Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
Those categories (Petrine, Pauline, Jewish Christian) are obviously far more solidly delineated in your mind than in mine.
I think they're all Jewish Christian in the sense that I see Christianity as being Jewish (specifically a faction of the Fourth Philosophy), with the distinction being primarily about the necessity of observing the Torah (or "works of the law" in the parlance of Paul and the DSS). If you think the Torah is still valid, then you are "Jewish Christian"; if you think it is no longer valid, then you are "Pauline." But according to Paul they all agreed that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," so in that respect they're all "Jewish Christians."

I see this distinction as being kind of similar to Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism regarding Torah observance, with Pauline Christians being Reform and James being Orthodox and Peter being somewhere in the middle but leaning more towards James. And in my reading of Mark, Jesus appears to be pro-Torah and in the Orthodox camp. I think the correspondences between Mark and Paul are simply about things that Paul and Jewish Christians had in common, the "Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed" kind of stuff. So in that sense, sure, Mark is "Pauline," but seems more aptly "Jewish Christian," since Jesus appears to be pro-Torah in Mark, like Jewish Christians. But again, in the big picture, they're all "Jewish Christians," since they're all Christian Jews.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:49 pm Ben wrote:
Those categories (Petrine, Pauline, Jewish Christian) are obviously far more solidly delineated in your mind than in mine.
I think they're all Jewish Christian in the sense that I see Christianity as being Jewish (specifically a faction of the Fourth Philosophy), with the distinction being primarily about the necessity of observing the Torah (or "works of the law" in the parlance of Paul and the DSS). If you think the Torah is still valid, then you are "Jewish Christian"; if you think it is no longer valid, then you are "Pauline." But according to Paul they all agreed that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," so in that respect they're all "Jewish Christians."
That is where it gets confusing. Paul, at least as we have him in the epistles, is obviously Jewish Christian (as your last sentence agrees). Yet in what you wrote before that you contrasted Pauline Christianity with Jewish Christianity. The terms are useless if you have to explain each and every time which context you are thinking about so as to avoid painting Paul as Jewish Christian and as not Jewish Christian at the same time.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
The terms are useless if you have to explain each and every time which context you are thinking about so as to avoid painting Paul as Jewish Christian and as not Jewish Christian at the same time.
But no further explanation is necessary once the distinction between Paul and (other, or perhaps we could say some other) Jewish Christians is established, i.e., whether you are a Jewish Christian who believes the Torah is valid or not, and I label those who do not as "Pauline." But there appears to have been a spectrum with respect to Torah observance in "non-Pauline Jewish Christianity" too (i.e., some thought certain parts of the Torah were no longer valid and were cooler with Paul than others were), so sure, I guess the line between "Pauline" and "Jewish Christian" is blurry in that respect as well.

Perhaps the distinction between "Pauline" and "Jewish Christian" has more to do with (or also has something to do with) the people they preached to. As Paul says in Gal. 2:7-10:
... they [James, Cephas and John] recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They [i.e., "Jewish Christians"] agreed that we [i.e., "Pauline Christians"] should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.


So maybe "Jewish Christian" means "Christians who preached to Jews" and "Pauline" means "Christians who preached to Gentiles." But then Paul goes on to make a big to do about "works of the law" in 2:14-16:
When I saw that they [i.e., "Jewish Christians"] were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in d Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

So Paul himself is making a distinction between his position regarding the necessity of Torah observance and James', and I call this position "Pauline." For Paul there is no longer even a distinction between Jews and Greeks (Gal. 3:28). He basically nullifies Jews and Torah-keeping Judaism, which is something that not even "Jewish Christians" who were cool with Paul or thought some parts of the Torah were no longer valid believed (as far as I can tell).

So maybe "Jewish Christian" (for me) means "Christians who believe that Jews and the Torah (at least to some extent if not entirely) are still valid." And by that measure, I have to call Mark "Jewish Christian" instead of "Pauline," since Jesus is pro-Torah in Mark.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

I think nothing illustrates the distinction between "Pauline" and "Jewish" Christianity better than Gal. 2:15-16 and Did. 6:2.

Gal. 2:15-16:
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Did. 6:2:
If thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not able, what thou art able, that do.
So I call Galatians "Pauline" and the Didache "Jewish Christian," even though they both are types of "Jewish Christianity."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:53 pmSo Paul himself is making a distinction between his position regarding the necessity of Torah observance and James', and I call this position "Pauline." For Paul there is no longer even a distinction between Jews and Greeks (Gal. 3:28). He basically nullifies Jews and Torah-keeping Judaism, which is something that not even "Jewish Christians" who were cool with Paul or thought some parts of the Torah were no longer valid believed (as far as I can tell).
I subscribe at least partially to the New Perspective on Paul. As such, I pretty much reject the notion that Paul negated the Law for Jews. He carves a special category out for himself as an apostle to Gentiles, but does not suggest that Jews on the whole ought to abandon the Law. His point about Gentiles is that the Law (of Moses) came after the Covenant (with Abraham); therefore, the way to enter into a relationship with God is not by the Law: not for Jews in the first place, and not for Gentiles, either. For Gentiles, Christ is the basis of the Covenant, and Christ does not require observance of the Law from Gentiles. For Jews, it is not altogether clear how Paul relates the Messiah to Judaism; it comes up only once as a topic (in Romans 9), and is dealt with extremely briefly.

I do not intend to debate this topic per se here and now, since my views are based on about a decade's worth of study from my twenties, and I am still in the process of evaluating them in light of the Marcionite recension of Paul and other factors. But I wanted to summarize them, at least.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
... I pretty much reject the notion that Paul negated the Law for Jews.
Okay, and we don't have to debate it, but I thought I'd say that I think Paul does negate the Torah for Jews, or he at best thinks that they can observe it if they want to but it has no effect on their "salvation."

As I cited above from Galatians 2:
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

And in Rom. 11:5-6 he says:
... at the present time there is a remnant [of Israel] chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
And Rom. 9:30-32:
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:23 pm Ben wrote:
... I pretty much reject the notion that Paul negated the Law for Jews.
Okay, and we don't have to debate it, but I thought I'd say that I think Paul does negate the Torah for Jews, or he at best thinks that they can observe it if they want to but it has no effect on their "salvation."

As I cited above from Galatians 2:
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

And in Rom. 11:5-6 he says:
... at the present time there is a remnant [of Israel] chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
You and I agree that, according to Paul, neither Jews nor Gentiles are justified by works of the Law. That is not the same thing as saying that Jews, on the whole, ought not to follow the Law.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

You and I agree that, according to Paul, neither Jews nor Gentiles are justified by works of the Law. That is not the same thing as saying that Jews, on the whole, ought not to follow the Law.
But saying that they don't need to observe the Torah to obtain salvation is effectively saying the same thing. It's like saying that while wearing shoes got you to this point and you can continue to wear them if you want to, they aren't necessary anymore. It undercuts the "raison d'etre" of Torah observance. He says so himself in 2 Cor. 11:12-23:
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 ... 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 know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by John2 »

Here is how Paul puts it in Gal. 3:16-19:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:49 pm
You and I agree that, according to Paul, neither Jews nor Gentiles are justified by works of the Law. That is not the same thing as saying that Jews, on the whole, ought not to follow the Law.
But saying that they don't need to observe the Torah to obtain salvation is effectively saying the same thing.
No, they can be (and, IMHO, are) two very different things.

What is your solution to the following Pauline problem?

Romans 7.14-20: 14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I like, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Philippians 3.4b-6: 4b If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

On the one hand, Paul seems hopelessly unable to observe the Law fully. He is sold to sin and cannot do the good that he wishes he could do. On the other, however, he was blameless with respect to the righteousness of the Law.

The first state of affairs seems to jive well with his threat to the Galatians:

Galatians 5.3: 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

In for an inch, in for a mile, says Paul. No fair just getting circumcised. Keeping just one aspect of the Law is not enough; you have to do it all, and the implication seems to be that the Galatians know they will not be able to do that.

The second state of affairs seems to jive well with Jewish sensibilities elsewhere:

Mark 10.20: 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”

Deuteronomy 30.11: 11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.”

So which is it? Is the Law easy to keep, or is it so difficult that sin (which is imputed only through the Law, according to Romans 5.13) always gets the upper hand?

I ask because my view of the Pauline treatment of the Law depends upon the answer to this question, and I want to see where you stand on it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply