just thought i'd mention i'm not wedded to this theory and i get doubts about it but its better to have challenges!
LOL, well rejection comes in degrees, it might have merely been 'ok Paul do your thing but we will carry on as before!'The problem I have with this scenario is that I can't think of any evidence that all Jewish Christians -or any Jewish Christian leaders- ever rejected Paul despite his differences with them
There is some evidence in the Clementines which appear to show hostility to Paul over the Torah. There's the murky figure of Certinthus that does appear as a nemesis to Paul in one church father's account (I forget which). It's not much to go on I admit
Ultimately I just find it hard to believe that Paul's radical convictions would have been accepted so easily, and Acts is kind of smoothing over the differences
I also feel that the term 'Jewish Christian leaders' is only referring to the Nazarene branch itself and it's leaders. I see other groups around that could have been closer to the original, early church if you will that are distinct again. Paul in my mind is actually closer to those folks than they are with his emphasis on holiness and transformation (although all of this stuff is Jewish in origin, but small differences can be a big deal!)
The rapprochement thing is based on distinctness existing between Paul and the Nazarene's ideas, their teachings and theology. If they are the same then sure it makes no sense. But if they are different there's scope for a coming together
I think that is how hell got into the mix. Paul never actually taught this but the Nazarenes did so it emerged kind of late to the party
One of the pieces of evidence is found in the Preaching of Peter, a genuine early 2nd century work before proto-orthadoxy got its act together (by writings Acts!)
Here it says "we having opened the books of the prophets which we had, found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly (authentically) and in so many words naming Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded (MS. judged), even all this things as they had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we took knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him"
this is kind of crazy
'Peter' is supposed to have been convinced about Jesus via interpretation of scripture not actually from knowing Christ! that is seriously strange
Also Peter can talk about 'the Jews', that is just outrageous language
Its obvious this is the gentile proto-orthadoxy speaking here becoming convinced of Paul's gospel via their own understanding of prophecy. There's no direct connection to Jesus at all to be found but they loved the Hebrew scripture and this permitted them to partake of it without having to follow the law
But if there was no contact with Nazarenes where did hell come from?