Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

Tod Stites wrote:The traditions held by the Ebionites in the early third century looked back on James, the brother of Jesus, as having assigned Clement to follow Peter and to record Peter's reminiscences about the teachings of Jesus for the church at Jerusalem (1). Clement is among the earliest of the church fathers, and if there is truth to this tradition, then the assignment must have been given to Clement before James was killed at Jerusalem in 62.
I think the pseudo-Clementines are late (maybe 4th century CE). Also I thought Church tradition has Peter dying after James.
Tod Stites wrote:Now the sayings contained in the pseudo-Clementine Ebionite writings are considered by some to be "speech gospels" arranged rhetorically for evangelization purposes and to offer opportunity for a more memorable interpretation (2).Interestingly, the sayings of the pseudo-Clementines do not cluster, i.e. are not rhetorically arranged, as the same way as those in the Synoptic Gospels, but in the same way as those in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (3), a Gospel which Thomas specialists have considered as having the greatest claim to antiquity of any non-canonical gospel (4).
Do you have more text of the gospel of the Ebionites than provided at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nites.html?
Tod Stites wrote:Meanwhile since the church was quite possibly made up of both Aramaic and Greek-speakers from the beginning (Acts 6:1), the translation of Jesus' sayings into Greek need not have taken place at a later stage of the tradition (5), and in fact there are scholars who hold that the translation of the sayings into Greek took place "several decades" before the first (canonical) Gospel was written (6), and those who approve of the idea that the disciples used wax tablets to record the words of Jesus even as his ministry was being conducted (7).

Hence the term "speech gospels" and the possibility that such writings were circulating among believers even in the 30s C.E.
I can accept that behind some of Mark (e.g. the Passion) there was a Greek text, but this is not a sayings text. I accept that Q existed before Mathew and Luke but I am not sure how confident we can be with an earlier date than c 60 CE. While some scholars talk of layers in Q there is no agreement on Q2 all being a creation of the Q community.

How much of the Gospel of Thomas is generally accepted as older than Q?

(I do not think much credence should be given to Maurice Casey's view that Q was not a single document but “notes on wax tablets” (An Aramaic Approach to Q p.48).
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have any evidence that synagogues between 66 and 100 CE were not separate buildings?
Please clarify the question, and I would ask what evidence they were separate ?

Gentiles were Proselytized not Israelite Jews. Do you know why? because Jews did not look at Jesus being crucified as a requirement for being a messiah.

People who perverted Judaism are the only ones who found value in this new theology divorcing Judaism. These people wanted to distance themselves from Jews, not worship in the same house WHICH was a Pater Familias where everyone knew everybody.
I assume that you are saying that synagogues were not separate buildings but were part of a house used for religious purposes. I quoted an opinion that this is not true.

Are you saying that no Jews became “Christians”?
(This seems close to Bernard Muller’s view that we shouldn’t consider James or Peter as Christians.)

You are giving your thoughts as if they are facts.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have any evidence on how “god-fearers” were treated in synagogues?
Do you?

And which synagogues by which cultures using Judaism?

Judaism was wide and diverse in Hellenism and there was no orthodox Judaism, and there almost a complete lack of knowledge on how diverse.

If you have studied Hengel and Hellenism, I find his work while correct at the time, needs to be updated today.
It is generally accepted that “god-fearers” existed and I haven’t seen any evidence that people who were not counted as Jewish were excluded from synagogues.

There is evidence that “god-fearers” existed. Josephus has the story of Queen Helena and her son King Izates of Adiabene (Ant. 20.2) where Ananias tells King Izates, “that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision”. There is archaeological evidence that “god-fearers” were esteemed by the Jewish community if they were donors. I understand that the Pauly-Wissowa concludes that “God-fearers” “frequent the services of the synagogue, they are monotheists in the biblical sense, and they participate in some of the ceremonial requirements of the Law, but they have not moved to full conversion to Judaism through circumcision”.

While you may not agree with the general view, I think that if you wish others to agree with you against the general view you need to provide evidence and not just make assertions.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have any evidence that synagogues between 66 and 100 CE were not separate buildings?
Please clarify the question, and I would ask what evidence they were separate ?

Gentiles were Proselytized not Israelite Jews. Do you know why? because Jews did not look at Jesus being crucified as a requirement for being a messiah.

People who perverted Judaism are the only ones who found value in this new theology divorcing Judaism. These people wanted to distance themselves from Jews, not worship in the same house WHICH was a Pater Familias where everyone knew everybody.
I assume that you are saying that synagogues were not separate buildings but were part of a house used for religious purposes. I quoted an opinion that this is not true.

Are you saying that no Jews became “Christians”?
(This seems close to Bernard Muller’s view that we shouldn’t consider James or Peter as Christians.)

You are giving your thoughts as if they are facts.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have any evidence on how “god-fearers” were treated in synagogues?
Do you?

And which synagogues by which cultures using Judaism?

Judaism was wide and diverse in Hellenism and there was no orthodox Judaism, and there almost a complete lack of knowledge on how diverse.

If you have studied Hengel and Hellenism, I find his work while correct at the time, needs to be updated today.
It is generally accepted that “god-fearers” existed and I haven’t seen any evidence that people who were not counted as Jewish were excluded from synagogues.

There is evidence that “god-fearers” existed. Josephus has the story of Queen Helena and her son King Izates of Adiabene (Ant. 20.2) where Ananias tells King Izates, “that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision”. There is archaeological evidence that “god-fearers” were esteemed by the Jewish community if they were donors. I understand that the Pauly-Wissowa concludes that “God-fearers” “frequent the services of the synagogue, they are monotheists in the biblical sense, and they participate in some of the ceremonial requirements of the Law, but they have not moved to full conversion to Judaism through circumcision”.

While you may not agree with the general view, I think that if you wish others to agree with you against the general view you need to provide evidence and not just make assertions.
You have no evidence to support that you even know where the academic lines lay, let alone claim I'm making assertions.

I asked some pretty important questions you ignored, I answer yours.

Do you?

And which synagogues by which cultures using Judaism?


Now what I posted about synagogues being cultural centers more then places of worship is not up for debate. It does not have the context of a church.


YOU stated these people assembled together in like minded worship. ALL I did was ask for evidence of any kind, so far your opinion, not any sources. Provide sources please
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: Are you saying that no Jews became “Christians”?
.
What kind of Jew? you cannot really use that word on its own, its to vague.

Example.

No pious Aramaic Galilean Jews ever became Christians, it would have been blasphemous. And there is NO evidence at all, its why we don't even have many Aramaic transliterations from a country that mainly spoke Aramaic. Christianity did not evolve in Israel. It factually had many centers in the Diaspora and from the beginning Gentiles were the target audience.

So whats that tell you?????????

It shows us only Koine Hellenist in the Diaspora who had no problem perverting Judaism are the ones who divorced Judaism and did not want to be identified as Jews.

So if you said were there any Hellenistic Jews who had been perverting Judaism and only called Jews by other Hellenist perverting Judaism, I would say Yes. That's how it started.


I don't think you understand the impact the temple had on monotheism for gentiles in the Diaspora.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Do you know what Hellenistic Judaism is?

Do you understand it was ALL absorbed by Christianity?
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote: I asked some pretty important questions you ignored, I answer yours.
I must have missed the answers to these questions:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have any evidence that synagogues between 66 and 100 CE were not separate buildings?

Do you have any evidence on how “god-fearers” were treated in synagogues?

Do you have any evidence that Jewish Christians were banned from either the Temple or synagogues before about 100 CE?

Are you saying that no Jews became “Christians”?
Perhaps our discussion would move forward if you tried to provide evidence for:
outhouse wrote:first-century synagogues were local communal institutions

the evidence for a first-century synagogue is disputed

first-century synagogues didn’t have “Jewish” features and were simply public buildings with benches along the walls. In other words, the buildings reflected the primary role of synagogues as Jewish community centers, with worship as a secondary use of the space.
You are correct I haven’t answer this question:
outhouse wrote:And which synagogues by which cultures using Judaism?
Today there are many forms of Judaism. In the first century CE there was one form of Judaism centred on the Temple and another centred on the local synagogue. While I accept that Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes existed, they were a minority of the Jewish population. The synagogue was a place where Jews gathered to have the Torah read out aloud and pray together. I am not aware of there being three synagogues in one town, one for the Pharisees; one for Sadducees; and one for the Essenes. (Have you any such evidence?)

I was reading an article yesterday (I can’t remember who wrote it) but they were pointing out that there was little difference in religious practices between Jews of Palestine and Jews of the Diaspora.
outhouse wrote:Now what I posted about synagogues being cultural centers more then places of worship is not up for debate. It does not have the context of a church.

You have provide no evidence for your opinion. Is this because you don’t have any? Is this because you wish to keep it secret?
outhouse wrote:YOU stated these people assembled together in like minded worship. ALL I did was ask for evidence of any kind, so far your opinion, not any sources. Provide sources please
You may not like the evidence I provided but I don’t have anything else to offer. You should either engage with what I provided or provide evidence to support your view if you wish to continue this debate.
outhouse wrote: What kind of Jew? you cannot really use that word on its own, its to vague.

Example.

No pious Aramaic Galilean Jews ever became Christians, it would have been blasphemous. And there is NO evidence at all, its why we don't even have many Aramaic transliterations from a country that mainly spoke Aramaic. Christianity did not evolve in Israel. It factually had many centers in the Diaspora and from the beginning Gentiles were the target audience.
It is difficult to argue from lack of evidence. However your opinion is not supported by scholars. I suppose if you believe Paul created Christianity without an historical Jesus then you wouldn’t think Jewish Christians existed, but I am not aware of any scholar who believes in an historical Jesus who doesn’t think there were Jewish Christians. Scholars may well define what “Jewish Christians” believed differently.

James, Peter and John were Aramaic Galilean Jews and they became Christians (Gal. 2:9 is the evidence).

While I don’t accept Christianity development as presented by Acts as historical this does not mean that there were no Jewish Christians in Judea and Galilee and even further afield. It is likely that the “Antioch church” was a Jewish Christian one after Paul was defeated (implied from Gal. 2 especially verse 13).
outhouse wrote:It shows us only Koine Hellenist in the Diaspora who had no problem perverting Judaism are the ones who divorced Judaism and did not want to be identified as Jews.
I do accept that Christianity spread in non-Jewish societies and those based on Pauline teaching would be divided from Judaism. It appears that Mark’s community has moved along way from Judaism. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 I expect Christians were reluctant to be identified as Jewish because all Jews had to pay the Fiscus Judaicus. After 81 CE this process intensified as this law was applied to those who “observed Jewish customs”. It is believed that Titus Flavius Clemens was executed in 95 CE for being a Christian because he observed Jewish customs (Cassius Dio).
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:[
In the first century CE there was one form of Judaism centred on the Temple and another centred on the local synagogue
).
Factual error.

There were so many different Judaism's and many different cultures using monotheistic traditions all differently.

Maybe you could explain the Sadducees practice and beliefs from Essenes. Or the fact Pharisees were a divided group between Hellenism and Zealot like beliefs. Explain what a Zealot is.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: I do accept that Christianity spread in non-Jewish societies and those based on Pauline teaching would be divided from Judaism.
.
FAIL it was not based on Pauline teachings.

Paul joined a Hellenistic movement already in progress going fill steam ahead when he converted. Without Paul nothing changes at all, he was not an important figure early on and he was part of a community of like minded people. Paul became popular in time long after his death.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: but I am not aware of any scholar who believes in an historical Jesus who doesn’t think there were Jewish Christians
.
Context is key here. You are twisting my words out of context Michael.


Jewish Christians is a term called to Hellenist in the Diaspora who first resembled Jews to Romans who paid them no attention. The Proselytes were well trained in Judaism.

Jewish Christians were not oppressed Jews from Israel who converted to Judaism. That is another culture altogether.


You fail to see the difference between cultures here, and what an oppressed Israelite Jews was, and what a Hellenist in the Diaspora was the found importance in Judaism.

Two different cultures here. One was a real Israelite Jew, the other called himself Jewish but was really a proselyte unless you want to get loose with the definition of what Jew actually is.

Remember, context is who is using the term Jew. You do know Hellenist gentiles were called Jews for simply swearing off pagan deities and accepting monotheism to the Jewish god.

Now there were Diaspora Jews/Israelites as well, but these people were not likely to pervert Judaism, and likely to not want anything to do with people perverting Judaism.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:I was reading an article yesterday (I can’t remember who wrote it) but they were pointing out that there was little difference in religious practices between Jews of Palestine and Jews of the Diaspora.

.
What kind of Jew we talking about 2 Sadducees, 2 Pharisees, 2 Zealots, 2 Essenes ?????
However your opinion is not supported by scholars.
It is actually. And ive shown you examples. And I am working on getting this more standardized. If I did a doctorate it would be on this topic.

Simple put Jew is only a descriptive term after orthodoxy when Pharisaic Judaism was borm, and Judaism ended up being one culture.


Question for you. How descriptive is the term Jew when dealing with multicultural people practicing diverse versions of Judaism ?????????

Does it describe a Roman or an Israelite or Greek peasant, or a Judean ?? does it describe a Zealot or Essene or Pharisee or Sadducee??
Post Reply