2012-06-11

19. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 19

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Earl Doherty

*

The Pauline Epistles – Part Two

.

COVERED IN THIS POST:

  • “Words of the Lord”: from earth or heaven?
  • Why doesn’t Paul quote Jesus more extensively?
  • The epistles exclude an historical Jesus
  • Paul’s conversion chronology
    • Paul’s crash course on Jesus from Cephas and James
  • How much interpolation in Paul?
  • Surveying the counterarguments
  • Ehrman answering G. A. Wells
  • Why did Paul not use Jesus’ miracles to prove the imminence of the kingdom?

.

* * * * *

The Witness of Paul

(Did Jesus Exist? pp. 125-140)

.

The Teachings of Jesus in Paul

In this category, Bart Ehrman has precious little to work with. (He has actually referred to the two parts of Jesus’ Eucharistic pronouncement at The Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 as “two sayings,” an attempt at ‘padding’ I’ve never seen before!) Now his focus is on the two little “words of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14. Not only are these precious little, they are of paltry substance compared to the great ethical teachings of the Gospels, on which Paul and every other epistle writer has not a word to say.

The first is given by Ehrman as:

But to those who are married I give this charge—not I, but the Lord—a woman is not to be separated from her husband (but if she is separated, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and a man should not divorce his wife.

Ehrman refers to this as a paraphrase of

. . . a saying of Jesus [as in Mark 10:11-12] in urging believers to remain married; that this is a saying tradition going back to Jesus is shown by the fact that at this point Paul stresses that it is not he who is giving this instruction but that it was already given by the Lord himself. (DJE? p. 125)

Ehrman would do well on the staffs of New Testament publications like the NEB who regularly wear Gospel-colored glasses when doing their translations. His “it was already given by the Lord himself” nicely conveys a saying delivered by Jesus in the past, which Paul knows through oral tradition. But if those glasses are set aside, one gets a very different impression. And one that fits what the text actually says:

To the married, I enjoin—not I, but the Lord . . .

The words are saying that the Lord enjoins you now: ‘It is not I who enjoins you this way, but the Lord who enjoins you this way.’ In the present, not the past. How is the Lord doing this in the present? Through Paul as his spokesperson.

From earth or from heaven?

Ehrman makes only a cursory reference to a prominent thread in mainstream scholarship over the last several decades which sees Paul and other Christian apostles/prophets proclaiming words which they believe they have received directly from the Lord in heaven. Werner Kelber (The Oral and the Written Gospel, p.206) says:

These sayings could have come from Jesus, but they could just as well have been prophetically functioning sayings of the Risen Lord.

Rudolf Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p.127) refers to certain prophetic sayings in the Gospels:

The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church.

There was no distinction because no sayings of Jesus in the epistles are identified as sayings of an earthly Jesus, while the few coming from the mouths of prophets like Paul are consistently recognizable as “sayings of the risen Lord.” No one actually appeals to “past authority” in regard to Jesus’ sayings on earth, and even sayings supposedly “in the tradition” are regarded as contemporary words of an ever-present Christ.

That this scholarly opinion is justified here can be further seen from what Paul says following these “words of the Lord.” Immediately after, in verse 12, Paul gives a further ruling which “I say, not the Lord.” Again, the present tense: ‘I tell you, not the Lord tells you.’ Then in 7:25, Paul says:

Now concerning virgins [i.e., celibacy among men] I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

“I have no command of the Lord” conveys a category of things Paul is accustomed to having for himself, through personal reception. There is no suggestion of any such “words of the Lord” being part of a wider community knowledge or inheritance from tradition.

Ehrman goes on to quote the second of the 1 Corinthian directives from Jesus (9:14):

For thus the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the Gospel should get their living from the gospel.

He points to a similar saying in Matthew and Luke, the latter being (10:7) “The worker is worthy of his wages.” Here the language has more ambiguity, but since it is similar to that of 7:10, it is natural to allow the conclusion about the first to be applicable to the second. And a few chapters later, Paul discusses prophetic practice and concludes (14:37):

If anyone claims to be inspired or a prophet, let him recognize that what I write has the Lord’s authority.

This is the milieu of Paul’s pronouncements: a context of revelation, ecstatic utterance, inspiration from God and the Lord Jesus. Here the “authority” he has received from the latter is through his role as an inspired prophet. No statement is ever made in any epistle that Jesus was a teacher or prophet on earth. And since it is clearly the case that Paul says he received the “words of the Lord” in 11:23f through direct revelation from the Lord himself, the principle should be seen to apply in those two directives he gives from the Lord in 7:10 and 9:14.

Ehrman goes as far as to acknowledge that the other passage in the category of “words of the Lord,” 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 about what will happen to believers when the Lord comes—not returns—from heaven (the principal source of today’s lunatic evangelical belief in the Rapture) could very well be something Paul thought he received directly from Jesus in heaven. So he has opened the door to allowing all the “words of the Lord” to be of the same nature.

And yet Ehrman’s naivete is still in view in his summary remark:

When Paul claims that the Lord said something, and we have a record of Jesus saying almost exactly that, it is surely most reasonable to conclude that Paul is referring to something that he believed Jesus actually said.

But what more natural source for many of the sayings put into Jesus’ mouth in the Gospels than communications which early Christian prophets like Paul imagined they had received from the spiritual Christ in heaven? We certainly know that many sayings were indeed put into his mouth, from sources extending from the Hebrew bible and words formerly attributed to God (such as 1 Thessalonians 4:9: “We are taught by God to love one another”), to general moral maxims such as we find in documents like the epistle of James or the “Two Ways” collections in the Didache and the epistle of Barnabas (which the latter refers to as the oracles of God).

Instead of Paul quoting Jesus, we may well have Jesus quoting Paul.

.

Why doesn’t Paul quote Jesus more extensively?

Ehrman calls this “a thorny issue.” Helmut Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels, p.68) says:

It is surprising that there is no appeal [in 1 Timothy] to the authority of Jesus,

and he makes a similar observation in regard to Paul’s arguments over his Corinthians rivals.

Graham Stanton (Gospel Truth, p.130-1) admits:

Paul’s failure to refer more frequently and at greater length to the actions and teaching of Jesus is baffling. . . In a number of places in his writings Paul fails to refer to a saying of Jesus at the very point where he might well have clinched his argument by doing so.

How does Ehrman deal with this “baffling” state of affairs? He fails to distinguish between two questions:

  • Why didn’t Paul tell us more about the historical Jesus if he knew of him? And,
  • Why does Paul not mention the historical Jesus, his words and deeds, at points when such reference would be invited, indeed almost compelled, to support his discussions and debates?

In answer to the first question, Ehrman draws on the old tired excuse that the epistles are ‘occasional’ writings, and Paul’s purpose in them was not to tell the story of Jesus’ life; rather, he is dealing with problems that have arisen in his congregations. True, but the objection to this answer lies in the second question above. Those occasional writings do indeed deal with problems: ones to which Jesus’ words and deeds would have been directly pertinent, indeed a veritable solution.

And we should also keep in mind that such words and deeds need not have been authentic. We see from the Gospels that all sorts of words and actions were subsequently attributed to Jesus which critical scholars today do not regard as authentic. Thus, given those discussions and debates which were creating discord in various Christian communities, the natural tendency would have been to create sayings and deeds of Jesus which would resolve them—just as the evangelists attempted to do.

We see nothing of the sort: on the issue of circumcision and other requirements for gentiles, or even of preaching to them; on the cleanness of foods, on the continued relevance of the Law, and so on. We see no drawing on the example of Jesus’ life to resolve disputes. If Paul urges that people either marry or do not marry, why is no mention made of whether Jesus was married or not? On the issue of circumcision, should no one have brought up the fact that Jesus himself was circumcised? If all things to do with the “flesh” are evil, or at least wholly negative in Paul’s view, why was no qualification made for the case of Jesus’ human flesh and the example he provided? And so on.

Ehrman compares himself to Paul

Ehrman gives himself as an example of Paul’s silence. He has written, he says, many letters over the years dealing with religious issues and could probably collect seven of those and find not a single reference to Jesus’ words or deeds. Well, this selected “seven” indicates that in other letters he did refer to such things. We have no such ‘control’ group giving us knowledge of what Paul knew. And one can hardly pretend that the atmosphere surrounding the quoting of Jesus today, even in scholarly circles, is the same as it was on the missionary trail that Paul was travelling, with the life of the recent historical man he and many others were supposedly preaching alive and vivid.

A threadbare collection

As his second indicator that we need not worry about Paul’s relative silence on the life of Jesus, Ehrman simply enumerates the elements of Jesus’ life which he does tell us about. Of course, this is the same hoary list of reputed ‘life of Jesus’ mentions in Paul that mythicism has long neutralized: descendant of David, brother of James, the twelve, that he said those “words of the Lord,” that the Jews instigated to have him killed (the 1 Thessalonians interpolation), that he died by crucifixion.

Ehrman’s list, of course, does nothing to explain the bafflement over the mountain of remaining silences. It does nothing to explain a third question that should be added to the two listed earlier:

  • Why do Paul and other epistle writers not only not mention words and deeds of an historical Jesus, but on occasion even present a picture which amounts to an exclusion of an historical Jesus?

.

Excluding an historical Jesus

1. Why does 2 Corinthians 5:5 say: God has shaped us for life immortal, and as a guarantee of this he has sent the Spirit. How could Paul not have said that to give us life everlasting, God had sent Jesus?

2. Why does Romans 1:2 say that God had “pre-announced” [NEB] (proepēggeilato) Paul’s gospel about Jesus in scripture, and not that those prophets had foretold the life of Jesus himself?

3. Why is it Paul who has received from God “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-19), he whom God has qualified “to dispense the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:5)? Why is it the splendor of his own ministry that is offered as the parallel to Moses’ splendor in administering the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:7-11), with no mention of Jesus’ own life and ministry anywhere in sight?

4. Why throughout the epistles is it said that God’s secret for salvation, the mystery of Christ, lying unknown through the long ages of history, has now been revealed for the first time through Paul’s gospel, the source of which lies in scripture (as in Romans 16:25-27)?

5. Where can an historical Jesus be fitted into the statement in Titus 1:2-3, that It is eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, and now in his own good time he has openly declared himself in the proclamation which was entrusted to me by ordinance of God our Savior. God makes promises long ages ago . . . [then] . . . God now declares himself (for the first time) in the gospel he has entrusted to Paul. Is there something—or someone—missing here?

Similar patterns of exclusion are evident in Romans 3:21-26 and in 2 Timothy 1:9-10.

If all of these passages, and more, do not amount to an exclusion of an historical Jesus, I don’t know what does. If there is one picture the epistles get across, from Paul to Hebrews, it is that what has happened in the present time is the revelation through scripture of the Son and his redeeming actions—which every indication places in the spiritual world—to apostles like Paul. It is never the actions of Jesus himself. This picture is laid out in great detail in both The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Ehrman does nothing to address it.

.

Paul’s chronology

Ehrman revisits the question of where Paul got his “Jesus traditions” and points to a chronology of his conversion which is calculable from his letters. When scholars “crunch” the numbers, he says, they arrive at a date of around 32 or 33, “two or three years after the death of Jesus.” Three years after that, judging by Galatians 1, he visited Cephas and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days. Ehrman suggests that this is the ideal time to surmise when Paul learned the details about Jesus’ life from those who had been his followers.

Apart from the fact that Paul never says that he learned anything about Jesus from the pillars in Jerusalem, whether on this occasion or any other, such a view would contradict what he has said only a few verses earlier, in 1:11-12, that he got his gospel about Jesus from no man, but from revelation. In fact, as I pointed out in the last instalment, Paul seems to be defending that claim by presenting his visit to Cephas and James as something so short and involving only two people (and only after three years had passed) as a way of demonstrating that he couldn’t possibly have learned his gospel through that avenue, and thus he “is not lying!”

Moreover, had these men been the source of his knowledge about Jesus’ life and teachings, could he have dissed those pillars scarcely half a dozen sentences later as undeserving of their “high reputation” (/sarcasm), whose distinctiveness is not recognized by God? And when he goes on to condemn James for insisting that Jews take meals apart from gentiles, saying it was not compatible “with the truth of the gospel,” where is the appeal to what Jesus’ might have said or done in regard to this crucial issue?

Could Paul have learned anything about Jesus traditions when in Jerusalem if he did not learn of Jesus’ opinion and example concerning the issue of Jewish-gentile relations? (Paul very much shows an interest in the reconciling of the two in a mystical way through Jesus’ death, so learning of Jesus’ views on the matter during his life should have been near the top of his priorities.) Could any debate over “the truth of the gospel” be conducted without concern for Jesus traditions?

Ehrman calls it “as clear as day” that Jesus was known to have lived, with traditions about him arising shortly after his death. This, he says, is ‘witnessed’ by the traditions Paul learned from the pillars (which he never mentions and shows no actual sign of receiving) and corroborated by what is found in the Gospels, “whose oral sources almost certainly also go all the way back into the 30s to Roman Palestine” (a corroboration which Ehrman, as we have seen, has simply concocted). Ehrman calls this “a powerful confluence of evidence.”

.

Surveying the arguments and counter-arguments

Ehrman concludes his chapter on the Pauline epistles by focusing on G. A. Wells’ basic argument that the silence on so many things in Paul demonstrates he knew of no recent historical Jesus. The elements of that argument have been mentioned in my own discussions above. By looking at Ehrman’s counter to Wells’ points, such details will be evident without having to quote Wells himself.

After appealing yet again to the fact that no one in the wide range of scholars Ehrman knows, and knows of, thinks Paul was not aware of an historical Jesus (the old appeal to authority), Ehrman raises once more the specter of ‘interpolation fixation’ by mythicists.

I personally believe too much emphasis is placed on interpolation in some mythicist circles (which doesn’t make it necessarily wrong), but I am not one to rely on it save for less than a handful of passages where the evidence is clearly supportive, and even where occasionally mainstream scholars might agree. (Ehrman once again accuses us of having “a vested interest” in interpolation, which is a handy way of dismissing any need to even address the possibility in certain cases.)

.

Why no Gospel interpolations into Paul?

Ehrman does make a valid point in connection with this: if scribes did interpolate into Paul, why did they not insert more passages which clearly referred to the Gospel figure and events: the virgin birth, the miracles, more teachings, the trial, the Calvary scene? In my view, this point probably discourages the very idea of wholesale interpolation, especially by post-Gospel orthodoxy. But it does not affect my own very limited list:

  • 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is generally recognized by liberal scholarship for good reasons, so no problem there.
  • 1 Timothy’s reference to Pilate does constitute the possible insertion of a Gospel event, early in the second century.
  • And my preference for seeing Galatians 4:4’s “born of woman, born under the Law” as an interpolation would make sense as occurring at an early time when historicism and docetism were both in a nascent stage and in competition, before the Gospel story gained wide dissemination (as in Ignatius).
  • As for “brother of the Lord” (see next instalment), there is no need to claim interpolation here, but its genesis as a marginal gloss by a scribe intent on clarification would make sense and should not be ruled out.

But just as some Christian probably in the latter half of the 2nd century got his hands on the original Ignatian letters and filled them with blatant Gospel references, if the orthodox Church in the same period undertook to insert dozens of interpolations into Paul, as is sometimes claimed, it is highly unlikely that we would not see a good number of clearly Gospel-inspired additions and clarifications. The fact that no such additions were undertaken at that later time suggests that already the Pauline literature was established and respected (as well as misinterpreted), which would argue against the entire invention of it in the second century, a view I do not subscribe to.

.

Answering Wells

G. A. Wells is of the opinion that the teachings of Jesus, his miracles, the places of Jesus’ life and death, details of the trial and crucifixion (including its where and when), should have been very important to Paul. Ehrman tries to deal with these contentions in various ways. As we’ve seen, it is valid to ask why Paul would not appeal to Jesus’ teachings to settle issues and bolster his own arguments.

  • In Romans 8:26, he says that we do not know how to pray. Was he not aware that Jesus had taught his disciples the Lord’s Prayer?
  • When he praised those who did not marry, would it not have been useful to appeal to Jesus’ praise of those who renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom (Mt. 19:12), let alone to a biographical fact that Jesus had not himself married?
  • When Paul urged believers to “bless those who persecute you,” surely this was an important teaching by Jesus which Paul ought to have known and mentioned to strengthen his case.

Ehrman’s counter is to suggest that where Paul does not appeal to a pertinent saying of Jesus it may be because he didn’t know of it. Such an excuse might apply in some cases, particularly if there were instances of a clear appeal elsewhere to sayings of the earthly Jesus, but it is hardly acceptable as a blanket explanation for a total silence. And especially across the entire range of the epistolary literature, not just Paul.

Ehrman points out that Mark does not include either of the above sayings about the Lord’s Prayer or blessing one’s persecutors. But the difference is that we see no occasion in his Gospel for bringing them up, whereas this is not the case in Paul. Nor did Mark have the Q document from which Matthew and Luke derived these sayings.

One consideration here is that their presence in Q does not necessarily mean that they went back to a Jesus, which could be one reason why Paul did not know of such sayings. In fact, the Didache refers to the Prayer (8:2) as part of the gospel of the Lord, meaning God. (See Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, Appendix 8.)

.

Where are the miracles?

Wells’ objects that Paul should have mentioned Jesus’ miracles, since they were supposed to be justification for believing that the messianic age was imminent. Jesus’ miracles could have been used to support Paul’s own gospel message. Ehrman counters that Paul was writing to the already converted; they did not need reminding of such support.

But Ehrman overlooks a few things:

Paul in Romans 15:19 speaks of preaching his “gospel about Christ” to the gentiles “to bring them into his (Christ’s) allegiance.” To accomplish this, the subject of Christ’s own miracles would surely been far more persuasive than the “signs and wonders” Paul mentions that he had performed to win over those gentiles—and which were hardly on the scale of raising the dead or making the lame walk and the blind see.

Hebrews, in recounting the revelation experience at the genesis of the sect (2:1-4), refers to God’s “signs and miracles” in support of that revelation, not to any miracles of Jesus which supposedly accompanied his preaching, the latter being scholarship’s traditional interpretation of what is being recounted in 2:1-4.

The epistle of James (5:14-15) urges its readers to pray to God: “The prayers offered in faith will save the sick man, the Lord will raise him from his bed, and any sins he may have committed will be forgiven.” All things which Jesus is reputed to have done but which the author of James cannot bring himself even to allude to.

Even 2 Peter, in trying to convince that Christ will really appear at the Parousia, cannot appeal to Jesus’ miracles, let alone his resurrection, but only, as noted earlier, to a legendary vision of the Son given to Peter on a holy mountain.

Ehrman also overlooks 1 Corinthians 1:22. Paul scoffs at the “Jews (who) call for miracles,” without playing the trump card that Jesus gave them miracles in spades to prove God’s wisdom.

Ehrman is reduced to objecting that mythicists are presumptuous enough to think that we know what Paul ought to have said, that we can get inside his mind. Well, most of our objections are based on a reasonable evaluation of human nature, which we have no reason to think has changed that much in two millennia.

And from even lower in the barrel, he brings up the observation that there are very many things which Paul does not tell us on other subjects, such as his own background and experiences. But Paul is not preaching himself as a god incarnated to earth, dying for mankind and rising from his tomb, part of a new movement being carried across the empire with Paul as its object of worship. And no one would be expecting–or demanding–to hear about Paul’s biography, whereas that would hardly be the same about Jesus.

Besides, Paul in fact does tell us a lot more about his own character and experiences than ever he does about the man he is supposedly preaching.

.

. . . to be continued

.

30 Comments

  • Steve Byrne
    2012-06-11 04:39:13 UTC - 04:39 | Permalink

    Great Earl! Concisely laying out how to read ancient documents. My problem is the proof . Im agnostic onthe question but i have read extensively on the subject including you, Wells, Ehrman, Schwietzer, and Bultmann and Baeur, The question I have is there anything in your template to disregard Crossan? (The birth of christianity)? I know hes only the latest to find (jesus) in his own RCC millieau. But he seems to me to have the the most cogent understanding of 1st century Galilee Ive read. Please educate me if im wrong.

  • 2012-06-11 04:54:16 UTC - 04:54 | Permalink

    The best way to learn my views on Crossan’s case is to read my website review of his Birth of Christianity. It’s at:

    http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/crossbr.htm

    It’s a very detailed review.

  • Blood
    2012-06-11 05:21:33 UTC - 05:21 | Permalink

    There’s no reason to think that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation. If there is one thing consistent throughout the NT and related literature like Barnabas, it is the extreme anti-Jewish bias, the constant demonization and dehumanizing of “the Jews.” There was a very good reason for this: Christians needed a rationale for stealing the Jewish religion. Hand-waving away 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an old apologist’s trick. I hardly would expect to see it used by a mythicist.

    • 2012-06-11 05:33:42 UTC - 05:33 | Permalink

      The point is, it is not used only by mythicists. It is a generally accepted interpolation by a great number of mainstream scholars, as you would know if you read the last installment. So there certainly IS “reason to think” that the passage is an interpolation.

      And Christians did not need a rationale for stealing the Jewish religion until the 2nd century. It is simply not an issue in Paul. Nothing had yet been ‘stolen.’ The whole point about whether circumcision is still required is because the break from its Jewish roots has not yet been made and such Jewish requirements could still be advocated, even in some of Paul’s communities by certain elements. (Yet another argument for judging that the Pauline epistles do not belong in the second century. The genuine Paulines simply do not reflect 2nd century issues and atmosphere, and they certainly do not reflect Marcionite issues. Sorry to belabor this point, but seeing some genuine Pauline epistles is a central element to the layout of my case, and defending a first century provenance for them is entirely valid when backed up by cogent argument–which I do at every opportunity.)

      If it is a “trick” by mythicists, why do you (or Ehrman) not throw the same label at all the established scholars who also judge it to be an interpolation? A double-standard here?

      • Blood
        2012-06-12 11:11:11 UTC - 11:11 | Permalink

        “It is a generally accepted interpolation by a great number of mainstream scholars…”

        Yes, I was quite aware of that fact, which is why I referred to it as an old apologist trick, and I don’t exclude scholars from that label. The Historic Jesus (and a Historic Paul who believed in a Historic Jesus) are accepted by the same group. Arguments from authority mean nothing in field, as your work has successfully demonstrated numerous times.

        “Christians did not need a rationale for stealing the Jewish religion until the 2nd century.”

        The problem is, we cannot reliably date any of the documents, so this may be irrelevant. Robert M. Price dates all of the gospels to the second century.
        As you very well know, retrojection is a common literary construct of most religious texts that purport to be “historical.” The supposedly authentic Pauline epistles could be an example of this.

        “The whole point about whether circumcision is still required is because the break from its Jewish roots has not yet been made and such Jewish requirements could still be advocated, even in some of Paul’s communities by certain elements. (Yet another argument for judging that the Pauline epistles do not belong in the second century…”

        The circumcision argument is always used by scholars to put the letters in the 50s. And yet the existence of such controversies (and such communities) is merely assumed. George Lyons’ book “Pauline Autobiography: Towards a New Understanding” (1985) spends a good amount of time examining upon what grounds we should make those assumptions, using Galatians, when we have good reasons to believe such material is purely literary: “Hypotheses built upon hypotheses are hardly the basis for persuasive exegesis. It cannot be proved that Paul even had ‘opponents,’ properly so-called, in Galatia. Furthermore, it is impossible to say, presuming their existence, whether or not they had made accusations against him…Paul’s use of antithetical constructions…are generally assumed without investigation to assert what his opponents denied and/or to deny what they asserted…Abraham Malherbe has shown that negative and antithetic self-characterizing formulations were employed by Cynic philosophers to distinguish themselves from charlatans even though no personal attack had been made against them…he concludes that in neither the autobiographical descriptions by Cynic philosophers nor by Paul does the use of ‘negative and antithetic terms’ oblige one to suppose that the description is a ‘personal apology’ or responds to specific charges.” (pp. 104-106)

        “The genuine Paulines simply do not reflect 2nd century issues and atmosphere…”

        And yet vilification of Jews is present in them, as Romans 1 and other examples makes very clear. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is completely consistent with the polemics of Romans 1, which refers to the “wrath of God” coming down against certain “people” who once knew God but forgot him. The context makes it plain he means Jews.

        “…seeing some genuine Pauline epistles is a central element to the layout of my case, and defending a first century provenance for them is entirely valid when backed up by cogent argument…”

        Agreed, and you make an excellent case most of the time. But you lower yourself to apologist’s levels when you hand-wave away as “interpolation” a passage that is inconvenient to your case.

        • 2012-06-12 13:38:05 UTC - 13:38 | Permalink

          Don’t be silly. Did Paula Fredriksen lower herself to an apologist’s level by advocating interpolation for 1 Thess. 2:14-16? Did Burton Mack, about as secular a NT scholar as you can find? Helmut Koester, one of the most respected scholars of the 20th century? S. G. F. Brandon, another respected scholar of an older generation?

          As for Romans 1, wherever do you get the idea that Paul is talking about Jews in verses like 18 to 32? Beside that kind of vilification the sentiments in 1 Thess. are downright friendly. Again, don’t be silly.

        • 2012-06-12 17:04:45 UTC - 17:04 | Permalink

          The history and even “culture of interpolations” in ancient texts generally, not only the Christian ones, reminds us that we should probably assume out texts have been interpolated — this should be the default position. I have argued for more interpolations than Earl is prepared to concede, but I do understand why he is so conservative on this point.

          As the links you were referred to earlier will show, the question of the Thessalonian passage is not simply an appeal to authority. As for Romans 1, that chapter is clearly addressing “mankind” — and singling out the sins of the pagans primarily. Romans is about the equality of Jews and gentiles before the Law. In chapter 11 he is holding out hope for the Jews in the future — the very opposite thought found in Thess.

        • Roger Parvus
          2012-06-15 00:59:30 UTC - 00:59 | Permalink

          Romans 1 is not a good passage to look to for support. There are scholars—and historicist ones at that!—who consider Romans 1:18 through 2:29 to be an interpolation. J. C. O’Neill and Alfred Loisy see it as an innocent interpolation, added by an interpolator who was just looking to improve the passage. I myself am not inclined to be so lenient. I think it was part of the set of interpolations made by the proto-orthodox to correct the Simonian doctrine of the original missives. “Paul”/Simon’s teaching that faith is the means of redemption from the angels who made this visible world receives the necessary proto-orthodox corrective that the world is good and the work of the one and only God, the God of the Jews: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20). And instead of freedom from the bondage imposed by the world-making angels there is substituted freedom from sins: “They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice… those who do such things deserve to die” (Rom. 1:29-32). And to Simonian faith as the means of redemption is added proto-orthodox works: “It is not hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13).

    • gmalcolms
      2012-06-11 10:11:46 UTC - 10:11 | Permalink

      There is plenty reason to think that that this is an interpolation, which is why that has been argued by mainstream NT scholars for decades.

      Paul was dead long before the destruction of the temple in the year 70, and no other plausible event has been suggested (unless you want to consider the Bar Kochba revolt) that could have been in sight in 2:16. Moreover, the rabid antisemitism exhibited here is not characteristic of Paul’s letters but is of later Christian writings.

      • mP
        2012-06-11 12:06:46 UTC - 12:06 | Permalink

        Im not disputing that interpolations and edits have been made to some original writings, but i would like to know why are there so few. It seems so many key xian points of view are formed on what amounts to just a single line or maybe 2 of text. The entire basis of Rome having authority comes from the text where Jesus gives the keys and that is. Why couldnt they edit or use more text that makes it much clearer with less symbology ? John 1:1 is pretty much the entire foundation and authority for the trinity. Im not going to comment either way but it seems if i was to edit the bible to impress that a trinity is religious fact, i would do a better job than that lone scripture. Back with Paul, there are numerous pseudo references that xians quote and assert that Paul is talking about Jesus in some way, but once they are read, they are ambiguous and unimpressive. WHy couldnt they have Paul say something about Nazareth or the 12, his preaching or miracles ?

        • gmalcolms
          2012-06-11 21:21:46 UTC - 21:21 | Permalink

          Because no one was interpolating into these letters with the intention of combating mythicism, and having him say something about Nazareth would not serve any useful purpose against heretics.

          Matthew may have been edited to add the trinity as well.

      • Blood
        2012-06-12 11:28:18 UTC - 11:28 | Permalink

        “Paul was dead long before the destruction of the temple in the year 70, and no other plausible event has been suggested (unless you want to consider the Bar Kochba revolt) that could have been in sight in 2:16. Moreover, the rabid antisemitism exhibited here is not characteristic of Paul’s letters but is of later Christian writings.”

        It is clear from the context that, contra much apologetic hand-waving, Romans 1:28-32 is a vicious diatribe against the Jews, not Pagans, as modern apologists try to convince themselves and their readers.

        Romans 1:28-32 “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

        This diatribe cannot refer to Pagans, who never knew “God’s righteous decree.”

        We have no idea when Paul died, only “church tradition.” 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 could have been written by a historical Paul after 70, but need not refer to any historical event, and “God’s wrath” could merely refer to Paul’s warped ideas about the coming “judgement” of Christ.

        • malcolm
          2012-06-12 20:07:50 UTC - 20:07 | Permalink

          Read the whole context of Romans 1:
          “18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

          21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

          24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

          26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

          28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

          You’re the first person I’ve ever heard claim that Paul is only talking about Jews here. Note that Paul starts out by talking about how God is revealed in nature so that all the world should know him. By appealing to natural philosophy rather than Jewish scriptures he is casting his net wide enough to indict gentiles as well as Jews.

          Note also that just before this Paul states:
          “16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”
          Does it sound like Paul is giving up on the Jews? He says that his gospel brings salvation to Jews, too, in fact, even before gentiles.

          Moreover, Paul was not speaking to Jews in Romans. (For example, in verse 13: “I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.”) So for this long diatribe about how men have gone stray and alienated themselves from God, did you think Paul was intending to mean that it didn’t apply to the people to whom he was addressing?!

          Of course not; all you have to do is read Romans 2: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

          5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath , when his righteous judgment will be revealed….”

          The fact that the title for that section of Romans 1 is “God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity” and not “God’s Wrath Against Sinful Jews” should have clued you in to its meaning.

          • ROO BOOKAROO
            2012-06-12 20:49:24 UTC - 20:49 | Permalink

            And the verse 23 ” and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” must have been impossible to apply to Jewish worship of the 1st century.
            And verse 27 “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” clearly aims at well-known Greek practices rather than typically Jewish ones, no?

        • malcolm
          2012-06-12 20:14:32 UTC - 20:14 | Permalink

          Incidentally, 1 Thess has generally been considered to be the earliest of Paul’s letters. Do you regard it as post 70 CE but prior to the gospels? How do your dates for various epistles and gospels align then? Do you think Christians could’ve been active freely in Jerusalem after the war, with Paul freely traveling back and forth to there? Why doesn’t he mention this recent cataclysmic event in any of his letters, or even the rest of 1 Thess, other than in this one verse?

  • 2012-06-11 12:08:36 UTC - 12:08 | Permalink

    Basic question that I don’t know: are Cephas and James mentioned by Paul historical? any links to background on this?

    • 2012-06-11 14:04:27 UTC - 14:04 | Permalink

      If we assume some authenticity for Paul and some letters, then there is no reason to doubt the historicity of the people mentioned in them. This doesn’t mean that Peter and James are synonymous with the figures of that name in the Gospels and Acts. I have no doubt that Mark was building on legendary figures of those names in the early movement, from a period before his own time. How much he really knew about them is anyone’s guess. I doubt that his portrayal of the disciples in his Gospel is based on anything but his own imagination, and the needs they served in his story.

      • mP
        2012-06-11 14:37:32 UTC - 14:37 | Permalink

        It is interesting that Cephas and Peter are constellations or stars in Aries. We can find many astrological thesmes and following the signs provides a good outline for the chapters and stories present in Mark including the numbers and order of the narratives presented. I have never heard a reasonable explaination why the characters in the NT have so many different names. WHy is Peter also called Cephas and sometimes Simon. Why do the other apostles have so many alternate names ? How many people in anytime really have multiple names, surely a common nobody would have one name and thats it. If we realise the meaning of the names and their astrological connection it starts to make more sense.

        • gmalcolms
          2012-06-11 21:23:14 UTC - 21:23 | Permalink

          How far back do those star names go?

          • mP
            2012-06-11 22:07:14 UTC - 22:07 | Permalink

            The 12 signs and the star names that im referring to may be found in tradition way back before the times of “Jesus”.

            • malcolm
              2012-06-11 22:56:26 UTC - 22:56 | Permalink

              What is your source for this information?

        • malcolm
          2012-06-11 23:05:53 UTC - 23:05 | Permalink

          I can find no stars in Aries by those names. There is a constellation called Cepheus, named after the King of Aethiopia, but this has nothing to do with Cephas.

  • David Hillman
    2012-06-11 22:40:18 UTC - 22:40 | Permalink

    Michael Turtons excellent site on Mark shows the influences of Paul on this gospel, and pursuades me that Mark knew some of Paul’s epistles. This is where he gets his pillar disciples Peter, James and John. I do remember, and I think it was from looking at Saxo, Geoffrey de Monmouth and some early Jewish writings, that those who construct pseudohistorians can take or mistake ambiguous texts to have things both ways, and in this case mark would be happy to have a James son of Zebedee and also a James brother of Jesus based on the same pseudo-authority.

    • ROO BOOKAROO
      2012-06-12 03:22:49 UTC - 03:22 | Permalink

      Turton’s verse-by-verse commentary of the Mark Gospel is outstanding and exciting.
      Everybody should have it in his/her library
      http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

      One may make a big hoo-hah about how much more polished Matthew and Luke are, but Mark created the story, and it is a powerful story. Turton’s unbounded admiration — ” its writer was one of the great literary geniuses of history” — is entirely justified.
      The story, when approached with a fresh mind (if it is now at all possible) is breath-taking by its rough simplicity and inexorable progression. Better than most movie scripts.

      • Blood
        2012-06-12 11:54:40 UTC - 11:54 | Permalink

        It’s an interesting piece of Greco-Roman religious writing on Septugintal themes, but let’s not get carried away. “The Life of Apollonius of Tyana” is a compelling piece of literature, but Philostratus is not a great literary genius.

        • Blood
          2012-06-12 12:03:09 UTC - 12:03 | Permalink

          Or, as I heard Harold Bloom describe Mark: “He’s kind of like Edgar Allen Poe. He’s not a very good writer, but he has an incredible imagination.”

      • mP
        2012-06-12 12:27:16 UTC - 12:27 | Permalink

        But lets be fair there are lots of similarities in both the Paul and Apollonius story, why did one become a smash hit and the other fade into obscurity ? They are both great tales and would both make a great historical movie, they have travel, violence, action, miracles and more.

  • Pingback: Vridar » A Simonian Origin for Christianity, Part 7: The Source of Simon/Paul’s Gospel

  • Pingback: False Gods, Divine Charlatans and Pagan Rapscallions | The Aeon Eye

  • Pingback: False Gods, Divine Charlatans and Pagan Rapscallions | The Aeon Eye

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *