Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Since the letters of Paul do not bear the nominal characteristics of other letters from circa their purported era, is it possible that they were fabrications hailing from a nominally (and perhaps even fringe) Christian sect's "School"? If so, then there never would have been a real Paul. I admit to merely speculating here, but this is how I see it.

lsayre wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:24 am Since the letters of Paul do not bear the nominal characteristics of other letters from circa their purported era, is it possible that they were fabrications hailing from a nominally (and perhaps even fringe) Christian sect's "School"? If so, then there never would have been a real Paul. I admit to merely speculating here, but this is how I see it.

I am certainly willing to consider such a thing - or something similar - but that is not what this thread is about. Rather, this thread assumes, perhaps naively, that Paul's authentic letters should be taken at face value in terms of revealing how Paul was surrounded by Christians who disagreed with him and whom he disagreed with.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:37 am I am certainly willing to consider such a thing - or something similar - but that is not what this thread is about. Rather, this thread assumes, perhaps naively, that Paul's authentic letters should be taken at face value in terms of revealing how Paul was surrounded by Christians who disagreed with him and whom he disagreed with.

I understand, but in the end it may merely prove to be a case of "Same, same, but different.". As in people disagreeing vs. schools of people disagreeing...

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:24 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:29 amPaul's Letters, Taken at Face Value, Reveal that He was not a Typical Early Christian!

Rather, he was constantly trying to assert, against other Christian believers and leaders, that his Christianity was the true Christianity. Why did it take me so long to realize this?

Thinking about this: I'm not sure that that is true. It'd be instructive to see where Paul agrees and disagrees with others in his letters.

First, Paul seems to see his views in alignment with other Christians (though the term isn't used, of course). In Galatians:

Gal 1.21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24 And they glorified God in me.

He also seems to concede some kind of authority to the pillars, if only reluctantly!:

Gal 2.2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2.9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Since from my perspective, James was the literal brother of Jesus (if you disagree, then fair enough, that's fine!) Paul is -- in the main -- within the body of the Christianity that emerged straight after the death of Jesus.

When it came to disagreements, some of it appears to be with regards to certain doctrines, around the resurrection body, for example:

1 Cor 15.12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But that doesn't represent a "different" Christianity, rather a disagreement over a point of doctrine.

Then there are other "false apostles" who do indeed seem to preach a different Christianity, though what that is Paul doesn't specify:

2 Cor 11.4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him ...
...
11.13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

"Deceitful workers" implies that they are using the same talking points, but giving their own spin on things.

But in the whole, Paul does seem to place himself in the mainstream of Christianity; sitting on the "gentile" wing, yes, but with the approval of the mainstream church.

Gak,

If we take out the christology, the writer was talking about the expected kingdom of God on earth. The writer was keen to include his righteous gentile friends among those who could participate in it.

1 Cor 15:

12a [...],
12b How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
13b - 14a [...],
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God
15b [...]
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
16b - 17a [...],
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep 18b [...]
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19b [...],
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.
20 [...].

The christological statements are clearly point by point commentary:

12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead
13b then Christ has not been raised;
14a if Christ has not been raised
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised.
17a If Christ has not been raised
18b in Christ
19b in Christ
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep

Then 2 Cor 11:

3a But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion
3b [...].
4a For if some one comes and preaches something other
4b [...]
4c than what we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different good news from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.
5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles.
6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
7 Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's good news without cost to you?
8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
9 And when I was with you and was in want, I did not burden any one, for my needs were supplied by the brethren who came from Macedonia. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
10a As the truth
10b [...]
10c is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
13 - 15 [...].

This easily can be reconciled with an author who changed his opinion about the terms upon which righteous gentiles could participate in the end time kingdom of God on earth. His "gospel" ("good news") was that gentiles could do so, without circumcision and law observance, which was his previous opinion, one that literature (Josephus primarily) indicates was the norm among most Judeans, especially in the homelands. Out in the Diaspora, the opinions were more varied, as can be be read in the inscriptions of Asia Minor and Syria.

The christology:
3b to Christ
4b (another) Jesus
10b of Christ
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds

There he (the author of the christology) goes again ... making it all about Jesus.

Let's just face it, Paul (or the original writer) was a normal Judean of the Diaspora who hoped to include his gentile friends in the final blessed age. He met with opposition, probably very similar to that which he expressed when he was first exposed to it, the opposite party believing that participation required circumcision and Mosaic law observance.

To me it looks as though the person who added the christological statements doesn't want the original writer to be talking only about an end of the age general resurrection, or even how righteous gentiles could participate in it on equal terms with natural born Judeans, he wants everything to revolve around Jesus Christ as a divine redeemer + everything you have heard about his atonement via and his vicarious death and miraculous resurrection.

This is the trap that traps almost everyone. We want to interpret this stuff within the framework of western Christian teaching, which emphasizes the christology as the key to everything (because the world revolves around it), even when we disagree with it!

I can add my 2 cents on the matter of Peter/Kephas, James & John of Galatians. Follow the critical text and you see that "Peter" is a variant and probably meant to replace Kephas. I concluded that these three "(Kephas, Jacob & John) were priests in the temple at Jerusalem able and willing to accept freewill offerings from the Gentiles who followed the original author's teaching that gentiles could be included if they had the same kind faith as Abraham, that God would fulfill his promise of a blessed age to his "children" (by interpreting their faith in the promise as making them spiritual children). That probably indicates these three were not representative of the mainstream. It's kind of a stretch in reasoning, but when does that surprise us when it comes to the way these ancient minds worked. Acts may well be correct that when Paul came to Jerusalem with just those kinds of gifts, and they were accepted by temple priests, this caused a great disturbance by those who did not agree with those terms.

Might someone please explain what defines a properly "traditional" early christian. Are we looking at this through the rear view mirror of history? Sort of like Adolf von Harnack, when he proclaimed (quoting from memory):

In the second century only one man understood Paul, yet he misunderstood him.

lsayre wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 9:36 am Might someone please explain what defines a properly "traditional" early christian. Are we looking at this through the rear view mirror of history? Sort of like Adolf von Harnack, when he proclaimed (quoting from memory):

In the second century only one man understood Paul, yet he misunderstood him.

I am deliberately ignoring terms such as traditional and orthodox in this discussion, because such words imply value judgements. Instead, I asked about the typical because what is typical need not be orthodox.

Well, how about this. Look at the pastorals 1/2 TIm and Titus. Scholars pretty much admit they are later and not by Paul
They had every chance to make Paul adhere to a more consistent doctrine that aligned with orthodox sentiment (eg quoting the prophets and trying to tread gently around the law like Acts does, tying it all back to the patriarchs). Nope. These 3 are harsh regarding the law and notably anti-Jewish, never quote the Hebrew scriptures. They are almost Marcionite by not mentioning which God is involved here. They could actually BE Marcionite if the parts speaking about marriage are seen to be glosses

It is hard to say if Paul was a typical Christian when his words or persona is invoked by opposing sects, even the gnostics appear to have a tradition he repented and went over to their side (as the mythic figure Sabaoth?). They sure do quote his words a lot, well some of them do

I think your question is a good one or it wouldn't have got to 8 pages but it might be unanswerable. From my perspective going off the 7 most accepted epistles he is connected to the real typical Christians (ie the original ones) but is one layer removed from them so strictly speaking isn't typical the moment the suspicion arises his gospel has some of his own ideas but it might turn out he is a lot closer to the typical ones than any other surviving authors (except the Odes which I maintain is from the typical Christians themselves)

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:01 am From my perspective going off the 7 most accepted epistles he is connected to the real typical Christians (ie the original ones) but is one layer removed from them so strictly speaking isn't typical the moment the suspicion arises his gospel has some of his own ideas but it might turn out he is a lot closer to the typical ones than any other surviving authors (except the Odes which I maintain is from the typical Christians themselves)

With all due respect, you seem to be conflating original and typical. What is original may not be typical in later times, especially with religion. Just consider Mormonism.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:26 am With all due respect, you seem to be conflating original and typical. What is original may not be typical in later times, especially with religion. Just consider Mormonism.

I'm not sure how to define typical exactly, would non-typical just mean something new? But then there's the problem when something new is not completely new but contains or is based on what came before or already exists in some form. But I understand how Paul could be considered not typical based on what's going on in his letters. Regarding what is original though, in Christianity's case and assuming the traditional timeline, the apostle was no more than 20 years out from the original movement. What's interesting about the Odes is they represent a Jewish form of messianic redemption that's apparently not Torah based and not so different to Paul but contains enough different elements to flag Paul as non-typical but similar from their perspective. But my entire concept is based on the Odes preceding Paul anyone who didn't think that would come up with completely different conclusions, either that Paul subverted a traditional type of Judaism or that Paul was in agreement with the founders enough to be considered typical

The typical Christian would have been nominally unlearned and illiterate. Without manipulative guidance (with an attached agenda), nothing within the NT was conceptually at their level. This NT stuff was a game played by elitist philosophical schools and their members.