The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

[robert j]

I love to read Price. I really do. But I disagree thoroughly with his estimate of the Pauline epistles.

I enthusiastically agree with your opinion here on Price's characterization of the Pauline epistles.

We have more than Asia Minor and Greece on the map, as well... Rome is definitely early...

For Rome we have Paul's epistle to the Romans, which presupposes a Christian community there even before Paul was set to arrive.

I think “definitely” is way too strong here based on the letter Romans.

I know you are familiar with the issues, but I’ll summarize some of them by citing Gamble from his The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans ---

In relation to an early fourteen-chapter form (lacking chapters 15 and 16), Gamble writes,

“We have now canvassed all the evidence for the existence at one time of a form of Romans in fourteen chapters. The evidence is geographically widespread … and this form of the letter can be traced back with confidence at least as far as the second century … “ (p. 33)

In relation to the lack of the two addresses to Rome at 1:7 and 1:15 in some MSS, Gamble writes,

“It may be said further that these two omissions belong initially to the fourteen-chapter form of the text.” (p. 33).

Sure, Gamble does come down on the side of the position held by the majority of Pauline scholars (quelle surprise) that the form of the letter we now have is the original form, but that conclusion is just his opinion. And most Pauline scholars are heavily invested in the canonical form of the letter Romans.

I think the evidence that Gamble provides is just as strong in support for an original form of the letter that lacked the 2 addresses to Rome in chapter one and lacked chapter 15 --- the only parts of the letter that indicate any clear association with Rome. Whether or not one might agree with my opinion here, the textual evidence certainly does not provide definitive evidence for a Roman congregation of believers in Christ at the time in which Paul was writing letters. Gamble admits the lack of a definitive solution right up front in his introduction ---

Gamble cites, on page 13, a Benedictine scholar who characterized Romans in 1908 as,

“… the most debated and yet, for all that, the most obscure in the entire New Testament.”

Gamble laments that in the ensuing decades “the obscurity has not been relieved” and if anything, he writes, “the situation is even more beclouded now” with the addition of new evidence and hypotheses. (p. 13)

Gamble admits in relation to the textual history of Romans,

“Perhaps Hans Lietzmann was right when he ventured that for this problem, “a completely satisfying explanation … is not available.” (p. 13)

[Ben C. Smith]

I think “definitely” is way too strong here based on the letter Romans.

You are correct. "Definitely" is too strong. In my defense, I was responding to Jax, whom I already know/suspect to agree with me on that issue. I was running with shared assumptions.

I have read Gamble, of course, and actually: I found his treatment of the issue (including his conclusions about a seven-letter edition of letters to congregations in general and about the epistle to the Romans in particular) quite convincing. Things can change, of course.

[Jax]

It seems to me that under Alexander Jannaeus a sect of Judaism broke off from the priesthood and set up shop in the area of Damascus and then with the death of Janneaus returned in full or in part to Jerusalem.

The idea that there were sympathizers for the Damascus sect in Jerusalem all along exists as well.

I go back and forth on the status of Galatians 1.18-24, but what do you think of these verses?

Galatians 1.18-24: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

I think about these verses often.

For one it would seem that Paul has very limited experience with Jerusalem and perhaps Judea as well. Second: he apparently is not well acquainted (if at all) with Cephas. Also, here at least, Cephas is an apostle which seems to contradict what he says in 1 Corinthians 9:5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" which suggests that Cephas is something other than an apostle on the pecking order of things when Paul wrote it.

Perhaps you can help me a bit with Gal. 1:20. Why is it in brackets? What is your breakdown of the Greek? Why would Paul make this statement? Any Idea? I have always wondered about this statement.

I note that he then says that he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia without naming any cities like Antioch or Tarsus, just that he went North and then North West. I also note that there is an Antioch in Cilicia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochia_ad_Cragum. Which may be here or there or nothing at all.

Bottom line: Paul is an apparent outsider in Judea that is trying to convince the people that he is writing to that he has bona fides. Why? I don't know.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems to me that under Alexander Jannaeus a sect of Judaism broke off from the priesthood and set up shop in the area of Damascus and then with the death of Janneaus returned in full or in part to Jerusalem.

The idea that there were sympathizers for the Damascus sect in Jerusalem all along exists as well.

I go back and forth on the status of Galatians 1.18-24, but what do you think of these verses?

Galatians 1.18-24: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

I think about these verses often.

For one it would seem that Paul has very limited experience with Jerusalem and perhaps Judea as well. Second: he apparently is not well acquainted (if at all) with Cephas. Also, here at least, Cephas is an apostle which seems to contradict what he says in 1 Corinthians 9:5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" which suggests that Cephas is something other than an apostle on the pecking order of things when Paul wrote it.

That has occurred to me as well, the way 1 Corinthians 9.5 is written, but perhaps Paul is just writing inexactly, highlighting Cephas even though his group has already been named. Definitely not sure about that, though.

Perhaps you can help me a bit with Gal. 1:20. Why is it in brackets? What is your breakdown of the Greek? Why would Paul make this statement? Any Idea? I have always wondered about this statement.

If it is genuine, then it is Paul reacting defensively against accusations that he received his gospel from men. His point is to minimize how much contact he had with those in the faith before him, so that he can claim that his gospel comes from God and not from them. "I saw them only for a little bit, I swear!"

[robert j]

... Gal. 1:20 ... Why would Paul make this statement? Any Idea? I have always wondered about this statement.

I have a different take on this.

Paul makes this claim, “I’m not lying”, twice in his letters to his congregations, --- in Galatians 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:31. In both cases, I think Paul is introducing new autobiographical information that he had not previously told the congregation, and is “authenticating” that new information.

David Trobisch, in his, Paul’s Letter Collection --- Tracing the Origins, 1994, writes that the letter Galatians “has the literary character of an authorized document.” (p. 87). I have thought about much wider implications for Paul’s “legal” language and examples that extends beyond Galatians, but that will have to wait for another time.

Taking a wider view of Galatians, I think Paul had related much of his autobiographical back-story to his congregation during his initial evangelizing visit. Of this, Paul reminded them starting with Galatians 1:13, “For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism …” and his reminder continued through Galatians 1:19. But beginning with 1:20, “Now in what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie”, to bolster his argument Paul was introducing new autobiographical information the congregation had not heard before --- continuing through the 2nd Jerusalem visit and the Antioch incident in chapter 2.

In similar fashion, in 2 Corinthians beginning with “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One being blessed to the ages, knows that I am not lying” (2 Cor 11:31) Paul introduced new autobiographical information to bolster his argument with the congregation including his tale of the daring basket escape from Damascus, and his claim about the man he knew that was caught-up to the third heaven.

Paul is an apparent outsider in Judea that is trying to convince the people that he is writing to that he has bona fides. Why? I don't know.

Answered then asked. Why? --- Paul “is trying to convince the people that he is writing to that he has bona fides.”

[Michael BG]

What if instead he rudimentarily was known (while alive) to speak of a coming son of man, but he never even remotely envisioned himself to be this figure? And if it was only at some later date that he was back-projected into such a high Christology as its Christ...

The development of a high Christology could have been quite early within say 20 years or so of Jesus’ death.

The Son of Man title for a heavenly figure in the gospels appears to be from Judaism, and is missing from Paul’s letters.

Isayre wrote:

What if instead he rudimentarily was known (while alive) to speak of a coming son of man, but he never even remotely envisioned himself to be this figure? And if it was only at some later date that he was back-projected into such a high Christology as its Christ...

To judge from Mark … Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man,

Mark clearly sees Jesus as the Son of Man and I would say that the author of Q also sees him as the Son of Man. However, occasionally Jesus and the Son of Man can be seen as not being the same being.

If Jesus did speak of a coming Son of Man figure and then Jesus was “seen” as a heavenly figure in the present it seems logical to amalgamate the two figures into one. This could have been very early. It also seems that quite early on from Jesus’ death he was seen as the future Messiah. This assumes that there was a human person called Jesus and that those who “followed” him tried to preserve some of his original message alongside re-interpreting it.

My question was - where is the actual evidence of 'Jewish Christianity' outside of the testimony of the Church Fathers?

Secret Alias can you give a reference to when Roman emperors were anointed? I think anointing was a Jewish custom and not used for other monarchs for centuries. I think the first European monarch to be anointed was Clovis in 493.Therefore the title “Christ” supports a Jewish setting and not a Roman or Greek one for the start of Christianity.

[MrMacSon]

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question ... As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

The first sentence - 'I think there is a persistent [and significant] gap [between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls]' - is in response to your question" 'How do you propose we bridge the gap?'

Yes, my post is simply text from the both the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (and just them). I ended up doing a summary for posterity for myself as much as anything, but did not think I found anything that supported the notion that the Dead Sea/Qumran Scrolls reflect 'Jewish Christianity'. They just summarised, as others have surmised, that Judaism was going through a profound change.

• The Essene-aligned scrolls showed their understanding that there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon. It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic.

But without reference to Jesus - or any other aspects of Christianity - I don't think they can be said to reflect 'Jewish-Christianity'.

All right, then you are misunderstanding my argument. It is not that the Dead Sea Scrolls have anything themselves to do with Christianity, any more than the Hebrew scriptures do. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls, time and time again, provide crucial context and background for statements made in the Christian writings, just like the Hebrew scriptures do.

I was responding to you saying

One needs to explain the overt similarities between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. How do you propose we bridge the gap?

I think we're talking at cross purposes, partly b/c I needed to [re-] engage with the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this context (and b/c I had an apparently false memory via Eisenman's proposition that they had more Christian characters than they may actually do).

My interest is in Jewish messianism / apocalypticism, partly as I wonder if aspects of them were a main fore-runner to many aspects of Christianity, and if aspects of Jewish messianism / apocalypticism have been and still are what people include in the concept of 'Jewish-Christianity'. It would seem that the DSSs could be significant in those contexts.


You refer to the Hebrew scriptures twice there. Are you referring to them generally, or the versions found at Qumran?

Given that the Scrolls were buried before the War ended, how does one explain that they so often provide the closest context for Christian ideas?

Are we certain they were buried before the War ended?

The Hebrew scriptures do the same ...

Which ones? The general ones? or the Dead Sea Scrolls ones?

But what about the Dead Sea Scrolls, long since buried? Did Christians have access to them somehow? If your response is yes, then Christians must have had access to them before 70. If your response is no, then Christians must have had access to texts and traditions from after 70 which are very similar to the scrolls, texts and traditions which carried their most relevant and essential ideas forward, but are now lost to us, which is to find yourself arguing exactly the same contingency that I am, namely that there are texts and traditions, rooted before 70, that we no longer have access to.

I agree with this if we can be sure they were buried before 70 AD/CE. But, as I alluded above, and what also aligns with the OP, what was Jewish messianism and what was Jewish-Christianity?

[MrMacSon]

The Son of Man title for a heavenly figure in the gospels appears to be from Judaism, and is missing from Paul’s letters.
.

It was 'a son of man' in Judaism. It became the definitive article 'the Son of Man' in Christianity.

[MrMacSon]

To be fair. There is no real indication that there were Christians in Antioch when Paul and Peter were there. It might be inferred but cannot be proven.

There are gentiles there with whom Paul, Barnabas, and Cephas are having table fellowship. In the context of Paul's mission to the gentiles, I think that these gentiles being of the same (or at least similar) cult as Paul himself is the most likely option, especially in view of the other evidence presented for Syria.

All of Paul's letters- with the exception of Romans- are to groups in Asia Minor and Greece. Why are there no letters to Syria or Cilicia? One would think that those two locations would have all of the Gentiles that Paul could ever hope to recruit.

... I do not think we can possibly answer for certain why Paul chose to go in an arc from Jerusalem through Antioch, Asia, Greece, and then to Rome, but there are numerous possible options. Language, for example. Paul may have stuck to cities in which Greek was the primary tongue spoken, which would exclude cities like, say, Syrian Edessa. It has often been noted, too, that Paul seemed to concentrate on urban rather than on rural areas; this may simply have been a matter of his own comfort level. But to suggest that Paul has to address each and every Christian community available in his time frame is too much, I submit.

I think that discussions about Antioch ought to consider the fact there were up to 17 Antiochs in and around Asia Minor in those times. I'm not sure we can be sure the Antioch in the NT text is the Antioch in Syria.

eta: see http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 422#p37422

.

[Ben C. Smith]

You refer to the Hebrew scriptures twice there. Are you referring to them generally, or the versions found at Qumran?

Both.

Are we certain they were buried before the War ended?

That is a prevailing theory. But it matters little to the dates of the scrolls, which have now been established both paleographically and by carbon dating.

I agree with this if we can be sure they were buried before 70 AD/CE. But, as I alluded above, and what also aligns with the OP, what was Jewish messianism and what was Jewish-Christianity?

Recall the original assertion that I made:

Christianity has too many overlaps with the Dead Sea Scrolls to be purely of gentile origin. The lack of Hebrew or Aramaic texts is easily explicable: after 70, Judea was in chaos; much was lost; the Dead Sea Scrolls cache itself was a stroke of luck, one which may never be replicated.

This was at least partly in response to ideas that Marcion, for example, is the (gentile) source of Christianity.

Whether you connect the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christianity via Jewish Christians or through some other kind of Jewish messianists, that is bespeaks a Jewish origin for Christianity, and not a purely gentile one. I personally think that Jewish Christianity forms at least part of the link, but I also personally go back and forth on how Christian James and the Pillars were. But my point here was that Christianity is rooted in Judaism.