Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi Ben,

I really can't take the time to delve into this, but will offer these thoughts.

The Suffering Servant died. If he were seen as the Messiah, then he would HAVE to be resurrected in order to return on Judgement Day.

I just don't see a Chapter 1 Christianity with a dead Jesus/Messiah. Or persecution of those folks who believed in such. Why bother if their Messiah was now dead? Or Paul having a dramatic conversion that only LATER included belief in a resurrection, while NEVER suggesting any such evolution or transformation in his writings.

Judgement Day required a son of man who was alive. If the Suffering Servant weren't part of the faith of those in Judea, then what's the problem? What Jew would persecute another Jew for believing in ONLY a son of man Judge?

Ben C. Smith wrote: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.

The apparent contradictions are right there in the letter. I think it’s a natural response to suspect a contrived story when such holes in the story are apparent. Paul managed to mangle logic in several different portions of Galatians, and he managed to mangle the internal logic in the passages we are discussing.

However, I think Paul did a very clever job of combining at least 3 layers of complexity in these passages of Galatians.

First, in verses 11-24, on a surface level, Paul reviewed his back-story for the congregation, apparently including information he had previously related to them on his initial evangelizing visit (“For you have heard about …” 1:13-19), along with some apparently new information (“Now in what I write to you …” 1:20 – 2:14).

I think one must consider that Paul’s initial evangelizing visit, including his own back-story, was very likely and to a significant extent in a spiritual context and with scriptural typologies, and not logic based.

Here’s how Paul described it to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians ---

Secondly, it sure seems like Paul used chapter 12 of Numbers, and with little doubt he used chapter 1 of Jeremiah, to construct his back-story and to construct the passages in at least Galatians 1:11-17. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396

And third, last but most certainly not least, to very heart of Galatians. Almost the entire letter is devoted to Paul building and presenting his case against the circumcisers. These passages are no exception. Like a clever lawyer, Paul managed to make significant points and to lay groundwork for his case, with subtlety, without always being completely explicit. Examples ---


Translation: Paul is making a point to the congregation that they don’t need to get circumcised because of the redemption provided by Jesus (Gal 3:13), becasue, through Paul, this comes directly from God for the benefit of the Gentiles --- as opposed to “those who are disturbing you” (Gal 5:12) who are merely men who will “pay the penalty” (Gal 5:10).



Translation: Paul is telling his congregation that as a devout Jew, he thought it was a crazy idea too when he first heard about it, that he even harassed those who believed that way. But he was wrong then, just as those who are harassing his congregation are wrong now.

TedM wrote:The Suffering Servant died. If he were seen as the Messiah, then he would HAVE to be resurrected in order to return on Judgement Day.

That makes sense. Now, did the Pillars or the Judean churches before Paul apply the Suffering Servant passage to Jesus?

I just don't see a Chapter 1 Christianity with a dead Jesus/Messiah.

What about one who was currently dead, but was going to be the first to be raised on Judgment Day? Or what about one for whom resurrection was not the issue, since he had been literally vindicated in the spirit (1 Timothy 3.16)? That is, his spirit had been exalted to heaven (Luke 23.43), regardless of the physical state of his body. What about a Messiah or Son of Man figure of whom Jesus was only the prophet/revealer, his own role being merged with that of the Messiah or Son of Man only later?

Or persecution of those folks who believed in such. Why bother if their Messiah was now dead?

Perhaps because their Messiah was dead: a sure sign (to some) that he could not possibly be the Messiah, no matter how much his followers might protest either that he was going to be raised or that his spirit had been exalted.

Or Paul having a dramatic conversion that only LATER included belief in a resurrection, while NEVER suggesting any such evolution or transformation in his writings.

If that is what happened, then would we expect any transformation in his writings if those writings all postdated the transformation in question?

robert j wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: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.

The apparent contradictions are right there in the letter. I think it’s a natural response to suspect a contrived story when such holes in the story are apparent. Paul managed to mangle logic in several different portions of Galatians, and he managed to mangle the internal logic in the passages we are discussing.

I do not see those statements as contradictions in the same way you do. A modern charismatic Christian prophet might well claim that Jesus appeared to him/her and confirmed key points of doctrine or praxis. It would be "true" in this case both that those key points of doctrine and praxis existed before our Christian prophet came along and that the revelation confirming them came straight from God or from Jesus. The revelation would give our intrepid prophet an inside track to correct belief, while not necessarily at all implying that the revelation was the first time that belief had ever been delivered.

IOW, there is a difference between (A) claiming that a certain belief chronologically originated with a certain vision and (B) claiming that the vision came directly from heaven and included that belief. I see B in Galatians; I am not sure I see A.

Translation: Paul is making a point to the congregation that they don’t need to get circumcised because of the redemption provided by Jesus (Gal 3:13), becasue, through Paul, this comes directly from God for the benefit of the Gentiles --- as opposed to “those who are disturbing you” (Gal 5:12) who are merely men who will “pay the penalty” (Gal 5:10).

Yes, quite.

Translation: Paul is telling his congregation that as a devout Jew, he thought it was a crazy idea too when he first heard about it, that he even harassed those who believed that way. But he was wrong then, just as those who are harassing his congregation are wrong now.

Yes, quite.

And the two statements do not (necessarily) contradict each other. Paul can both claim to get a message directly from God and also acknowledge that this message was already afoot before God revealed it specifically to him, in the same way that a person can both claim to have heard the truth behind damaging allegations from the alleged perpetrator of a crime and also acknowledge that this truth was already in the open before interviewing the defendant. Getting something from the source is of value quite apart from whether that is the first time the information has ever been conveyed.

Peter Kirby wrote:

robert j wrote: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?

I do think the scenario you describe is also reasonable. With the likelihood increasing as the parameters widen for the “real group” (or groups) as predecessors or models, and also as the parameters widen for “the contents of their beliefs”.

Peter Kirby wrote: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 think Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:10 to “remember the poor” developed into Paul’s collection scheme among the Corinthians for the “saints” in Jerusalem.

I think, in general terms, Paul just used “brothers” to designated fellow believers in Jesus Christ.

Peter Kirby wrote: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.

I don’t hold much faith in the historical veracity from these late sources. But I don’t deny some kernels of historical truths may be included among the church traditions and propaganda that predominate.

Peter Kirby wrote: ... 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.

I think I am more likely to discover early Christian origins in the earliest writings about a belief in Jesus Christ (Paul’s letters), than in the works of the later propagandists. Paul may not have been the most honest purveyor of spiritual gifts, but I think his letters represent real interactions with the earliest congregations of believers in Jesus Christ.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

TedM wrote:The Suffering Servant died. If he were seen as the Messiah, then he would HAVE to be resurrected in order to return on Judgement Day.

That makes sense. Now, did the Pillars or the Judean churches before Paul apply the Suffering Servant passage to Jesus?

You mean the man from Galilee? If he was crucified during Passover, I would think the answer could well be yes --- too great a match with the passover sacrifice and 'ransom' idea, as well as the 'not recognized for who he was' concept.

I just don't see a Chapter 1 Christianity with a dead Jesus/Messiah.

What about one who was currently dead, but was going to be the first to be raised on Judgment Day? Or what about one for whom resurrection was not the issue, since he had been literally vindicated in the spirit (1 Timothy 3.16)? That is, his spirit had been exalted to heaven (Luke 23.43), regardless of the physical state of his body.

Maybe but that all falls into 'resurrected' realm for me.

What about a Messiah or Son of Man figure of whom Jesus was only the prophet/revealer, his own role being merged with that of the Messiah or Son of Man only later?

Could be - and the seeming 3rd person references to the 'son of man' by Jesus may be a sign of that.

Or persecution of those folks who believed in such. Why bother if their Messiah was now dead?

Perhaps because their Messiah was dead: a sure sign (to some) that he could not possibly be the Messiah, no matter how much his followers might protest either that he was going to be raised or that his spirit had been exalted.

I meant if his followers didn't believe in a resurrection of any kind, who would bother persecuting them?

Or Paul having a dramatic conversion that only LATER included belief in a resurrection, while NEVER suggesting any such evolution or transformation in his writings.

If that is what happened, then would we expect any transformation in his writings if those writings all postdated the transformation in question?

[/quote]

Not sure really but Paul talks of his relationship with the Churches and how he was a father to them. It would be very strange to me if he dramatically went from teaching about a Jesus who either was never resurrected and would never be OR who wasnt YET resurrected, to preaching that he had already been resurrected without alluding to that in his writings anywhere. The sitting at the right had of the Father seemed to be a strong part of Paul and other early Christian ideas - from prophecy.

Really, I enjoy this but need to do other things.

robert j wrote:I think I am more likely to discover early Christian origins in the earliest writings about a belief in Jesus Christ (Paul’s letters), than in the works of the later propagandists. Paul may not have been the most honest purveyor of spiritual gifts, but I think his letters represent real interactions with the earliest congregations of believers in Jesus Christ.

Perhaps it's strange, but I think that the later propagandists are extremely useful. Their bias is out in the open. We know what it is. That's good, because it's easier to understand how to weigh remarks when we are able to understand the author well.

They tend to have coherent, singular authorship and much less problems than the NT for discerning the original text, because of their less-than-fully-authoritative status. It's infinitely easier to interpret a text when we know what it is.

Perhaps most importantly, they throw light on the development of the earlier texts and provide clues for their interpretation, and we certainly need every last bit of help we can get on both of those fronts.

Regarding real interactions behind the letters of Paul -- agreed.

Regarding Paul being important -- agreed, but not to the exclusion of other things, as Paul lies at the base of a large mound of tangled evidence. Without sorting it out, there's no way to describe what's under the rest. The bottom layer could have been rewritten in various ways, by those who had an interest in what Paul said, so every layer of the early Christian tell must be excavated.

robert j wrote:I don’t hold much faith in the historical veracity from these late sources. But I don’t deny some kernels of historical truths may be included among the church traditions and propaganda that predominate.

That in mind, if it's just propaganda, whose propaganda is it?

My point is that there appears to be a faction of the "brothers of the Lord" type, in the second century.

If the claims about them are propaganda, a likely source of that is that it is their propaganda, which again tends to suggest their existence.

I am not asking for faith in propaganda, just a judicious consideration of all the ancient texts, to try to make the best of it we can.

robert j wrote:I do think the scenario you describe is also reasonable. With the likelihood increasing as the parameters widen for the “real group” (or groups) as predecessors or models, and also as the parameters widen for “the contents of their beliefs”.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer.

To the extent that there are real interactions represented in the letters of Paul, do we really want to struggle against the plain sense of passages like these, indicating (most likely, if Paul wrote them) the existence of Cephas at least?

1 Corinthians 1:12

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Galatians 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Pretty daring stuff for a fictive persona. The "brothers of the lord" (whatever that is) also seems a thing.

Maybe this is just a simple interpretation, but I don't see the motivation behind complicating it.

Peter Kirby wrote:To the extent that there are real interactions represented in the letters of Paul, do we really want to struggle against the plain sense of passages like these, indicating (most likely, if Paul wrote them) the existence of Cephas at least?

1 Corinthians 1:12

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Galatians 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Pretty daring stuff for a fictive persona. The "brothers of the lord" (whatever that is) also seems a thing.

Maybe this is just a simple interpretation, but I don't see the motivation behind complicating it.

I think Paul provided a stylized outline of his story of the discovery of Jesus Christ in the scriptures, and the initial spread of that discovery in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9. Paul wrote that he had already told the congregation about those events, likely during his initial evangelizing visit and in greater detail, and was just providing a reminder in the letter. I suspect Paul told the same story to his other congregations. I think this was part of Paul’s means to established credibility for his Gentile audiences, with the perception of a wider spiritual movement.

This is where Paul told of Cephas as the first to “see”, to understand with the mind’s eye, the nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus as found in the scriptures. ***

In your first citation above from 1 Corinthians 1:12, I think Paul’s chickens came-home-to-roost, so to speak. Some of the fractious Corinthians found their preferred spiritual role model in the popular Apollos, Paul’s junior-partner that remained behind. Yet others found their preferred spiritual role model in the primacy of Cephas, the first to “see” the Christ in the scriptures, as Paul had told them in his initial story.

The other two citations are good examples of Paul using Cephas, even using and abusing at times. Paul used him to further his arguments and positions. A handy prop?

Of course I recognize that these interpretations do not provide evidence against the existence of Cephas and other predecessors, but only provide a framework in which they may have been fabricated. I realize the concept of Paul fabricating these men is a very difficult case to make with the available evidence. As I have written before, Paul is certainly not going to say in his letters to his congregations that he fabricated his back-story.

But just in this thread we see several different views on these men ---- who they might have been, what they might have believed --- and doubts expressed by others on whether Paul was honestly representing them. Perhaps there were no predecessors at all, or at most very loosely associated models with quite different beliefs that Paul used as props in his story. I think it’s a solution that belongs on the table. I certainly wouldn’t deny that Paul was daring.

I’ve gone well beyond the time I want to devote here, so have at it if you wish, but over and out for now.

*** as an aside --- one might ask why the proud and authority-obsessed Paul didn’t claim the first position for himself? As I have discussed in greater detail in previous posts on this thread, Paul found it necessary to claim that he thought at first it was a crazy idea that belief in Jesus would allow Gentiles to forego circumcision, and that he had even harassed the believers, but that he had been wrong.

robert j wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:To the extent that there are real interactions represented in the letters of Paul, do we really want to struggle against the plain sense of passages like these, indicating (most likely, if Paul wrote them) the existence of Cephas at least?

1 Corinthians 1:12

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Galatians 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Pretty daring stuff for a fictive persona. The "brothers of the lord" (whatever that is) also seems a thing.

Maybe this is just a simple interpretation, but I don't see the motivation behind complicating it.

I think Paul provided a stylized outline of his story of the discovery of Jesus Christ in the scriptures, and the initial spread of that discovery in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9. Paul wrote that he had already told the congregation about those events, likely during his initial evangelizing visit and in greater detail, and was just providing a reminder in the letter. I suspect Paul told the same story to his other congregations. I think this was part of Paul’s means to established credibility for his Gentile audiences, with the perception of a wider spiritual movement.

This is where Paul told of Cephas as the first to “see”, to understand with the mind’s eye, the nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus as found in the scriptures. ***

In your first citation above from 1 Corinthians 1:12, I think Paul’s chickens came-home-to-roost, so to speak. Some of the fractious Corinthians found their preferred spiritual role model in the popular Apollos, Paul’s junior-partner that remained behind. Yet others found their preferred spiritual role model in the primacy of Cephas, the first to “see” the Christ in the scriptures, as Paul had told them in his initial story.

The other two citations are good examples of Paul using Cephas, even using and abusing at times. Paul used him to further his arguments and positions. A handy prop?

Of course I recognize that these interpretations do not provide evidence against the existence of Cephas and other predecessors, but only provide a framework in which they may have been fabricated. I realize the concept of Paul fabricating these men is a very difficult case to make with the available evidence. As I have written before, Paul is certainly not going to say in his letters to his congregations that he fabricated his back-story.

But just in this thread we see several different views on these men ---- who they might have been, what they might have believed --- and doubts expressed by others on whether Paul was honestly representing them. Perhaps there were no predecessors at all, or at most very loosely associated models with quite different beliefs that Paul used as props in his story. I think it’s a solution that belongs on the table. I certainly wouldn’t deny that Paul was daring.

I’ve gone well beyond the time I want to devote here, so have at it if you wish, but over and out for now.

*** as an aside --- one might ask why the proud and authority-obsessed Paul didn’t claim the first position for himself? As I have discussed in greater detail in previous posts on this thread, Paul found it necessary to claim that he thought at first it was a crazy idea that belief in Jesus would allow Gentiles to forego circumcision, and that he had even harassed the believers, but that he had been wrong.

It's very hard to have definite answers.

The relative probability assigned to these hypotheses will depend a bit on our beliefs regarding probable psychology, probable behavior.

I believe that the underlying difference that motivates your argument is a belief regarding what is or isn't probable, psychologically. Most of the rest of us have an informal / folk understanding of how people behave that make this kind of behavior seem pretty unlikely. With your understanding of how people behave, however, these actions by Paul may seem a lot more likely to you than they do to several of us.

These are essentially subjective arguments. If you feel strongly about the general likelihood of that kind of behavior, I doubt I could persuade you. Likewise, I'm not sure how you're going to make us think that what you're proposing is very plausible, but I think it's at least easier for you than it is for us. You could attempt to illustrate a few examples of people who have behaved similarly to the way you say Paul behaved. It would help go a way to making it seem plausible, and it would require only a couple examples rather than an exhaustive search.

In the first place it doesn't seem very probable. The subjective / perceived probability is just stretched too thin (for me to be happy with anyway) when you consider the particular ways that Paul is incorporating Cephas into these references. Apollos is happily accepted as a real person, but Cephas in the same breath is not. Again, I find it hard to discover the motivation for me to start to want to think that's the most likely explanation, either of the words used in the letters, or as a general understanding of behavior.

Again, this stuff is subjective, but it should be mentioned because I think these intuitions can't but help affect our judgments.

I respect the fact that you don't have more to invest in this right now. Take care.

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!).

That's encouraging Ben, But I wonder if, at that rate, you'll live long enough to finish to read my website. . Obviously, it seems to have the least of your priority.

I meant if his followers didn't believe in a resurrection of any kind, who would bother persecuting them?

According to Acts, the disciples of Jesus did not get persecuted during the first persecution in Jerusalem, but the "Greek" members of the Church were.
I am certain the "pillars" never believed in the Resurrection (and Christian beliefs) but likely the "Greek" did, as the Jewish Christians and other Christians (but not some Ebionites).
Certainly, the early Christian writers (starting by the gospel authors but not, earlier, Paul & the author of Hebrews) did an excellent job trying to prove otherwise (about the pillars' beliefs and them being Christians) but they left clues & evidence saying otherwise.
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
My conclusion about the main beliefs of the different early Jesus groups are here: http://historical-jesus.info/t58.html
Like for many things, very early Christianity beliefs was subject to evolution.

The Suffering Servant died, If he were seen as the Messiah, then he would HAVE to be resurrected in order to return on Judgement Day.

I can agree if that suffering servant and Messiah are replaced by "king of the Jews".
And I do not think that flogging and crucifixion would make someone a suffering Messiah, because flogging & crucifixions were common in these days (so we would have many suffering servants!).
How did Jesus come to be believed "king of the Jews" in a few words: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard