and the original Christians paid as much attention to ritual purity as they did to the rest of the Torah.

Yet i see this position as being modified a little later
The Christians Paul encounters in Galatians want non-Jews to convert fully to Judaism
So these folk have diverged and gone too far in that direction, they're now another branch of the Nazarenes with their own leaders. Proto-Ebionites

Well, but the "modification" came later only because of Paul and his Gentile mission. Prior to him Jewish Christians preached only to Jews (as per Mt. 10:5-6 abd Gal. 2:7). And Jewish Christians had varying reactions to the issue of Gentile inclusion, but the leaders supported Paul's mission. The only issue they had with him was about the necessity of Jewish Torah observance, and Cephas and all the Jews in Antioch sided with the "circumcision party" on that.

Paul in his own way also diverges by appearing to teach against the Torah or changing it's function from what saves to convicting of sin and so on. I admit this it a point of debate (long debate!) but he is radical. So he's another branch of the Nazarenes
Okay, sure, I think Paul was a more liberal kind of Nazarene than Jewish Christian leaders were and was radical enough for James to reprove him regarding the issue of Jewish Torah observance. And this, to me, is what makes Paul the one who was different from Jesus, because Jesus was pro-Jewish Torah observance. And since the Nazarenes who opposed Paul (i.e., proto-Ebionites) did not exist until Paul, and a mission to the Gentiles didn't exist until Paul, I see those two factions (Paul and proto-Ebionites) as being offshoots of the original Nazarenes, and that these original Nazarenes and proto-Ebionites were more like Jesus than Paul was regarding the issue of Jewish Torah observance.

I happen to think there was rivalry between these three for a few decades or so and Acts is the result of some early council that tries to sort things out ... This results in Paul's doctrine getting accepted with some doctrinal additions from those who were partially convinced by the proto-ebionites or ex-members. But Paul basically wins out.



How does Paul win out in Acts when it presents him as deferring to Nazarene leaders regarding Jewish Torah observance? I would say that Nazarenes (i.e., the original Christians) win out in Acts.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:10 pm

Getting back to 1 Cor. 15:3-11, it seems simpler to suppose it is original given that it is not only in keeping with the acceptance of Paul by Nazarenes but also with 1 Peter (which I think is genuine and similarly preaches that Jesus "died for our sins"). It seems overly complicated to suppose that some other group interpolated 1 Cor. 15:3-11 and wrote 1 Peter to support it.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:52 am

But since Jesus was pro-sacrifice (Mt. 5:23-24) and Christians offered sacrifices (Acts 21) I think he and the original Christians paid as much attention to ritual purity as they did to the rest of the Torah.
Jesus let the woman of the city wash his feet with her hair, drank from the same cup as a Samaritan woman who herself was surprised because this was not how Jews who paid attention to ritual purity behaved. If you say, he was therefore clarifying what ritual purity meant then why shouldn't he have had a similar out to Paul when he advocated eating with gentiles?

I don't think you can have it both ways, either Jesus and his apostles taught Torah observance for gentiles in which case Paul and Christianity itself is heretical or Jesus always taught what Paul says and it was the circumcision party (whose views were rejected) who were mistaken

perseusomega9
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:56 am

John2 wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:10 pm
Getting back to 1 Cor. 15:3-11, it seems simpler to suppose it is original given that it is not only in keeping with the acceptance of Paul by Nazarenes but also with 1 Peter (which I think is genuine and similarly preaches that Jesus "died for our sins"). It seems overly complicated to suppose that some other group interpolated 1 Cor. 15:3-11 and wrote 1 Peter to support it.
You should read Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament. He makes a clear and convincing case the NT was published at a specific time, with specific features, and with a specific redactional (read interpolational) frame of mind. 1 Peter is not by anyone actually named Peter/Cephas
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:35 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:52 am
But since Jesus was pro-sacrifice (Mt. 5:23-24) and Christians offered sacrifices (Acts 21) I think he and the original Christians paid as much attention to ritual purity as they did to the rest of the Torah.
Jesus let the woman of the city wash his feet with her hair,drank from the same cup as a Samaritan woman who herself was surprised because this was not how Jews who paid attention to ritual purity behaved. If you say, he was therefore clarifying what ritual purity meant then why shouldn't he have had a similar out to Paul when he advocated eating with gentiles?

As noted here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumah_and_taharah), the mainstream view is that "one is permitted to become" ritually impure "except on those occasions when one must visit the Temple, or touch holy objects, and thus there is no obligation to attempt to remain" ritually pure. And this does not mean that Jesus or his followers or other observant Jews did/do not believe in the necessity of being ritually pure when visiting the Temple, etc.

I don't think you can have it both ways, either Jesus and his apostles taught Torah observance for gentiles in which case Paul and Christianity itself is heretical or Jesus always taught what Paul says and it was the circumcision party (whose views were rejected) who were mistaken

Where does it say that Jesus and his Jewish followers taught (full) Torah observance for Gentiles? Do you mean Paul's proto-Ebionite opponents in Gal. 2:4 9 (This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us")?

If so, these "false brothers" do not appear to have had any sway over Nazarene leaders (aka the "circumcision party)" or doctrine.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:14 pm

John2,

What I'm trying to suggest isn't that Jesus was ignoring the purity laws, not at all
I'm thinking he had a less stringent attitude to them compared to his contemporaries
The reason I think this is because he is portrayed in gospels as sometimes being accused of breaking these, and at other times he accuses others of putting this above doing good and so nullifying the other commands to do good

That's the point i'm trying to establish, that his attitude was different, his interpretation different

Then what i'm suggesting is because he had this different attitude he may also have a Pauline style view on gentile converts, maybe a simple Noahide requirement. One piece of evidence is when the Roman centurian asks what he should do. Jesus doesn't tell him he must convert to Judaism only that he should perform his duties in a just manner

Then it's a nice smooth transition to what Paul was saying and everything fits together nicely
Where does it say that Jesus and his Jewish followers taught (full) Torah observance for Gentiles?
It's doesn't explicitly in the NT say this
My stumbling block is this - I can't get my head round how Peter and James if they knew Jesus would even need correcting by Paul, when Jesus would have told them before how it should work so it makes me think Paul was closer to Jesus on this point

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:24 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:14 pm
John2,

What I'm trying to suggest isn't that Jesus was ignoring the purity laws, not at all
I'm thinking he had a less stringent attitude to them compared to his contemporaries
The reason I think this is because he is portrayed in gospels as sometimes being accused of breaking these, and at other times he accuses others of putting this above doing good and so nullifying the other commands to do good

That's the point i'm trying to establish, that his attitude was different, his interpretation different

Well, alright, I agree that Jesus' attitude/interpretation was different than some of the Pharisees. In the big picture I think this is like what Josephus says about (other) Fourth Philosophers (i.e., "the customs of our fathers were altered ... by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal").

But Jesus' attitude/interpretation did not mean that he was lax about ritual purity when going to the Temple (etc.). In other words, Jesus is only "less stringent" about Pharisaic "customs of the fathers" (i.e., the oral Torah), and his pro-sacrifice position (and that of Christians in Acts) shows that he wasn't "less stringent" about the need for ritual purity when going to the Temple as per the written Torah.

Then what i'm suggesting is because he had this different attitude he may also have a Pauline style view on gentile converts, maybe a simple Noahide requirement. One piece of evidence is when the Roman centurian asks what he should do. Jesus doesn't tell him he must convert to Judaism only that he should perform his duties in a just manner

There were/are "righteous Gentiles" and requirements for Gentiles in Judaism, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus had a "Pauline style view on gentile converts." Paul said he did not receive his gospel to the Gentiles "from any man, not was I taught it" (Gal. 1:12), but by a revelation he says he received from the heavenly Jesus. And if the human Jesus had taught the same gospel to the Gentiles that Paul did, Paul would have been able to say that he received it from other people who had learned about it from the human Jesus, right?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12415
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:43 pm

There were/are "righteous Gentiles" and requirements for Gentiles in Judaism
Intriguing...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:30 pm

There were/are "righteous Gentiles" and requirements for Gentiles in Judaism, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus had a "Pauline style view on gentile converts." Paul said he did not receive his gospel to the Gentiles "from any man, not was I taught it" (Gal. 1:12), but by a revelation he says he received from the heavenly Jesus. And if the human Jesus had taught the same gospel to the Gentiles that Paul did, Paul would have been able to say that he received it from other people who had learned about it from the human Jesus, right?
now that's the interesting question
when Paul says 'his gospel' to me that means the whole Paul package as we see it in his letters and it covers a lot of ground
but you can take specific items of this and look at them separately as whether they might have predated his revelation or been part of it
its possible to go back to the gospels to try and look for those (although most people say they were written after Paul's letters... i think that's still worthwhile and they've got their own tradition)
The gospels do contain some information so if we think these go back to Jesus, not everything Paul taught was unknown before
i recon substantial pieces of what he taught were known before and he presented them in new ways as part of his revelation

Post Reply