Sigh, yes ok I should of been more careful there and left out Sheol. It's only hell i'm concerned with as regards PaulDo with it what you will, but the answer did match the question.
I had no idea what you were "really saying" at the time. I was answering your question in good faith, nothing more. I did not know that you put Sheol there by mistake.davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:44 amSigh, yes ok I should of been more careful there and left out Sheol. It's only hell i'm concerned with as regards PaulDo with it what you will, but the answer did match the question.
I would prefer you to address what i'm really saying though not point out a silly mistake of mine!
I have read Stevan Davies on this topic (several times), as well as J. Rendel Harris, and am quite open to considering the Odes of Solomon to be early, but I have not made up my mind on that yet. Why is it "dangling in front" of me, though? What do you mean?The whole concept of an Odes of Solomon primacy is dangling in front of you...
I agree that there are palpable benefits to dating the Odes early.davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:20 am Hi Ben, no problem and I appreciate your reply
When the Odes is placed early, say 50's AD, a lot of things fall into place
First it explains Paul and that is no small thing. Instead of being a complete and total innovator, changing an original Torah observant Jewish group into something very different - he is seen to emerge out of a 'spiritual Torah', mystical sect that already believes many of the things he preaches
He then goes out with a believable set of innovations with his gospel
....
So putting the Odes first answers a lot of questions
My own view of the various possible groups which existed at this time makes it difficult for me to accept a facile identification of which group was "original." Originality, for me, depends upon exactly which aspect of the religion(s) or sect(s) one is discussing.Secondly the 'Judaisers' are revealed to not be the original Christians, but a divergent offshoot that were opposed to the Odes community
I personally think that Paul's motive is transparent in Galatians as it stands. He is claiming — vehemently — that his gospel came from God, not from humans, so it makes sense that he should be at pains to play down the extent of his contact with those who were already preaching some form of gospel before he came around. Likewise, a scientist being investigated for patent infringement would likely want to play down the extent of his contact with with the scientist whose patent he is accused of infringing (or with his/her ideas).Thirdly it explains why Paul is so keen to deny ever having been in Jerusalem in Galatians 14 years ago
If he had been, he would have been around the Odes community... an association which is embarrassing when dealing with the Judaisers. Why would he be embarrassed about meeting the same people earlier who he is talking to? Must have been a different group
Yes, so the question becomes what was that 'some form' of before and who might they beI personally think that Paul's motive is transparent in Galatians as it stands. He is claiming — vehemently — that his gospel came from God, not from humans, so it makes sense that he should be at pains to play down the extent of his contact with those who were already preaching some form of gospel before he came around. Likewise, a scientist being investigated for patent infringement would likely want to play down the extent of his contact with with the scientist whose patent he is accused of infringing (or with his/her ideas).
Again, the overall view I have come to involves multiple groups in various combinations and overlaps. We may know a few of the names of these groups: the brethren of the Lord, the Way, the Twelve, the Pillars, Nasoraeans, Galileans, and Hemerobaptists, among others; and I suspect that most of the sects named after particular people (Christians, Simonians, and so on) came out from those groups. I am not sure what to call the Odes people.davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:13 amYes, so the question becomes what was that 'some form' of before and who might they beI personally think that Paul's motive is transparent in Galatians as it stands. He is claiming — vehemently — that his gospel came from God, not from humans, so it makes sense that he should be at pains to play down the extent of his contact with those who were already preaching some form of gospel before he came around. Likewise, a scientist being investigated for patent infringement would likely want to play down the extent of his contact with with the scientist whose patent he is accused of infringing (or with his/her ideas).
It might be over simplifying but it seems to either be the Nazarene's/Judaisers - which is the only theory I've ever heard talked about - or someone else. The Odes fits in with this providing a second option, but this I don't hear talked about. It seems like a massive unexplored area..
Yes.
I have come to suspect that Lazarus (= same name as Eleazar) is one of a group of individuals known to us from the Talmud whose identities the tradition (especially the Johannine tradition) has garbled and transformed for Christian purposes: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2575#p100511. There is a Boethus, his daughter Martha, his daughter Mary (possibly a mistake for Martha in the Jewish tradition itself), and his son Eleazar, potentially giving us a Lazarus/Eleazar with two sisters: Mary and Martha. There is also a son named Joazar, probably unrelated to all of this, and another son named Simon, possibly the inspiration for Simon the Leper/Pharisee. And, finally, there is a Nakdimon/Nicodemus, whose daughter Mary is mentioned in the same breath as Boethus' daughter Martha in a Midrash.The original Father/Jesus. If Dositheus wasn't John maybe he was 'Lazarus'
I did not understand this sentence.Nazara, truth probably were called Nazarenes.
That is yet another angle I am trying to figure out.Anyway the only really crazy thing is the Queen Helena of Abadienes link that clearly has something to do with it. Could she be Simon's Helena? That would make a wealthy 'Magdalene' figure indeed
For whatever it may be worth, I think that recognizing this sort of multiplicity at the heart of it all is, at the very least, the right instinct.davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:16 pmOnly years later did these 2 patch up their differences. Christianity is a hybrid of all 3
curious, could there be a Nicodemus/Queen Helena connection?whose daughter Mary is mentioned in the same breath as Boethus' daughter Martha in a Midrash.
ah, for some reason i though 'Nazara' meant 'truth' in Hebrew or some other langaugeNazara, truth probably were called Nazarenes.
What bothered me about this, is a James was said to lead the church after Jesus, yet this would have them bothI am open to the crucifixion of Simon/Symeon and James/Jacob being one of those histories which later Christians plundered. I do not have a bead on this angle yet, but it has been on my mind for some time