Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

why (for Paul) did Jesus (have to) die?

I don't know. Paul, most likely, did not elaborate on that in his mind.

Thessalonica, circa 50 anno Domini.

Paul (preaching in Thessalonica): Jesus died for us.
Thessalonians: Whatever do you mean?
Paul: Not sure, actually. I have not thought that bit all the way through yet. Give me time and maybe read some epistles I will probably eventually write to other, more important cities. I should have something by then.

One explanation would be "[Jesus Christ] died for us so that whether we wake or sleep we might live with him." (1 Th 5:10). But then, 'how' and 'why' is not obvious.

Yes, when you eliminate the most likely explanation, what remains will not generally be very obvious.

But the same thing can be said about "Jesus Christ died for us so that we might be atoned from our sins". There is no clear connection between a sacrifice and atonement of sins for others.

It is just the sacrificial logic of the Hebrew scriptures (which we have to grant as a starting point no matter what our position) filtered through several layers of theology from Isaiah's Suffering Servant, through the righteous few in Daniel, to later treatments of the Maccabean martyrs. It is really not very hard to understand, though of course it is completely foreign to our sensibilities.

2 Maccabees 7.37-38:


2 Thessalonians 1.13:

I find rather telling that Paul never used the words "sin(s)", "sinful" and "sinner(s)" in these three epistles (accepting 1 Th 2:16 is part of an interpolation).

This is just a word game on your part. Here, let me annotate 1 Thessalonians 4.1-8 so you can see what Paul is saying:


Ben.

to Ben,

Paul (preaching in Thessalonica): Jesus died for us.
Thessalonians: Whatever do you mean?
Paul:

Just like in 1 Corinthians 1-4: it's according to God's hidden wisdom which is explained by the Spirit of God. That's how he explained "Christ crucified".
OR
By invoking a revelation of Jesus as in 1 Th 4:15-17.

And there is no evidence these Thessalonians were asking that. Rather, they were impatient (obsessed) about the coming of Christ and apparently did not think that some of them would die before that coming.
And they seem unaware about any future resurrection of dead. Most likely, Paul's did not explain that to them while he was in Thessalonica. That shows that Paul was then far to have a complete set of Christian beliefs yet. That very underdeveloped Christian theology is admitted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4, such as in 2:2,4-5, 3:6,10.

It is just the sacrificial logic of the Hebrew scriptures (which we have to grant as a starting point no matter what our position) filtered through several layers of theology from Isaiah's Suffering Servant, through the righteous few in Daniel, to later treatments of the Maccabean martyrs. It is really not very hard to understand, though of course it is completely foreign to our sensibilities.

I do not see why that sacrificial logic of the Hebrew scriptures would have been known by the gentiles of Macedonia, to whom that would be completely foreign to their sensibilities.

And in your quotes from 2 Maccabees and 2 Thessalonians, I do not see anything about atonement of sins, but instead deliverance from God's wrath.

And in your last quote, again, I do not see anything about a sacrifice for atonement of sins. Certainly, Paul did not say the sins you committed before you became converts have been forgiven.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, I can't really see your difficulty. "Sin" indicates the breaking of god's law. "Atonement" is the reparation after sin. This is Paul's explanation to the Galatians:


The curse of the law, "the wages of sin", is death. But "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us". Dying as he did without sin Christ as a proxy takes the curse "for us". That opens the way for faith to the gentiles. This is Paul's gospel.

spin wrote:Bernard, I can't really see your difficulty.

Nor can I.

to spin,

The curse of the law, "the wages of sin", is death. But "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us". Dying as he did without sin Christ as a proxy takes the curse "for us". That opens the way for faith to the gentiles. This is Paul's gospel.

Yes, that's was part of Paul's later gospel to the gentiles. But not a part to his earlier gospel to the gentiles.
Furthermore, your quote is not really about the death for atonement of sins, such as fornication, but the death for abolishment of the Law.
I am sorry, but according to my study, Paul started to preach to the gentiles with a very embryonic Christian theology, which got complemented as he went along, more so under pressure from the very demanding & inquisitive & "agitated" Christians of Corinth.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,

The curse of the law, "the wages of sin", is death. But "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us". Dying as he did without sin Christ as a proxy takes the curse "for us". That opens the way for faith to the gentiles. This is Paul's gospel.

Yes, that's was part of Paul's later gospel to the gentiles. But not a part to his earlier gospel to the gentiles.

You don't know what Paul's "earlier gospel to the gentiles" was. However, I'm happy to work with the notion that what Paul says his gospel is is probably what he said it was before. (Also, what makes you think that the Galatians were simply gentiles? Paul had no problem using Abraham and Hagar in an allegory for them, so I think you should not be so facile in your approach to the Galatians.)

Bernard Muller wrote:Furthermore, your quote is not really about the death for atonement of sins, such as fornication, but the death for abolishment of the Law.
I am sorry, but according to my study, Paul started to preach to the gentiles with a very embryonic Christian theology, which got complemented as he went along, more so under pressure from the very demanding & inquisitive & "agitated" Christians of Corinth.

Thanks for sharing that eisegesis! But do you have some problem with the way I elucidated the word "sin" and its relationship with the law? I see, as you haven't, I should also clarify "atonement", which is what is necessary to resolve having sinned. But let's let Paul explain a bit more (from Rom 3:22-25):


Paul has no intention of abolishing the law. He is offering his communities another means of salvation. He offers the choice: either do it his way (by faith) or suffer the way the Jews have (works of the law). The law is the law of god: how could you possibly imagine Paul would consider abolishing it? His revelation provides a new way forward.

to spin,

You don't know what Paul's "earlier gospel to the gentiles" was. However, I'm happy to work with the notion that what Paul says his gospel is is probably what he said it was before. (Also, what makes you think that the Galatians were simply gentiles? Paul had no problem using Abraham and Hagar in an allegory for them, so I think you should not be so facile in your approach to the Galatians.)

I think I know what Paul's "earlier gospel to the gentiles" did not incorporate. I show my conclusions here: http://historical-jesus.info/t58.html
No, Paul's gospel was evolving as he went along. I demonstrated that at length in different parts of my website.
Sure, many apologists argued Paul's gospel was the same from the beginning to the end of his preaching, and also similar to the ones of pillars of Jerusalem. I just cannot believe in all that because of my study.
About the Galatians, Paul did use the OT to make his points, but he did the same in his epistles to the Corinthians and the Romans, which were largely gentiles also. It appears, these gentiles were enamored by the Jewish scriptures, which were used as authority and likely believed by them as such.
I also think, for the Galatians (and possibly the Romans & Corinthians also), because they were subjected to Judaizing preachers, Paul may have use the same writings as weapon because these preachers were likely using the OT. Furthermore, there was the influence of the author of Hebrews, writing to gentiles, yes gentiles, and using a whole arsenal of quotes and OT stories in order to make his points.

Paul has no intention of abolishing the law. He is offering his communities another means of salvation. He offers the choice: either do it his way (by faith) or suffer the way the Jews have (works of the law). The law is the law of god: how could you possibly imagine Paul would consider abolishing it? His revelation provides a new way forward.

Paul said something like that: stay away from the Law, it makes you sin. If the Jews want to keep it, let's them be in sins. But Christians should not keep or adopt the Law.
Maybe "abolish" is too strong of a word and also misleading. Of course Paul could not abolish the Law on his own.
Here are the quotes which, I think, are the more in opposition to the Law:

Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Christians (Gentiles or Jews) are not under the Law.

Ro 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, ...

Ro 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law,

Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified

Gal 3:11-13a Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"
but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them."
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,

Gal 3:19a "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring [Christ] should come to whom the promise had been made; ..."

Remark: prior to writing Romans and Galatians, Paul was not much (if ever) against the Law, more so regarding Jewish Christians:
1 Co 7:18 being circumcised -- was any one called? let him not become uncircumcised [keep the Law]; in uncircumcision was any one called? let him not be circumcised;

You think the Galatians of Paul were Jews and under the Law as Paul suggested in parts of Galatians where "us" and "our" are used (too loosely in my view) by Paul. But these verses say these Galatians were not Jews:
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
Gal 2:12-13 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Cordially, Bernard

You've established that Paul was selling a product that was essentially different from what the Jewish proselytizers were. That means he had to show the public why they should buy his and not theirs (while he still used theirs). However, your efforts to extract a primitive cult—as you purport with the "Nazarenes"—from the gospels is doomed to unknowingness, given that Paul is by far our earliest Jesus-promoting writer and the gospels show signs of being written after the Jewish war (Mk assuming it and the synoptics are based on Mk). There are no eye witness accounts. If eye witness material has been incorporated in the gospels you have no way of distinguishing them from other tradition materials they contain. That means that any possible eye witness reports—if there were any—have been transformed into tradition materials.

Paul is not presenting his gospel in any of his letters. He merely alludes to it in passing and, while I accept the possibility of his gospel having evolved, one cannot assume through silence that his gospel was limited by that silence. If we go back to the claim of abolishing the law, there is no connection between Christ's death and the abolition of the law. There is a connection between the death and the law, if Christ's death was under the law. Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice are all facets of presentation of a single idea, and not just his sales pitch. The next Pauline reflection is from Gal 4:4-5:


Christ was born under the law. Why is that significant? It puts him in a relationship with the law, so he too is accountable to the law. (I wave away your assertion that this is later Pauline thought, as you have no meaningful way to support the claim, not the sin of omission.) Why do people need to be redeemed? Under the law the result of sin is death: death is the payment for sin and in Judaism the means of redeeming is through an unblemished sacrifice (which is problematic with the fall of the temple). What was the mechanism of that redemption in Paul's theology? Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice.

The allusions to Paul's gospel found scattered across his letters is reasonably coherent. He offers a way to justification through the death of Christ and salvation through his resurrection, for if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:7). Christ's death under the law and his subsequent resurrection is the core to Paul's salvation theology. Paul again (Rom 8:3):


Sending his own son... to be sacrificed, though unblemished (never sinning), makes him suitable to take the sins of others, offered up in place of others. That sacrifice is how Paul's savior deals with sin.

The longer Pauline works seem to contain—irregularly scattered through them—a consistent theology. You cannot expect short works to contain casual explanations of facets of his theology. These works are all ostensibly dealing with pastoral issues of his communities, so they are not focused on his theology, but their problems.

Once again lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

to spin,

You've established that Paul was selling a product that was essentially different from what the Jewish proselytizers were. That means he had to show the public why they should buy his and not theirs (while he still used theirs). However, your efforts to extract a primitive cult—as you purport with the "Nazarenes"—from the gospels is doomed to unknowingness, given that Paul is by far our earliest Jesus-promoting writer and the gospels show signs of being written after the Jewish war (Mk assuming it and the synoptics are based on Mk).

That's not the case, for the Nazarenes, where I use all kind of evidence from other texts than the Pauline Epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html as also a very noticeable silence from Paul.
Yes, the gospels were written after the events of 70, but if gMark was written in the winter of 70-71 http://historical-jesus.info/41.html, that would not prevent "Mark" and his community to have heard, from at least one disciple, stories about Jesus less than 19 years before.

There are no eye witness accounts. If eye witness material has been incorporated in the gospels you have no way of distinguishing them from other tradition materials they contain. That means that any possible eye witness reports—if there were any—have been transformed into tradition materials.

Can you prove there are no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark, once you remove the obvious embellishments and fiction?
Actually, when it is done, the story of a rural uneducated Jew who become believed by some as king of the Jews during his lifetime http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html, even if that looks far-fetched, makes a lot of sense, and that story is helped greatly by the immediate religious and historical context. And that can be determined by just looking at a few elements from gMark.

Paul is not presenting his gospel in any of his letters. He merely alludes to it in passing and, while I accept the possibility of his gospel having evolved, one cannot assume through silence that his gospel was limited by that silence. If we go back to the claim of abolishing the law, there is no connection between Christ's death and the abolition of the law. There is a connection between the death and the law, if Christ's death was under the law. Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice are all facets of presentation of a single idea, and not just his sales pitch.

"I accept the possibility of his gospel having evolve" => Good, that's encouraging.
Well, I am not a theologian. I am just looking at Paul's earliest epistles and I do not see that kind of things. But these notions may apply to his latest epistles, such as Galatians and Romans. However I do not remember where it is written Christ's death was under the law.
Also, earlier than these two last epistles, in 1 Cor 9:8-9, the Law is mentioned by Paul in good terms. And in 1 Cor 9:20, Paul is not bothered being under the Law when dealing with other Jews.

Christ was born under the law. Why is that significant? It puts him in a relationship with the law, so he too is accountable to the law. (I wave away your assertion that this is later Pauline thought, as you have no meaningful way to support the claim, not the sin of omission.) Why do people need to be redeemed? Under the law the result of sin is death: death is the payment for sin and in Judaism the means of redeeming is through an unblemished sacrifice (which is problematic with the fall of the temple). What was the mechanism of that redemption in Paul's theology? Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice.

I did not think I would get some preaching from you, spin. I agree these notions can be extrapolated from his later epistles, but not his first ones.

The allusions to Paul's gospel found scattered across his letters is reasonably coherent. He offers a way to justification through the death of Christ and salvation through his resurrection, for if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:7). Christ's death under the law and his subsequent resurrection is the core to Paul's salvation theology. Paul again (Rom 8:3)

You are always quoting these later epistles, more so Galatians and Romans. And in 1 Cor 15:7, Paul based his argumentation not on Jesus' death & sacrifice, but his alleged resurrection.

The longer Pauline works seem to contain—irregularly scattered through them—a consistent theology. You cannot expect short works to contain casual explanations of facets of his theology. These works are all ostensibly dealing with pastoral issues of his communities, so they are not focused on his theology, but their problems

Yes, but in the shorter earliest epistles, Paul is not able to explain "Christ crucified" and the meaning of the cross, and that in most of four chapters (1 Cor 1-4). He said that's according to God's hidden wisdom and appealed to the Spirit in order to explain them. He claimed he is the steward of God's mysteries, but never reveal these mysteries. But he also said his gospel is like a seed, needing later Apollos and God himself (probably through his Spirit) for growing, basement-like and even welcoming the "good" additions to it (which I think the author of Hebrews did).

Once again lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Actually, the evidence for Paul about not able to explain the meaning of the cross and "Christ crucified" in most of four chapters is not a lack of evidence. It is fully documented at length.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, your position appears to require (A) that Paul did not know why Jesus had to die "for" believers and (B) that his converts did not ask him why (at least not until his later letters were penned). I find these requirements to be virtually impossible from a psychological point of view; your position will never tempt me so long as they remain intact; they would constitute a dealbreaker for me even if it were pressed in support of my favorite pet theory. Is there any argument you might be able to present to help overcome this hurdle?