Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Reading Turmel on Paul, I observe that his historical Paul, inferred from the only portions of epistles considered genuine by Turmel (once removed all the marcionite and the catholic intepolations), believed that Jesus had been crucified and, after the resurrection, he would be come to destroy the Romans.

Turmel was historicist. I wonder if the same data (very few) used by Turmel as "evidence" of a historical Jesus anti-Roman prophet, could be used to prove that the epistles come after the Book of Revelation (and that therefore the Paul's Jesus was mythical).

In the Book of Revelation, we have anti-Roman prophecies spoken by the author.

It is sufficient to place the historical Paul (I mean: Paul minus all the interpolations) in the same anti-Roman apocalypticist milieu of the Book of Revelation, to conclude that the original pauline epistles were written in the same period of the Book of Revelation, i.e. after the 70.

As the argument goes:
  • Paul's Jesus would have destroyed the Romans
  • Revelation's Jesus would have destroyed the Romans
  • Paul and the Book of Revelation share the same anti-Roman apocalypticism
  • Therefore, both Paul and the Book of Revelation were written in the same time
  • The Book of Revelation was written after the 70.
  • Therefore, also Paul wrote after the 70.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Without disturb the Book of Revelation, I wonder if it is sufficient only to show that Paul's Jesus was expected to destroy the Romans, in order to prove that Paul wrote after the 70 CE.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Irish1975 »

What anti-Roman apocalypticism in Paul does Turmel appeal to?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:59 am What anti-Roman apocalypticism in Paul does Turmel appeal to?

My eye is fallen rapidly on the incipit of 1 Thessalonians.
Here is Turmel who speaks:

La rédaction paulinienne comprend le chapitre premier; le morceau qui va de 2:17 à 3:13; les instructions 4:9-12 et 5:11 sous déduction de 5:10; enfin le verset 5:26.

Dnas le chapitre I Paul comble d'éloges les Thessaloniciens. La foi dont parle le verset 3 est la croyance à la royauté de Jésus. L'espérance est l'attente de sa venue pour inaugurer le royaume. La charité est la bonne harmonie qui doit régner entre les membres de la communauté chrétienne. La charité est placée avant l'espérance dont l'objet est situé dans l'avenir, tandis que son objet à elle appartient à la vie présente. Paul a posé des pierres d'attente pour l'édifice des vertus théologales.

Les Thessaloniciens ont imité Paul en ce sens que, comme Paul, ils ont cru à la royauté de Jèsus. Dans 0 nous lisons que les Thessaloniciens se sont «détournés des idoles». Notons que Paul a amené à la foi chrétienne des «craignant Dieu», c'est-à-dire des hommes qui fréquentaient la synagogue, et pratiquaient la religion juive. Son apostolat auprès d'eux n'a donc point consisté à les détourner des idoles, car ceci était déjà fait. Il s'est borné à les instruire sur les modalités de la restauration du royaume d'Israel que tous attendaient, à leur expliquer que le restaurateur devait mourir avant d'inaugurer le royaume. Le verset 9 contient donc une déformation des faits; mais cette déformation est voulue. Paul, qui exècre les Juifs, affecte d'oublier que les anciens païens auxquels il s'adresse avaient déjà renoncé aux idoles quand il est venu à eux, et que leur conversion au culte du vrai Dieu était précisément l'oeuvre du judaisme. Il exagère de parti pris la portée de son apostolat.

Quant à 10, la «colère imminente» dont il parle doit frapper tous ceux qui, en mettant Jésus à mort, ont prétendu l'empêcher de fonder le royaume, tous ceux auxxi qui refusent de reconnaître la royauté de Jésus, qui ne croient pas que Jésus ressuscité des morts va revenir fonder le royaume. Cette colère est une adaptation de celle dont les prophètes de l'Ancien Testament (Isaïe 13:9; LXIII:3; Sophonie 1:15, etc.) menacent les ennemis de Iahvé. Mais c'est Paul qui est allé la prendre dans les écrits des prophètes et qui l'a ajustée au programme messianique de Jésus.

Dans le morceau 2:17-3:13 Paul explique qu'il a essayé deux fois de revoir les Thessaloniciens et que, empêché par le «satan» de réaliser son projet, il a envoyé à sa place Timothée. Le «satan» dont il parle est probablement l'autorité romaine qui, en prêtant son concours aux Juifs, contrariait Paul. En tout cas ce mot est pris dans le sens que lui donne l'Ancien Testament, où il désigne tout homme qui est l'adversaire d'un autre. C'est ainsi que, dans 1 Reg 5:18 (dans la Vulgate 3 Reg. 5:4) Salomon dit: «Maintenant Iahvé mon dieu m'a donné du repos de tout part; il n'y a plus de satan, il n'y a plus de calamités» (voir le Thesaurus de Gesenius). On doit don lire 2:18 comme s'il y avait: «L'adversaire nous a empêchés». C'est aussi l'autorité romaine qui est le tentateur de 3:15. Il va sans dire que ces deux termes mystérieux ont été suggérés à Paul par un sentiment de prudence fort naturel. Ce sont comme des mots de passe que les initiés seuls pouvaient comprendre.

Sans faire entrer dans son programme les préoccupations morales, Paul ne voulait tout de même pas que le petit groupe dont il était le chef fût, pour ceux «du dehors», un objet de mépris et de dérision. De là les avertissements groupés dans 4:9-12. La leçon de bonne tenue est donnée avec beaucoup de délicatesse, mais elle est donnée. Et l'on voit que l'honorabilité des chrétiens de Thessalonique n'était pas parfaite. Les enseignements fournis par Dieu relativement à l'amour fraternel dont parle 4:9 sont ceux qu'on lit dans l'Ancien Testament. Voir Deutér. 15:2, 7; 22:1; Levit. 19:16-18, etc.

Quant à l'instruction 5:1-11, le «jour de Seigneur» dont elle traite est le jour où Jésus inaugurera son royaume. L'inauguration consistera dans la manifestation de la «colère» dont parle 1:10, c'est-à-dire dans le massacre de tous les mécréants. Quand le terrain sera déblayé, le Christ fondera à Jérusalem son royaume dont feront partie les croyants qui sont les vrais fils d'Abraham. Or Paul, qui a accablé les Thessaloniciens de compliments, n'a cependant pas pu dissimuler que leur foi était vacillante puisque, dans 3:10, il se propose d'aller la consolider. Dès maintenant il donne à son projet un commencement d'exécution dans la leçon 5:1-11 dont le vrai sens masqué par un artifice de langage est celui-ci: «Vous avez tort de douter de mes prédictions sous prétexte que rien n'est encore venu, que rien même n'annonce un bouleversement prochain. Le jour du Seigneur viendra comme le voleur pendant la nuit, il viendra à l'improviste, au moment où personne ne l'attendra. Les infidèles seront tous exterminés, pas un n'échappera. Mais nous, nous serons épargnés si nous sommes revêtus de la cuirasse de la foi et de la charité, et si nous avons l'espérance comme casque sauveur (réminiscence d'Isaie LIX:17)».

My translation by using partially Deepl:

The Pauline redaction includes the first chapter; the part that goes from 2:17 to 3:13; the instructions 4:9-12 and 5:11 under deduction of 5:10; finally the verse 5:26.

In chapter I Paul praises the Thessalonians. The faith spoken of in verse 3 is the belief in the kingship of Jesus. Hope is the expectation of his coming to inaugurate the kingdom. Charity is the good harmony that should reign among the members of the Christian community. Charity is placed before hope whose object is located in the future, while its object belongs to the present life. Paul laid the foundation stones for the building of the theological virtues.

The Thessalonians imitated Paul in that, like Paul, they believed in the kingship of Jesus. In 0 we read that the Thessalonians "turned away from idols". Let us note that Paul brought to the Christian faith "God-fearers", that is, men who frequented the synagogue and practiced the Jewish religion. His apostolate among them did not consist in turning them away from idols, for this was already done. He merely instructed them in the details of the restoration of the kingdom of Israel that they were all waiting for, explaining that the restorer had to die before inaugurating the kingdom. Verse 9 therefore contains a distortion of the facts, but this distortion is deliberate. Paul, who hates the Jews, seems to forget that the ancient Gentiles he is addressing had already renounced idols when he came to them, and that their conversion to the worship of the true God was precisely the work of Judaism. He is biased in exaggerating the scope of his apostolate.

As for 10, the "impending wrath" of which he speaks must strike all those who, by putting Jesus to death, claimed to prevent him from founding the kingdom, all those also who refuse to recognize the kingship of Jesus, who do not believe that Jesus, risen from the dead, will return to found the kingdom. This wrath is an adaptation of that with which the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah 13:9; LXIII:3; Zephaniah 1:15, etc.) threaten the enemies of Yahweh. But it was Paul who took it from the writings of the prophets and adjusted it to the messianic program of Jesus.

In 2:17-3:13 Paul explains that he tried twice to see the Thessalonians again and that, prevented by the "satan" from carrying out his plan, he sent Timothy instead. The "satan" of which he speaks is probably the Roman authority which, by lending its support to the Jews, was thwarting Paul. In any case, this word is taken in the sense given to it in the Old Testament, where it designates any man who is the adversary of another. Thus, in 1 Reg. 5:18 (in the Vulgate 3 Reg. 5:4) Solomon says: "Now the LORD my God has given me rest on all sides; there is no Satan, there are no more calamities" (see the Thesaurus of Gesenius). So 2:18 should be read as if it were: "The adversary has hindered us". It is also the Roman authority that is the tempter of 3:15. It goes without saying that these two mysterious terms were suggested to Paul by a natural sense of caution. They are like passwords that only the initiated could understand.

Without including moral concerns in his program, Paul did not want the small group of which he was the leader to be an object of scorn and derision for those "outside". Hence the warnings grouped in 4:9-12. The lesson of good behavior is given with great delicacy, but it is given. And we see that the honorability of the Thessalonian Christians was not perfect. The teachings provided by God concerning brotherly love spoken of in 4:9 are those found in the Old Testament. See Deuteronomy 15:2, 7; 22:1; Lev. 19:16-18, etc.

As for instruction 5:1-11, the "day of the Lord" it deals with is the day when Jesus will inaugurate his kingdom. The inauguration will consist in the manifestation of the "wrath" spoken of in 1:10, i.e., in the slaughter of all unbelievers. When the ground is cleared, Christ will found his kingdom in Jerusalem, to which believers who are the true sons of Abraham will belong. Now Paul, who has overwhelmed the Thessalonians with compliments, could not, however, conceal the fact that their faith was wavering, since in 3:10 he proposes to go and consolidate it. Now he gives a beginning to his project in lesson 5:1-11, the true meaning of which is masked by an artifice of language: ""You are wrong to doubt my predictions on the grounds that nothing has yet come, that nothing even announces a forthcoming upheaval. The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night; it will come unexpectedly, when no one is expecting it. The unbelievers will all be exterminated, not one will escape. But we will be spared if we are clothed with the breastplate of faith and love, and if we have hope as a helmet savior (reminiscent of Isaiah LIX:17).

(my bold)

The fact that 'satan' is codeword for Roman authorities, remembers to me the (absolutely identical) observation made by Frans J. Vermeiren.

Basically, Vermeiren and Turmel are talking about the same anti-Roman (apocalypticist) Paul.

The only difference is that Vermeiren has Paul talking about a coming Messiah not named Jesus, while for Turmel Paul has already in mind a man named Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that in the chapter on 1 Thessalonians, the words following after what I have just quoted above are:

Redaction marcionite

...meaning that then Turmel starts to list the interpolations in the epistle.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

In my humble and modest view, Turmel appears to have resolved a lot of otherwise enigmatic passages in the pauline epistles. But he has raised other enigmas and dilemmas.

For example, by removing all the mysticism from the epistles, a question imposes itself: are we legitimized still to assume that the Jesus of this new Paul is mere fruit of visions, dreams, revelations, once the same evidence for such visions, dreams, revelations disappears virtually as late marcionite interpolation?

My mythicist side makes me feel as this:

Image
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Paul anti-Roman just as the Book of Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Cristoph Heilig has published a book where he appears to share the Turmel and Vermeiren's view about the presence of implicit anti-Roman subtext in Paul.

At any case, it is simply embarrassing, for Heilig, to write the following:

However, this does not hide the fact that in his letters Paul openly criticises the pagan praxis of idol worship, which was foundational to society. Additionally, I think we do have open criticism of Roman authorities in at least one place in his letters, namely in 1 Cor 2:6–10.

(p. 127, cursive original)

That passage (1 Cor 2:6-10), if original, would be rather the total confutation of anything anti-Roman in Paul and essentially pure mythicist evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Post Reply