Paul --- A Rock and a Hard Place

[Ben C. Smith]

In my OP, it was Paul's words that I evaluated, along with the situation in which I think he likely found himself.

Yes, that is true. And you then admit that Paul created a conundrum for himself: such a conundrum, in fact, if I am reading you correctly, that he expects his Galatians converts (A) to recognize in Galatians 1.11-12 that he himself is the ultimate human point of origin for the gospel, but then (B) to have already forgotten that datum by the time they got to Galatians 1.15-24, replacing it with this new information that Paul was actually not the ultimate point of origin for the faith he had now joined.

It is one thing to lie. It is quite another both to lie and to tell the truth which unseats that lie in the same letter to the same readers. That is like the traveling quack telling the townsfolk both that his snake oil will heal their arthritis and that it is rubbish in treating inflammation of the joints.

In evaluating Paul's own words, then, I find myself compelled either to confess him a lunatic or to seek another solution to the problem. That seems extreme to me. The best way, IMO, to argue that Paul is the origin point for the faith and/or the gospel is to argue that the persecution passages are interpolations. That would separate the liar (the interpolator) from the person giving all the information needed to expose the lie (Paul).

[robert j]

For I make known to you, brothers, the gospel having been preached by me, that it is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

Sure, Paul claimed that his revelation came from god, not man, but his story still had holes.

Not his 'revelation' but his 'gospel'. I agree with TedM that that is the solution.

Paul talks of various 'gospel' messages floating around in his time. If you look at Gal 2:

• But on the contrary, when they [the Jerusalem group] saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter...

Paul received the gospel message for the Gentiles by revelation. He had previously persecuted the church in Judea, suggesting the information he had learned was not directly related to the gospel message for the Gentiles that he received later. So no contradiction AFAICS.

I might agree with this if by "the gospel" (i.e. announcement of good news) Paul only meant his concept that Gentile believers could be full participants with the god of Israel without the benefit of circumcision. But Paul used "the gospel" in more general terms in 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul included the death and resurrection of Jesus, as found in the scriptures, as part of his "gospel".

[Ben C. Smith]

I might agree with this if by "the gospel" (i.e. announcement of good news) Paul only meant his concept that Gentile believers could be full participants with the god of Israel without the benefit of circumcision. But Paul used "the gospel" in more general terms in 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul included the death and resurrection of Jesus, as found in the scriptures, as part of his "gospel".

I think we should remain open to the idea that Paul (or somebody) added the resurrection and/or other details to the faith, as well. We have very little information about what the Judean churches believed.

And notice the terminology. Paul calls his own message "the gospel", but what he has in common with the churches of Judea "the faith". Do these terms reflect the same underlying beliefs? Or do they just overlap?

[robert j]

In my OP, it was Paul's words that I evaluated, along with the situation in which I think he likely found himself.

Yes, that is true. And you then admit that Paul created a conundrum for himself: such a conundrum, in fact, if I am reading you correctly, that he expects his Galatians converts (A) to recognize in Galatians 1.11-12 that he himself is the ultimate human point of origin for the gospel, but then (B) to have already forgotten that datum by the time they got to Galatians 1.15-24, replacing it with this new information that Paul was actually not the ultimate point of origin for the faith he had now joined.

It is one thing to lie. It is quite another both to lie and to tell the truth which unseats that lie in the same letter to the same readers. That is like the traveling quack telling the townsfolk both that his snake oil will heal their arthritis and that it is rubbish in treating inflammation of the joints.

In evaluating Paul's own words, then, I find myself compelled either to confess him a lunatic or to seek another solution to the problem. That seems extreme to me. The best way, IMO, to argue that Paul is the origin point for the faith and/or the gospel is to argue that the persecution passages are interpolations. That would separate the liar (the interpolator) from the person giving all the information needed to expose the lie (Paul).

There is an occasional participant on this forum who does claim Paul to be a lunatic of sorts. I don't think he was a lunatic, but Paul lacked consistency and internal logic in several parts of the letter to the Galatians alone. He was slippery.

I think falling back on interpolation is the easy way out here. Paul's claim that he persecuted the faith before his revelation was a clever bit of planning ahead I think. For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm correct that Paul was the one that originally derived the story of his Jesus Christ, and much of his system, from the LXX. One would certainly expect him try the story out on a few friends and neighbors before packing his bag and heading north. I expect that among the Gentiles he might have garnered some real interest. However, his Jewish acquaintances may have humored him along on his salvific son of god, but vehemently objected to the idea that Gentiles could be full participants with Israel without the benefit of circumcision. How could a Jew come up with that idea?

Paul's target audience consisted of Gentiles, but he would certainly expect them to have a few Jewish friends. He anticipated such a response I think and had a ready answer ---- "hey, I was a devout Jew and I thought it was a crazy idea at first to, I even severely harassed those who believed it, but I was wrong."

This is part of Paul's story that he had told the Galatians previously, as indicated by Galatians 1:13.

Not aiming this line at you Ben, but many have a hard time seeing the great St. Paul in this calculating light --- but hey, he was just a flawed man as we all are.

[Ben C. Smith]

In my OP, it was Paul's words that I evaluated, along with the situation in which I think he likely found himself.

Yes, that is true. And you then admit that Paul created a conundrum for himself: such a conundrum, in fact, if I am reading you correctly, that he expects his Galatians converts (A) to recognize in Galatians 1.11-12 that he himself is the ultimate human point of origin for the gospel, but then (B) to have already forgotten that datum by the time they got to Galatians 1.15-24, replacing it with this new information that Paul was actually not the ultimate point of origin for the faith he had now joined.

It is one thing to lie. It is quite another both to lie and to tell the truth which unseats that lie in the same letter to the same readers. That is like the traveling quack telling the townsfolk both that his snake oil will heal their arthritis and that it is rubbish in treating inflammation of the joints.

In evaluating Paul's own words, then, I find myself compelled either to confess him a lunatic or to seek another solution to the problem. That seems extreme to me. The best way, IMO, to argue that Paul is the origin point for the faith and/or the gospel is to argue that the persecution passages are interpolations. That would separate the liar (the interpolator) from the person giving all the information needed to expose the lie (Paul).

There is an occasional participant on this forum who does claim Paul to be a lunatic of sorts. I don't think he was a lunatic, but Paul lacked consistency and internal logic in several parts of the letter to the Galatians alone. He was slippery.

I think falling back on interpolation is the easy way out here. Paul's claim that he persecuted the faith before his revelation was a clever bit of planning ahead I think. For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm correct that Paul was the one that originally derived the story of his Jesus Christ, and much of his system, from the LXX. One would certainly expect him try the story out on a few friends and neighbors before packing his bag and heading north. I expect that among the Gentiles he might have garnered some real interest. However, his Jewish acquaintances may have humored him along on his salvific son of god, but vehemently objected to the idea that Gentiles could be full participants with Israel without the benefit of circumcision. How could a Jew come up with that idea?

Paul's target audience consisted of Gentiles, but he would certainly expect them to have a few Jewish friends. He anticipated such a response I think and had a ready answer ---- "hey, I was a devout Jew and I thought it was a crazy idea at first to, I even severely harassed those who believed it, but I was wrong."

This is part of Paul's story that he had told the Galatians previously, as indicated by Galatians 1:13.

Not aiming this line at you Ben, but many have a hard time seeing the great St. Paul in this calculating light --- but hey, he was just a flawed man as we all are.

I can see him as calculating more easily than I can see him as so clumsy that he reversed his backstory to the Galatians within a few verses. If these contradictory data were found in separate letters, it would be easier to imagine him spinning two different tales to two different readerships. But the same readership, and such a blatant contradiction as you are implying? No, I do not see it.

Interpolation may be the easy way out (though it is not in this case one that I am taking, at least not at this time), but it seems far more plausible than the sort of schizophrenia that it seems you are suggesting.

But my money right now is on some distinction between "the faith" and "the gospel", by which Paul added stuff from his gospel to the faith, yet still considered his faith the same as those who preceded him, much as Mormons who add entire books and new ideas to traditional Christianity still consider themselves Christians.

[Peter Kirby]

I think Paul fabricated his predecessors in the faith, and fabricated the perception of a wider spiritual movement that was beginning to take place in far-away Judea with a leadership group in Jerusalem. Paul needed to invent this perception of established credibility for his Gentile audiences, he needed a tangible connection with the inheritance of Israel.

~~~~ some criticism ~~~~

Do you think it's just as likely that a person in a situation like you describe would take a real group that existed in Judea and claim that they were his predecessors, misrepresenting the content of their beliefs, rather than faking the existence of a group that nobody had thought of or heard of before?

~~~~ and some more speculative questions ~~~~

Which takes less effort, which offers more credibility, which helps him gather more contributions for the poor?

Do you think the phrase "the poor" or "the brothers of the Lord" might be significant, at all? Or is this all just his imagination too?

I'm asking partly because we do not have a strict silence regarding the Judean people's side of things. On that front, there are references in Hegesippus and Julius Africanus, at least, that are quite interesting. It would seem that, if Paul made it up, he might have also created it (???), to continue on through Hadrian and until the 2nd Jewish war. In general, you come quite close to my post "And Now for Something Completely Different," I think:

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1356

Except that you posit a pure fabulist instead of a dissembling propagandist. Perhaps the propagandist option isn't proven best(tm), but it's an option. I wonder whether you've considered it very much, and, if so, why you discount it.

[TedM]

I might agree with this if by "the gospel" (i.e. announcement of good news) Paul only meant his concept that Gentile believers could be full participants with the god of Israel without the benefit of circumcision. But Paul used "the gospel" in more general terms in 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul included the death and resurrection of Jesus, as found in the scriptures, as part of his "gospel".

I think we should remain open to the idea that Paul (or somebody) added the resurrection and/or other details to the faith, as well. We have very little information about what the Judean churches believed.

And notice the terminology. Paul calls his own message "the gospel", but what he has in common with the churches of Judea "the faith". Do these terms reflect the same underlying beliefs? Or do they just overlap?

Faith in the resurrection perhaps? I find it very problematic to think that Paul would received the right hand of fellowship of devlout Jews who didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus if Paul himself was going around teaching the resurrection. I also find it very problematic for Paul to say that he had 'faith' in common with the 'churches of Judea' if they they didn't believe in the resurrection when for Paul the resurrection was the whole thing!

[Bernard Muller]

I think Paul's gospel, during the time he was preaching (very likely with Barnabas) in Syria & Cilicia, did not include yet "Son of God", Kingdom in heaven, sacrifice for atonement of sins & pre-existence. And his gospel & beliefs might have been close to the ones of the churches of Judea then.
Paul started to (progressively) accept and incorporate these tenets only after the dispute with Peter in Antioch (resulting to his break up with the churches of Jerusalem & Antioch), and during his so-called 3nd journey.
So I think also that the declaration in Gal 1:12, about revelations from Jesus Christ is a lie: his later gospel and preached beliefs came from himself, and was most influenced by the author of Hebrews.
I don't see why he would not have known before hand about the beliefs of the "Greek" he persecuted in Jerusalem, more so when, according to Acts, those were preaching before the persecution.

Cordially, Bernard

[arnoldo]

More commentary about the Apostle Paul . . .

Macarius, Apocriticus III: 31:

This same Paul, who often when he speaks seems to forget his own words, tells the chief captain that he is not a Jew but a Roman, although he had previously said, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the exact teaching of the law of my fathers." But he who said, "I am a Jew," and "I am a Roman," is neither thing, although he attaches himself to both. For he who plays the hypocrite and speaks of what he is not, lays the foundation of his deeds in guile, and by putting round him a mask of deceit, he cheats the clear issue and steals the truth, laying siege in different ways to the soul's understanding, and enslaving by the juggler's art those who are easily influenced. The man who welcomes in his life such a principle as this, differs not at all from an implacable and bitter foe, who enslaving by his hypocrisy the minds of those beyond his own borders, takes them all captive in inhuman fashion. So if Paul is in pretence at one time a Jew, at another a Roman, at one time without law, and at another a Greek, and whenever he wishes is a stranger and an enemy to each thing, by stealing into each, he has made each useless, robbing each of its scope by his flattery.

We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying. And it is beside the point for him to say : "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not" (Rom. ix. 1). For the man who has just now conformed to the law, and to-day to the Gospel, is rightly regarded as knavish and hollow both in private and in public life.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefat ... gments.htm

[Ben C. Smith]

I might agree with this if by "the gospel" (i.e. announcement of good news) Paul only meant his concept that Gentile believers could be full participants with the god of Israel without the benefit of circumcision. But Paul used "the gospel" in more general terms in 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul included the death and resurrection of Jesus, as found in the scriptures, as part of his "gospel".

I think we should remain open to the idea that Paul (or somebody) added the resurrection and/or other details to the faith, as well. We have very little information about what the Judean churches believed.

And notice the terminology. Paul calls his own message "the gospel", but what he has in common with the churches of Judea "the faith". Do these terms reflect the same underlying beliefs? Or do they just overlap?

Faith in the resurrection perhaps? I find it very problematic to think that Paul would received the right hand of fellowship of devout Jews who didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus if Paul himself was going around teaching the resurrection. I also find it very problematic for Paul to say that he had 'faith' in common with the 'churches of Judea' if they they didn't believe in the resurrection when for Paul the resurrection was the whole thing!

This is a good response, of a kind that moves the conversation in the right direction. Let me address several of the points individually. What do you think?

First, read Bernard's response:

I think Paul's gospel, during the time he was preaching (very likely with Barnabas) in Syria & Cilicia, did not include yet "Son of God", Kingdom in heaven, sacrifice for atonement of sins & pre-existence. And his gospel & beliefs might have been close to the ones of the churches of Judea then.
Paul started to (progressively) accept and incorporate these tenets only after the dispute with Peter in Antioch (resulting to his break up with the churches of Jerusalem & Antioch), and during his so-called 3nd journey.
So I think also that the declaration in Gal 1:12, about revelations from Jesus Christ is a lie: his later gospel and preached beliefs came from himself, and was most influenced by the author of Hebrews.
I don't see why he would not have known before hand about the beliefs of the "Greek" he persecuted in Jerusalem, more so when, according to Acts, those were preaching before the persecution.

In other words, there may be an element of development over time in Paul's thought. Remember that in Galatians he is discussing a time period long before the present, and probably long before any of his extant epistles were penned. He may at that time have subscribed to little more than what the Pillars in Jerusalem believed, or what the churches in Judea believed, but then added further understandings to the faith, especially after he had his falling out with Cephas. (I think you and I are on the same page, pretty much, when it comes to envisioning the possible development of the Jesus material based upon prophecies and hints perceived to relate to him in the Hebrew scriptures; well, it is quite conceivable, and perhaps even inevitable, that some of these developments would have transpired within Paul's lifetime.)

I am not saying that I agree to every nuance of Bernard's reconstruction; I am still looking into it all (rather slowly, it seems!). But I think that the idea that Paul's (and perhaps even the Pillars') beliefs had accumulated over time since their first handshake is quite possible. And we would have to ask in that case which beliefs were older and which were newer. E. Bruce Brooks has an entire project dedicated to this sort of thing: Alpha Christianity. He defines Alpha Christianity as the first version, based upon Jesus' teachings and not upon any putative resurrection (this is similar to Crossan's so-called Life Tradition). Beta Christianity, then, is Pauline Christianity, with the resurrection as centerpiece (this is similar to Crossan's so-called Death Tradition). Make no mistake: I currently disagree with tons of what that project has concluded thus far. But I think that the basic idea (that the resurrection was not the formative belief of Christianity) may have merit. (The formative belief of Christianity may be ensconced in the name itself, to wit, that the Messiah, the Christ, has been revealed in some way. Whether that Messiah has been raised from the dead may be a secondary issue.) And there may be Jewish Messianic cults preceding even the earliest thing that can be called Christianity which would be similar in many ways to Christianity but would have no Jesus figure and no already revealed Christ figure in them.

Second, think about that verse in which the Pillars extended to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. That sounds great, right? But is it accurate? Unlike the lie which robertj attributes to Paul in the OP, one in which he first tells the truth that dismantles the lie before telling the lie itself only a few verses later, any deceit or exaggeration about this meeting with the Pillars in Jerusalem more than a decade ago would be practically immune to detection by the Galatians. Who is going to travel to Jerusalem just to ask whoever might still be around whether what Paul wrote is true? What if, for example, the Pillars had only barely tolerated Paul and his bizarre beliefs, telling him there would be no trouble between them just so long he stayed in Gentile territory and paid them a bounty in the form of that collection for the poor? What if the collection itself is not all that Paul said it was?

Third, imagine any of the above possible scenarios in which Paul and the Pillars currently (as of the epistle to the Galatians) differ greatly on beliefs and priorities. What motive would Paul have had to mention the difference, with the single exception of the main topic of Galatians (that is, the requirements laid upon Gentile converts)? Suppose (for the sake of argument), for example, that Paul had added the resurrection to his Christian repertoire since that initial meeting with the Pillars, but the Pillars had not. To mention this in Galatians would have weakened the impact of the narrative. It is far more powerful to suggest that there had been full agreement ("the right hand of fellowship"), and that only Paul had remained true to it. The others had fallen away. To mention here and now that Paul himself had since added layers to the faith (such as belief in the resurrection of Christ) would serve only to suggest that Paul himself had changed things up since that initial accord.

Again, I have no firm opinions on these issues yet. But I think they should be raised, and that Paul's statements ought to be evaluated carefully. I personally have trouble imagining him as out-and-out lying in the way a snake oil salesperson does, and I think you do, too. But I try to remain open to that option. Even far short of that option, there are incidental, almost accidental deceits; there are inaccurate memories shaded in the direction of vindicating oneself and accusing one's opponents; there are exaggerations; and there are omissions of possibly incriminating details. Even I do not regard Paul (or anybody) as beyond those kinds of things.