Page 2 of 4
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:29 am
by Giuseppe
Someone has proposed that, just as the Gospels are the euhemerization of the myth of a celestial crucifixion in outer space, Paul is the euhemerization of what Jesus did originally
after the death in outer space: the descent into Sheol (= Shaul).
The name "Paul" would be then only another name for Saul.
1 Samuel 9:21
Saul answered, “But am I not a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe of Israel, and is not my clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why do you say such a thing to me?”
So, in this view, independently one from other, the author of Acts and the original author of the "Pauline" epistles would have based their Paul on this previous myth of Jesus descending into Sheol, personified/euhemerized by both them as "Saul" and
accordingly, per 1 Samuel 9:21, as "Paul".
That this previous myth of a descent in Sheol existed even among Marcionites (=the best candidates, per Detering, Bob Price and Stuart, for the original inventors/collectors of the "Pauline" epistles), Irenaeus attests it.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:32 am
by Giuseppe
Note also that the descent in Sheol (=Paul) is alluded also in proximity of the introduction/interpolation of Secret Mark, the young naked being not coincidentially just Paul.
Jerichum is the gate to Hades and when Jesus comes out from Jerichum, he is followed by a vast multitudo: the people freed by the descent in Sheol.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:28 am
by andrewcriddle
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:08 pm
The letters of Paul emerge at around the same time as other versions of Paul -- our canonical Acts, Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Pastorals. When Paul appears in the record he does so in the midst of, not preceding, controversy over who he was and what he taught. Different factions shaped Paul to be their representative in opposition to others.
The issues addressed in the letters of Paul are largely relevant to second century issues: beginning with the question of Paul's status as an apostle. Also, circumcision and legalism, the role of Greek wisdom, celibacy, . . . .
The Pastorals and the Acts of Paul seem clearly to know the main Pauline Epistles.
(There may arguably have been an earlier version of the Acts of Paul and Thecla which did not know the Pauline Epistles and was later incorporated into the Acts of Paul but I am dubious about this.)
If you are arguing about the implications of a silence about Paul until the end of the 1st century, who are the 1st century writers whom you would expect to mention Paul but do not ?
Andrew Criddle
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:39 am
by neilgodfrey
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:28 am
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:08 pm
The letters of Paul emerge at around the same time as other versions of Paul -- our canonical Acts, Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Pastorals. When Paul appears in the record he does so in the midst of, not preceding, controversy over who he was and what he taught. Different factions shaped Paul to be their representative in opposition to others.
The issues addressed in the letters of Paul are largely relevant to second century issues: beginning with the question of Paul's status as an apostle. Also, circumcision and legalism, the role of Greek wisdom, celibacy, . . . .
The Pastorals and the Acts of Paul seem clearly to know the main Pauline Epistles.
(There may arguably have been an earlier version of the Acts of Paul and Thecla which did not know the Pauline Epistles and was later incorporated into the Acts of Paul but I am dubious about this.)
Yes, I know. When I wrote "emerged around the same time" I did not mean simultaneously in ignorance of one another. I was thinking in particular of Dennis MacDonald's work,
The Legend of the Apostle. The various writings about Paul were striving for their respective version of the apostle. Some are clearly in direct competition with others. My reference to "controversy", I thought, would have implied some of this.
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:28 amIf you are arguing about the implications of a silence about Paul until the end of the 1st century, who are the 1st century writers whom you would expect to mention Paul but do not ?
Andrew Criddle
That's the point. We have no likely suspects we would expect to have mentioned Paul. I have absolutely no idea whether there was a real Paul or when such a figure existed if he was real -- anywhere from the mid and latter first century through to mid-ish second century. But the points I listed are issues that have been raised in the literature and are necessarily part of any debate on who/what/when Paul "was". Some scholars have thought certain passages in the Pauline letters are second-century interpolations because they address issues being debated in the second century. I had thought if you were going to fault my post -- as I expected you to!
-- you would have zeroed in on that point.
How to explain the provenance of Paul's letters and roles imputed to him are problems -- hence the question as per the OP keeps arising.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:01 am
by Irish1975
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:28 am
The Pastorals and the Acts of Paul seem clearly to know the main Pauline Epistles.
This could mean:
1) that the Pastorals and the Acts of Paul and Thecla betray specific textual dependencies on the main Pauline epistles (analogous to the notion that Matthew knew and utilized Mark's Gospel); or
2) that the former texts presuppose
the same general idea of Paul that the main epistles do, i.e., that he was a great apostle of some kind or other.
Perhaps you could clarify.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 am
by rgprice
Certainly one problem is that even if some passage are identified that appear to be post-war, those can always be explained as later interpolations.
But fundamentally, it seems that the concept Paul puts forward is post-war. "The Lord has been resurrected." Can we not understand this as a resurrection of the Lord after the destruction of his house, the Temple?
The House of the Lord has been destroyed, but the Lord lives on? Not only that, but he now lives on in our bodies, not the Temple.
While this may seem to make sense, why don't the Pauline letters spell this out more clearly? If this were true, then why isn't the relationship to the resurrection and the Temple more plainly stated?
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pm
by neilgodfrey
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 am
Certainly one problem is that even if some passage are identified that appear to be post-war, those can always be explained as later interpolations.
In favour of the second century date as the explanation is that we find independent evidence to confirm that those issues were of serious interest in the second century but we have little or no independent evidence to tie them with the first century. So it comes down to method. If one looks for independent confirmation of details, one moves towards the second century as the explanation grounded in available evidence.
(It doesn't "prove" the second century, of course, but a case can be made that such explanation is more valid against the evidence than the earlier date. Everything is pending new information, evidence, insights, though -- as is the case with everything.)
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 amBut fundamentally, it seems that the concept Paul puts forward is post-war. "The Lord has been resurrected." Can we not understand this as a resurrection of the Lord after the destruction of his house, the Temple?
I am hazy on the details at the moment and others here are no doubt more aware of them, but from memory Markus Vinzent sees the focus on the resurrection as a late development, too. You are probably aware of
- Vinzent, Markus. Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity: And the Making of the New Testament. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, c2011.
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 amThe House of the Lord has been destroyed, but the Lord lives on? Not only that, but he now lives on in our bodies, not the Temple.
While this may seem to make sense, why don't the Pauline letters spell this out more clearly? If this were true, then why isn't the relationship to the resurrection and the Temple more plainly stated?
Might not this be explained by the focus of Paul's letters on gentiles. The Temple, whether standing or destroyed or being planned to be rebuilt (as some suggest in the time of the epistle of Barnabas and the emperor Trajan), was of less relevance to gentiles - yes?
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:33 pm
by neilgodfrey
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 am
Certainly one problem is that even if some passage are identified that appear to be post-war, those can always be explained as later interpolations.
I should have added in my previous comment that even if those passages are interpolations, such an explanation does not impinge on the case for a second century authorship: one has to ask why Paul's letters were the subject of textual and authenticity wars in the second century (as per independent evidence). One may think that it was because they made their appearance at that time and came with some notoriety from that time -- if they were products of decades and made no impact in the surviving evidence at the time, why would they be considered relevant enough to fight over in the second century? As Dennis MacDonald says in Legend of the Apostle, it is the second century that contains all the interest and conflict over who Paul was and what he stood for.
And always we have the ghost of Simon Magus and his wars with Simon Peter casting shadows in the background of this discussion.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 4:42 pm
by MrMacSon
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 am
Certainly one problem is that even if some passages are identified that appear to be post-war, those can always be explained as later interpolations.
- Do you mean as a way to 'explain' why they appear to be post war; or b/c they [generally] are?
(each case can be discussed on its own merits??)
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:33 pm
... one has to ask why Paul's letters were the subject of textual and authenticity wars in the second century ...
As is:
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:52 am
-- if they were products of decades and made no impact in the surviving evidence at the time, why would they be considered relevant enough to fight over in the second century? As Dennis MacDonald says in Legend of the Apostle, it is the second century that contains all the interest and conflict over who Paul was and what he stood for.
Re: Pauline letters post-war?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 4:55 pm
by MrMacSon
Janelle Priya Mathur and Markus Vinzent have provided a good example os scholarship into likely editing of Paul's epistles:
Janelle Priya Mathur and Markus Vinzent, 'Pre-canonical Paul: His Views towards Sexual Immorality,' in
Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur, Studia Patristica, vol. XCIX, 2018: pp. 157-75.
Abstract
... The following discussion examines how the pre-canonical letters of Paul underwent considerable alterations, each time for the purpose of more comfortably fitting the culture of the day. Taking one case in point, namely canonical Paul and his alleged views on homosexuality (and more broadly speaking, sexual immorality as it is discussed in the context of homosexuality), this essay focuses primarily on 1
Corinthians 4-6, and argues that the pre-canonical Pauline writings were much shorter than the
textus receptus, and presents the surprising conclusion that the pre-canonical Paul is not concerned with homosexuality at all. Finally, it is submitted that redactors of the second century expanded these passages to criticize homosexual behavior, due to historical situations. The article is based on the findings of Ulrich Schmid and Jason Be Duhn, but refines their results and suggests – compared to their reconstructive efforts of
PaulMcn – a slightly revised reconstruction of 1
CorMcn. 4-6, particularly based on Tertullian’s commentaries, as they are the earliest available on these writings, presenting us with a different version than that of the
textus receptus.
https://www.academia.edu/45436810/Pre_c ... Immorality
Conclusion
... After reconstructing what Paul’s letters may have looked like, based on Tertullian’s commentary, it appears that Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 4-6 had nothing to do with homosexuality, but with sexual relations with spiritual beings. However, as this tradition of thought became less acceptable and/or relevant through and over time, redactions were made to make the context more amenable to local culture.
Sebastian Moll's article, 'Which Paul did Marcion Know?', in the same volume might be interesting, too.