The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

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: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by John2 »

In Pauline thought, it does not require a "god" for there to be unbelievers. Demons, natural ignorance (Rom 10:14), etc.

Why don't you think Paul knew Hebrew? How else could he have been a Pharisee and advanced in Judaism beyond his contemporaries if he didn't know Hebrew? Do you know of any other Pharisees who did not know Hebrew? Even Josephus (who was also a Pharisee and "advanced in Judaism") needed help with Greek (as did apparently Peter in 1 Peter 5:12). Do you think Paul only spoke with Peter through translators or in a language he was not fluent in?

To me it seems like a safe bet that Paul (or any Pharisee) knew Hebrew, and in Hebrew the word elohim can have the sense of "divine being" (a god or an angel), and it seems easier to suppose that Paul (or Timothy, who co-authored 2 Cor.) chose the word theos to convey it in Greek than to reconcile the idea that the world was created by a demiurge with Paul's belief in God, as per 1 Cor. 8:6.

...for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by ABuddhist »

John2 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:42 am
Why don't you think Paul knew Hebrew? How else could he have been a Pharisee and advanced in Judaism beyond his contemporaries if he didn't know Hebrew? Do you know of any other Pharisees who did not know Hebrew? Even Josephus (who was also a Pharisee and "advanced in Judaism") needed help with Greek (as did apparently Peter in 1 Peter 5:12). Do you think Paul only spoke with Peter through translators or in a language he was not fluent in?
With all due respect, why are you taking Paul at face-value? Paul would not be the first religious leader to inflate his claimed knowledge and credentials. Furthermore, the fact that Paul cites from the Septuagint (as far as I can recall) and reveals only limited knowledge of Aramaic in his authentic writings strongly suggest to me that he was not able to read Hebrew.

But maybe this deserves a new thread.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by John2 »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:04 am
John2 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:42 am
Why don't you think Paul knew Hebrew? How else could he have been a Pharisee and advanced in Judaism beyond his contemporaries if he didn't know Hebrew? Do you know of any other Pharisees who did not know Hebrew? Even Josephus (who was also a Pharisee and "advanced in Judaism") needed help with Greek (as did apparently Peter in 1 Peter 5:12). Do you think Paul only spoke with Peter through translators or in a language he was not fluent in?
With all due respect, why are you taking Paul at face-value? Paul would not be the first religious leader to inflate his claimed knowledge and credentials. Furthermore, the fact that Paul cites from the Septuagint (as far as I can recall) and reveals only limited knowledge of Aramaic in his authentic writings strongly suggest to me that he was not able to read Hebrew.

Even if we set aside Paul's boast about being advanced in Judaism (and I realize he is boasting, just like Josephus did about his knowledge and credentials), it's hard for me to believe that a Pharisee did not know Hebrew. And the author of Acts (in 21:40) appears to have thought Paul knew Hebrew.

... Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language ...

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/21-40.htm


Some translations have this (and the other references to Hebrew in the NT) as Aramaic, but it says Hebrew in Greek, which makes sense to me since that is the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mishnah and the language that Josephus was fluent in. And do you think the author of Acts (in 22:3) thought that Paul learned from Gamaliel in Greek? Did anyone in antiquity think this?

I was raised in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and I was instructed perfectly in the tradition of our fathers ...,


But maybe this deserves a new thread.

Well, it has bearing on whether Paul (or Timothy) had the word elohim in mind regarding "the god of this world."
Last edited by John2 on Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by John2 »

As for why Paul uses the Septuagint in his letters, I think it's because he preached to Gentiles and Jews in the Diaspora and Greek was the universal language of the Roman world. 1 Peter and James (which I think are authentic) are also addressed to Jews in the Diaspora and use the Septuagint, and I don't think Peter and James did not know Hebrew because of that.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by GakuseiDon »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:22 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:23 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:22 pm
…we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge.
Well, I actually used 1 Cor 8:4-7 to support my view. To paraphrase Paul from above": "There are many gods and many lords, but for us there is but One God and One Lord". Those other gods are being worshipped as gods. Does Paul think there are actually other gods? If so, what does he mean by "god"?
I think it is clear that Paul does not "think there are actually other gods." The paragraph cited above as a whole affirms his belief in only the one God. You say that he also affirms the existence of many other gods and lords--but he really doesn't! By using the expression λεγόμενοι θεοὶ, "so-called" gods, in the immediately preceding clause of the sentence in question, he makes it explicit that he is talking about worshipped idols, not beings that he would acknowledge to be gods. 1 Cor 10:18-22 (assuming this is the same Paul) specifically identifies such beings as demons.
Correct. My argument is that Paul and his contemporaries would have used the term "god of this age" to refer to such a powerful being in order to indicate that being's power. No worries if we agree to disagree on this!
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:22 am
Paul seems to follow the idea that the One God is the Creator God of the Jews and the creator of Adam.
We may be following different interpretative methodologies, because here you seem to be relying on a general notion of what the historical Paul believes (sc. that the One God is the Creator God of the Jews), and using that notion to constrain your reading of particular texts, with the added assumption that our texts are reliably authentic and integral.
Yes, that's correct. Obviously if I'm using a passage that isn't original to Paul's thinking, then my analysis fails.
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:22 amI argue from the particular to the general. That is, I don't assume a historical Paul behind every verse of the authentic epistles. I don't know who wrote 2 Cor 4:4, or the larger fragment from 2:14 to 7:4, which seems to be a unity (although perhaps 6:14 to 7:1 doesn't belong with it). My working hypothesis these days is that there was an evolving Pauline school, which probably took its origins from the letters of a historical Paul, although it may be impossible to reconstruct his originals. So what we have is the scripture of "Paul," a relative unity.

Within that context, I see elements of demiurgism, intermingled with the redactions of the more Jewish-monotheistic Paul that you invoke (particularly in Romans).
Fair enough. If we have different starting places, our conclusions will tend to differ.
Unless Paul is following a Zoroastrian belief of two equal but opposed Gods, how is calling a non-Creator demiurge a "god" any more valid than calling Satan a "god"?
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:22 am
It's not that "god of this age" can't mean a Gnostic Creator God, because obviously it can. It's that the rest of Paul's description negates the idea AFAICS.
What specifically does "the rest of Paul's description" refer to? And how does it negate the demiurgic reading? Appealing to canonical Paul's general Jewishness and general monotheism does not negate this reading, unless the possibility of diverse voices and theologies within the Pauline Corpus is ruled out in principle.
For me, some differences in gnostic thought and Paul's thought:

1. Who was the God of the Jews? For gnostics: the Demiurge. For Paul: the True God.

2. Did Adam transgress against the True God? For gnostics: No. For Paul: yes.

3. What was the outcome of Adam's rebellion? For gnostics: the serpent awakened knowledge in Adam and this was a good thing. For Paul: Adam transgressed and brought death into the world. This was a bad thing.

Now, it may be that the passages I'm using for Paul are not original to Paul. So this is really the start of a broader conversation, I guess.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by rgprice »

For me, some differences in gnostic thought and Paul's thought:

1. Who was the God of the Jews? For gnostics: the Demiurge. For Paul: the True God.

2. Did Adam transgress against the True God? For gnostics: No. For Paul: yes.

3. What was the outcome of Adam's rebellion? For gnostics: the serpent awakened knowledge in Adam and this was a good thing. For Paul: Adam transgressed and brought death into the world. This was a bad thing.

Now, it may be that the passages I'm using for Paul are not original to Paul. So this is really the start of a broader conversation, I guess.
I don't know that any of this can be assumed.

I guess firstly we should just stop saying "Paul" anything. I for one do think there was a real Paul, but at this point the Pauline letters are a jumble of conflicting ideas, clearly written by multiple people. Anyone claiming to be able to distill the "real Paul" out of them is either fooling themselves or trying to fool others.

Personally, I use two points of reference to try and identify at least an earlier layer. Passages that have parallels in the Gospel of Mark or that are testified to have existed in Marcon's version of the letters I take as at least prior to proto-orthodox revision. But even that is not necessarily "original". After all, Marcion's collection included Colossians and "Ephesians", which are clearly not written by Paul, so it is clear that Marcon's collection was not a fully authentic collection of the writings of a single person. And Colossians and "Ephesians" also espouse ideas that conflict with the other letters, so it wasn't just a different person, but a person with a different theology. So if forged letters with a different theology existed in Marcion's collection, then surely there could also have been revisions to the other letters as well.

So it seems to me that Marcion's layer precedes the proto-orthodox layer, but Marcion's layer is itself already "corrupted" by multiple authors.

So anyway, trying to claim that "Paul" said this or that, or thought this or that just doesn't work. But we can identify strains of thought and connected theologies within the letters. We don't know how many different strains of thought exist in the letters and its not clear what the boundaries are around each of the different theologies. Clearly the letters contain a mix of sometimes conflicting theologies.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:42 am Why don't you think Paul knew Hebrew?
Because there is no evidence that Paul knew Hebrew. His Judaism is entirely Greek. His writings are devoid of any concerns about Palestinian politics, the Temple, etc.

I have been reading "Paul's Misunderstanding of the Law," an excerpt of Hans Joachim-Schoeps' 1959 book on the apostle (in the Norton Critical Edition of Paul). He argues that Paul didn't understand the Torah in the way that Jews then and now would, i.e. as the constitutive element of YHWH's covenant with his people. Rather, Paul thought in categories that derive essentially from the LXX and Hellenistic Judaism generally.

More about this later, gotta run.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The "Gnosticism" of 2 Corinthians

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:40 pmSo it seems to me that Marcion's layer precedes the proto-orthodox layer, but Marcion's layer is itself already "corrupted" by multiple authors.
Fair enough.
rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:40 pmSo anyway, trying to claim that "Paul" said this or that, or thought this or that just doesn't work.
It works, but there is an implied asterisk after those claims, regardless of whether a mythicist or historicist position is being proposed: " (**) analysis assumes Paul said this and that", which needs to be backed up or at least shown as plausible in order for the analysis to be reasonable.
Post Reply