After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:30 pm

Note however that there is no implicit respect (by both the author and the readers) about the figure of James, in Galatians 2. He is seen really even by the forger as enemy of both Paul and Peter.

This is another reason to consider the James of Galatians 1:19 -- IF he is really the same James of Galatians 2 -- as the biological Brother of Jesus (and therefore enemy by definition of any other spiritual brother of Jesus, beyond if his name is Peter or Paul). Therefore my conclusion is the following:

1) IF Galatians 2 is interpolated, then all the epistle is a forgery, therefore the James of Gal 1:19 is a creation of the forger and he works as symbol of the carnal Brother of Jesus who is enemy of all the his spiritual brothers. In this sense the dependence of the forgery on some existing Gospel is proved, as only in a Gospel we have the reference to the family of Jesus who is selfish and possessive and especially hostile to any disciple of Jesus, inside or outside the Judaism.

2) IF Galatians 2 is authentic, then there is no evidence that the James of Gal 1:19 is the same James of Gal 2, therefore the better interpretation is that of Carrier's.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:34 am

Under the hypothesis 1, it seems that James the carnal ''Brother of Lord'' works deliberately as a sort of ''black shadow'' that exerts his bad influence on Peter, who was later 'redeemed' by the bright and providential reproach of Paul in Gal 2.

The strange ambiguity or innatural flexibility of Peter at Antioch remains the more strong argument to suspect the entire epistle as forgery.

You can remove the legend of Paul persecutor (in Gal 1) and still consider authentic the remaining epistle.
Or you can remove the allegory of the two women in Gal 4 as post-70 interpolation and still consider authentic the rest of the epistle.

But if you remove the Antioch's Incident, then you had to reject the entire epistle as forgery.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:42 am

A curious modus operandi of the Inventors of the Proto-Catholic tradition is to invent carnal relatives of Jesus in order ALSO to denigrate them as evil Judaizers.

For example, so Eusebius:
Chapter XXXII.—Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.
1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording,870 a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising.871 In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem,872 suffered martyrdom.
2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places,873 is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics874 he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.875
3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David876 and a Christian;
164
and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years,877 while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”878
4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... xxxii.html

Here we have a good carnal relative of Jesus who is persecuted by evil carnal relatives of Jesus.

So I think that it is strongly expected that a Proto-Catholic forger introduced the James of Gal 1 and 2 (assuming the hypothesis 1) in order to make him a rival against Peter and (not only against) Paul.

In Italy there is a popular proverb that runs so:

between the two litigants the third enjoys.

The meaning applied to the Catholic forger of Galatians is that in the conflict among Paul and James, the third wins, i.e. the first Pope: Peter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:19 am

Giuseppe wrote:
The analogy doesn't work at all. It is assumed by both Josephus and the readers that the young Izates had reverence for a figure more old than him (in virtue of the authority deriving from his old age, at least). While why should Peter be ''under the spell'' of Paul? On the basis of which reason Peter had to show a bit of submission towards Paul? His action is explicable only if both the author of the episode and his readers agree on two points:

1) that Peter was a good Christian, after all, i.e., true friend of Paul before and after the incident of Antioch.
2) that Paul was faithful to Peter, after all, i.e. true friend of Peter before and after the incident of Antioch.

In other words, pure proto-catholicism worthy of Acts.
Why was anyone under the spell of Paul? Because he was a good (or at least tireless) communicator, good enough to have had some major influence over the direction of Christianity and the world, so it doesn't surprise me that, for a time, his version of the "gospel" had a degree of influence over Peter, like it did (arguably) over people in the household of Caesar and Herodians (e.g., Rom. 16:10-11, Phlp. 4:22), and even Acts 26:28-32 (whether it actually happened or not) presents Paul as having some influence over King Agrippa and high ranking Romans.
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.”

Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”


And nobody's perfect. This is why the Community Rule has a way of punishing the infractions of members (such as eating and drinking with people who do not observe "every commandment of the Law of Moses") in columns 5 and 6, i.e, "they shall examine his spirit in community with respect to his understanding and practice of the Law" and "examine their spirit and deeds yearly, so that each man may be advanced in accordance with his understanding and perfection of way, or moved down in accordance with the offences committed by him" and "they shall rebuke one another in truth ... let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him":
Whoever approaches the Council of the Community shall enter the Covenant of God in the presence of all who have freely pledged themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to return with all his heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses ... And he shall undertake by the Covenant to separate from all the men of falsehood who walk in the way of wickedness ... They shall not enter the water to partake of the pure meal of the saints, for they shall not be cleansed unless they turn from their wickedness: for all who transgress His word are unclean.

Likewise, no man shall mix with him with regard to his work or property lest he be burdened with the guilt of his sin. He shall indeed keep away from him in all things; as it is written, Keep away from all that is false [Ex. 23:7]. No member of the Community shall follow them in matters of doctrine and justice, or eat or drink anything of theirs, or take anything from them except for a price; as it is written, Keep away from the man in whose nostrils is breath, for wherein is he counted? [Is. 2:22].

For all those not reckoned in His Covenant are to be set apart, together with all that is theirs. None of the saints shall lean upon works of vanity: for they are all vanity who know not His Covenant, and He will blot from the earth all them that despise His word. All their deeds are defilement before Him, and all their possessions unclean.

But when a man enters the Covenant to walk according to all these precepts that he may join the holy congregation, they shall examine his spirit in community with respect to his understanding and practice of the Law, under the authority of the sons of Aaron who have freely pledged themselves in the Community to restore His Covenant and to heed all the precepts commanded by Him, and of the multitude of Israel who have freely pledged themselves in the Community to return to His Covenant.

They shall inscribe them in the order, one after another, according to their understanding and their deeds, that every one may obey his companion, the man of lesser rank obeying his superior. And they shall examine their spirit and deeds yearly, so that each man may be advanced in accordance with his understanding and perfection of way, or moved down in accordance with the offences committed by him.

They shall rebuke one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness. Let him not hate him [in the wickedness of an uncircumcised] heart, but let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him. And furthermore, let no man accuse his companion before the Congregation without having first admonished him in the presence of witnesses.
So, because nobody is perfect, members of the community, regardless of their ranking, sometimes followed covenant breakers "in matters of doctrine and justice" or ate and drank with them, and when they did, they were rebuked for it on the same day in front of witnesses and then had their "spirit and deeds" examined and were "advanced in accordance with his understanding and perfection of way, or moved down in accordance with the offences committed by him."

And this procedure seems similar to what happens in Gal. 2:12-13:
For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

And the reference to "None of the saints shall lean upon works of vanity: for they are all vanity who know not His Covenant" in the Community Rule is curious given that it is in a similar context as Gal. 2 and Paul's statement in Gal. 2:2 that he went to Jerusalem "in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."
Last edited by John2 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:29 pm

Dunn notes that the type of separation discussed in the Community Rule is also discussed in MMT, which he sees as being relevant to the Antioch incident:
That parallel [between MMT and Galatians] is indicated not only by the phrase 'works of the law', but by two other points of contact between MMT and Galatians ... The writers of MMT remind the addressees that 'we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people [and from all their impurity]' ... The letter itself is obviously intended at least in some measure to provide an explanation of why they had thus 'separated' themselves. The verb used is precisely equivalent to the verb used by Paul to describe the action of Peter, followed by the other Jewish believers, who 'separated himself' ... from the Gentile believers in Antioch, having previously eaten with them (Gal. 2:12-13). The point is that the attitude behind both 'separations' is the same ... in each case the primary concern on the part of the 'separatists' was their own purity: they 'separated' because they feared the defilement which would be contracted by associating with those who did not maintain the same degree of purity. In short, the motivation and theological rationale were the same in MMT and Antioch: that it was necessary for Torah-true, covenant-loyal Jews to separate themselves from impurity, whether the impurity of apostate Jews or the impurity of Gentiles. That is what Paul objected to.

The parallel extends to the idea of righteousness as dependent on observing such regulations: 'This will be "reckoned to you for righteousness" in doing what is upright and good before him' ... with the same echo of Gen. 15.6 which was central to Paul's reasoning on the subject (Gal. 3.6; Rom. 4.3-12). Clearly the letter writer(s) believed that those who followed Qumran's halakhoth would be 'reckoned righteous'; that is, they would be 'reckoned righteous by reference to their ma'ase hatorah', or, in the term used by Paul, they would be 'justified ex ergon nomou'. In both cases, that is to say, what was seen to be at stake by the separatists was their own righteousness/justification; their own righteousness/justification would somehow be imperiled by association with those who did not so understand and practice the Torah, that is, by the impurity of these others. And, once again, it is precisely that attitude and praxis to which Paul objects ...

What has proved so interesting about 4QMMT at this point is that it has used the very same phrase, 'the works of the law', in the very same way as does Paul in characterizing the attitude of Peter, and with the very same implication that such 'works of the law' were deemed by the observant to be necessary bulwarks to sustain and preserve their self-definition, their identity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJDKs ... on&f=false
It seems unlikely to me then that a post-70 CE proto-catholic would portray the Antioch incident in a way that just so happens to resemble the procedures and terminology of a pre-70 CE Jewish sect.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:33 pm

Additionally, Vanderkam and Flint note that:
The phrase works of the law apparently occurs nowhere else in ancient writings other than once in MMT (C 26-27) and eight times in Paul's letters (in the Greek form erga nomou: Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16 [3 times], 3:2, 5, 10).

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... MT&f=false
Again, it seems unlikely to me that a post-70 CE proto-catholic would happen to know about and use this particular terminology.
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:12 pm

Why was anyone under the spell of Paul? Because he was a good (or at least tireless) communicator, good enough to have had some major influence over the direction of Christianity and the world, so it doesn't surprise me that, for a time, his version of the "gospel" had a degree of influence over Peter, like it did (arguably) over people in the household of Caesar and Herodians (e.g., Rom. 16:10-11, Phlp. 4:22), and even Acts 26:28-32 (whether it actually happened or not) presents Paul as having some influence over King Agrippa and high ranking Romans.
If I remember well, somewhere in 1 Cor Paul complaints against Jewish Christian opponents because they are good communicators, differently from him.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:26 pm

That reminds me of something in the Letter of James that I see as being (at least possibly) a reference to Paul, given that it follows the attack against the "foolish man" who teaches faith without works in chapter 2 (who I take to be Paul).

James 3:1-8:
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
For me, like James 2 appears to be responding to the faith vs. works issue in Galatians, the above appears to be responding to what Paul says about boasting in 2 Cor. 11:10-23:
As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more.
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:54 pm

I think you might be thinking of 1 Cor. 1:17-19:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
I don't see this as Paul comparing his communication skills with that of Jewish Christian leaders, I think he's just being falsely modest because Is. 29:14 says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

False modesty: "False modesty appears where a person downplays praiseworthy achievements, but does so in a visible or extended way that actually seeks praise and a raising of their social status."

As Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 1:27-28:
... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are ...
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

John2
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:01 pm

Or maybe you are thinking of 2 Cor. 11:5-6:
I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.
The word for "untrained" (ἰδιώτης: idiótés) is defined as "an amateur, an unprofessional man, a layman; an ungifted person."

http://biblehub.com/greek/2399.htm

I don't know if Peter was untrained as a speaker as well, but Acts 4:13 uses the same word to describe him:
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary [ἰδιῶται:
idiōtai] men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


But as I said, Paul nevertheless managed to change the direction of Christianity and the world and had influence over people in the household of Caesar (including possibly Nero's secretary Epaphroditus and the family of Claudius' secretary Narcissus) and possibly Herodians as well (and is presented that way in Acts). He didn't need to have been a trained speaker to be a good communicator. As he puts it in 2 Cor. 10:10-11:
For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.
You can't overlook the lack, Jack, of any other highway to ride, it's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, DCHindley, JoeWallack, John2, Kapyong, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby, Yahoo [Bot] and 38 guests