Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pm 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.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pmMight 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?

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pm
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 5:38 pm

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pm 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.

Thanks for pointing this out, no I haven't seen it. It seems to me that the resurrection would be intrinsic to the origins.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:12 pmMight 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?

I believe you yourself have noted this reading of Mark:

Mark 14: 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’”

2 Cor 6: 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God;

1 Cor 3: 16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

1 Cor 6: 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

The resurrection is the creation of the new temple. It seems that in Mark, the Crucifixion is the process by which the old Temple is destroyed and the new Temple created.

But as for Paul, even if his audience is Gentiles, it seems odd that the subject of the Temple is not more fully addressed. If the letters were written any time after the First Jewish-Roman War, much less after the Second, then it seems like pointing out the defilement of the the Jerusalem Temple would be relevant to any audience, especially if one is trying to explain why faith is superior to the Law, etc. or why the covenant is now open to the Gentiles, etc.

Everyone knew what was going on in Jerusalem, this was major news. It's not as if any audience between 75 and 150 CE would have been unaware of the problems with the Jews, their rebellions and the repercussions.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:38 pm
I believe you yourself have noted this reading of Mark:

Mark 14: 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’”

2 Cor 6: 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God;

1 Cor 3: 16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

1 Cor 6: 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

The resurrection is the creation of the new temple. It seems that in Mark, the Crucifixion is the process by which the old Temple is destroyed and the new Temple created.

But as for Paul, even if his audience is Gentiles, it seems odd that the subject of the Temple is not more fully addressed. If the letters were written any time after the First Jewish-Roman War, much less after the Second, then it seems like pointing out the defilement of the the Jerusalem Temple would be relevant to any audience, especially if one is trying to explain why faith is superior to the Law, etc. or why the covenant is now open to the Gentiles, etc.

Everyone knew what was going on in Jerusalem, this was major news. It's not as if any audience between 75 and 150 CE would have been unaware of the problems with the Jews, their rebellions and the repercussions.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:31 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:38 pm

• Mark 14: 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’”
• 2 Cor 6: 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God;

[...]

Is not the problem you raise in the interpretation of Paul's letters the outcome of reading Paul through the Gospel of Mark? There is nothing in the extracts from Paul that you quote that suggests, from what I can see, that Paul thought of the resurrection of Jesus as a new Temple. Possibly even the Paul's view contradicts that idea. It is the converts who are the new temple, and presumably as Greeks their first thought would be to a comparison with the pagan temples around them. As the temple of God they could not tolerate, or should not tolerate, any other god or idol in their midst.

[11:12] ... Paul's big religious question is how is it that a human being flesh and blood born of a woman has been exalted into the highest heaven and become ruler of the cosmos and what is that all about and in other words he has a cosmic view of salvation.... [11:38]

[41:03] so what happened to jesus body he went back to the dust uh now if how would i know that because paul tells you in second corinthians 5 he says you know what it's like it's like you've got you we're at in 2nd corinthians 5 second corinthians 5. he gives two analogies he says i'm going to give you two analogies of the coming transformation one is it's kind of like old clothing like you are you you're naked and you put on clothes the body's your clothing it's a greek image plato uses it you're clothed with your body and it's kind of a nice analogy because i feel like i'm me but if i lose my arm or lose a appendage of my body i'm still me so i'm i'm clothed with the body body means your motive existence in communicating to the world so i'm able to talk to you with my voice with my gestures we can get on video we can talk like this with our bodies right right but me is my spirit or my soul or myself my inner self you know my self-conscious identity he says it's like old clothes and then he says and you take off the old clothes well now you're naked you don't have a body right but he said that's not what we want we want new clothes further clothes a whole new that would be the analogy of worrying about the corpse i got these old clothes they're kind of tattered and rotten and stinky because i'm getting old you know old body headed for the dust so i shed the body that's death now i'm naked i don't have a body i'm in the state of death or sleep it's the interim state as paul understands it and then i'm given this new glorious body new clothing it's glorious i don't go oh this is so great but i'm going to always carry these old clothes around with me man i love those old clothes i'm going to pick them up i'll put them in a little suitcase and walk around i know i'm being silly but the point is paul doesn't care about jesus's body... [43:19]

---

@time:00:41:03
"Did Paul Think Jesus Was a Pre-existent Being in Philippians 2 | James Tabor PhD". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 4 May 2022.

dbz wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:06 pm Carrier explains the old world order as understood by Christians before Paul, contra the new world order advocated by Paul. In short, the law of the old world order was death & decay and held sway for all (gentiles and jews) unless you were torah observant. In the new world order of Paul's cult not so much.

• "Jesus Was Born of A Woman, Born Under The Law In The Heavens Mythicist?". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 21 November 2022. @time:00:10:12

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 8:01 am

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.

And as for that which they say, that there is no resurrection of the flesh, they indeed shall have no resurrection UNTO LIFE, BUT UNTO JUDGEMENT, 25 because they believe not in him that is risen from the dead, NOT BELIEVING NOR UNDERSTANDING, 26 for they know not, O Corinthians, the seeds of wheat or of other seeds (grain), how they are cast bare into the earth and are corrupted and rise again by the will of God with bodies, and clothed. 27 And not only that [body] which is cast in riseth again, but manifold more blessing itself [i.e. fertile and prospering].

9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

16 At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17 But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth. 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


19 Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus. 21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters.

22 The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:09 am Here is a passage that suggests the letters are pre-war:

2 Cor 11
30 If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33 and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.

This is presumably referring to Aretas IV, who ruled from 9 to 40. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1752-aretas

This would seem to pretty solidly date Paul's ministry and the letters to a period shortly after the reign of Pilate. So, what are the issue with this passage and how to scholars handle it?

• in Acts, Paul is before in Damascus (after the conversion, persecuted by Jews and escaping from them), only after he goes to Jerusalem.

• In Galatians, Paul is before in Arabia, only after in Damascus, finally he goes to Jerusalem.

• 1) in Acts, Paul is before in Damascus (after the conversion, persecuted by Jews and escaping from them), only after he goes to Jerusalem.

• 2) In Galatians, Paul is before in Arabia where he is persecuted by Aretas, only after he escapes to Damascus (where he is persecuted by the governor of Aretas), finally he goes to Jerusalem (to pay homage to James the brother of Jesus).

• the version of Acts is anti-Jewish: the persecutors are Jews, but Paul ends to Jerusalem

• the versions of 2 Corinthians 11 (+ Galatians 1) is anti-gentile: the persecutors are gentiles, but Paul ends equally to Jerusalem.