A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Ulan »

outhouse wrote:
Ulan wrote: Got a pointer for Philo parallels (Det.):
Not really apples to apples.
It's the same scene, the rock traveling with Moses and the Israelites, and the authors write roughly at the same time (Philo somewhat earlier), around 50 CE. Which means it's even the same apple. Paul calls the rock Christ, Philo calls the rock the Logos. Or Sophia, depending on which quality of the rock we look.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Stephan Huller »

Marqe takes tsur (rock) as an Aramaic word to argue that that form or image of God was present
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Stephan Huller »

The same word appears in Gal 4:9 to be formed  CPA, Syr. AphDem18.351ܕܼܲܡܵܐ ܕܿܢܸܬܿܬܿܨܼܝܪ ܒܿܟܼܐ܃  until the Messiah is formed in you
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:As a matter of fact, how do we prove that Paul is a "Christian"? He does not use the word. .... the question becomes whether Paul was a pre-Christian author who had some ideas that fed into the birth of Christianity proper....
Apparently William Arnal has already published on this topic (but without the same exact angle, of course).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23555779
The Collection and Synthesis of "Tradition" and the Second-Century Invention of Christianity
The following paper argues that "Christianity" as a discursive entity did not exist until the second century CE. As a result, the first-century writings that constitute the field of inquiry for "Christian origins" are not usefully conceived as "Christian" at all. They were, rather, secondarily claimed as predecessors and traditions by second-century (and later) authors engaged in a process of "inventing tradition" to make sense of their own novel institutional and social circumstances. As an illustration, the paper looks at the ways that a series of second-century authors cumulatively created the figure of Paul as a first-century predecessor, and how this process has affected the way the first-century Pauline materials are read. At issue in all of this are our imaginative conceptions of social entities (including "religions") and what they are, and of how canons and notions of social continuity attendant on them are formed.
This process certainly has "affected the way the first-century Pauline materials are read."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Clive »

The final clause in this sequence, "He descended into hell," is the most controversial in the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, some denominations consider it optional or refuse to include it at all. The problem with this phrase begins with what it connotes. To some, the descent into hell represents the physical agony of death upon the Cross. It was hellish in its pain. To others, the word hell means Hades or Sheol, the collective abode of the dead, divided into Paradise or Abraham's Bosom--the state of God-fearing souls--and Gehenna, the state of ungodly souls. Thus the descent into hell may suggest that the Son of God carried the sins of the world to hell; or the Son of God carried Good News of deliverance to the godly dead such as Lazarus the beggar and the repentant thief. A third-century Syrian Creed speaks of Jesus, "who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and departed in peace, in order to preach to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the saints concerning the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead."

Still others believe that the descent into hell account for the problem of God's justice by providing an opportunity for all mankind--in eternity as well as in time--to hear the message of redemption from the Word Himself. But whatever interpretation one accepts, the scriptural passages upon which this teaching is based must be studied closely. Some of the standard texts are Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6.
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/descendit.htm
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Ulan »

Stephan Huller wrote:Marqe takes tsur (rock) as an Aramaic word to argue that that form or image of God was present
Stephan Huller wrote:The same word appears in Gal 4:9 to be formed  CPA, Syr. AphDem18.351ܕܼܲܡܵܐ ܕܿܢܸܬܿܬܿܨܼܝܪ ܒܿܟܼܐ܃  until the Messiah is formed in you
Thanks, Stephan. This also pretty much lines up with the explanation Philo himself gives. I know that I know much too little about how Jewish scholars like Philo interpreted the Tanakh.

I'm more or less just interested, in the context of this thread, how the human mind tends to process information. Peter brought this Moses+Christ quote up to make a certain statement. The answer was - underwhelming. This may be in part because the readers already thought about the implications of Paul's statement, or it's an old hat for you and you know your Philo. On the other hand, with some readers, it may just be the result of subconscious information processing, which usually helps us to get things done, but may sometimes get into the way of discovering stuff outside of our thought patterns. The automatic reaction will be something like "Christ + Moses = wrong timeframe, so not history but obvious allegory". This automatic processing is quite efficient, and nobody here will doubt the outcome.

However, nothing in Paul's statement distinguishes it from statements about Christ at other times. So we have to be careful with thoughts like "Christ + crucifixion = right timeframe, so probably historical". What does "right timeframe" mean? Did Paul specify the time of the crucifixion, yes or no? Do we just retroject baggage from the gospels?

This may be a very basic observation, and it is just a repetition of why this example was brought up in the first place, but from the reaction, I have the feeling that the conscious realization and our subconscious treatment of this observation don't necessarily match.
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Clive »

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by robert j »

Clive wrote:
The final clause in this sequence, "He descended into hell," is the most controversial in the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, some denominations consider it optional or refuse to include it at all. The problem with this phrase begins with what it connotes. To some, the descent into hell represents the physical agony of death upon the Cross. It was hellish in its pain. To others, the word hell means Hades or Sheol, the collective abode of the dead, divided into Paradise or Abraham's Bosom--the state of God-fearing souls--and Gehenna, the state of ungodly souls. Thus the descent into hell may suggest that the Son of God carried the sins of the world to hell; or the Son of God carried Good News of deliverance to the godly dead such as Lazarus the beggar and the repentant thief. A third-century Syrian Creed speaks of Jesus, "who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and departed in peace, in order to preach to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the saints concerning the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead."

Still others believe that the descent into hell account for the problem of God's justice by providing an opportunity for all mankind--in eternity as well as in time--to hear the message of redemption from the Word Himself. But whatever interpretation one accepts, the scriptural passages upon which this teaching is based must be studied closely. Some of the standard texts are Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6.
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/descendit.htm
[This, in terms of Jesus Christ ---]
Paul got the ball rolling, writing about what he found in the LXX ---
“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord … the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout … and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thess 4:15-16)
And Paul’s trusty source of many of his revelations, the LXX, went something like this ---
“… a son of man was coming upon the clouds of heaven …” (Daniel 7:13)

“And many of those who sleep in the flat of the earth will arise, some to everlasting life but others to shame and others to dispersion [and contempt] everlasting.” (Daniel 12:2)


“I kept seeing the Lord always before me, because he is at my right, that I might not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover, my flesh will encamp in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to Sheol or give your devout to see corruption. You made known to me ways of life …” (Psalms 16:8-11 [chapt. 15 in some])


"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me. He has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind … “ (Isaiah 61:1).
Last edited by robert j on Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Bernard Muller »

Peter Kirby wrote:
As a matter of fact, how do we prove that Paul is a "Christian"? He does not use the word. .... the question becomes whether Paul was a pre-Christian author who had some ideas that fed into the birth of Christianity proper....
Considering the following:
The Greek word for "Christian" is 'xristianos'. It seems to be derived from 'xristos' ("Christ") the same way 'kaisarianos' (meaning supporter of Caesar in Greek) was from 'kaisaros' ("Caesar"). Both derivations are fairly irregular.
The word 'kaisarianos' appears at least three times in ancient Greek literature: Epictetus (55-135), Discourses, III, XXIV & I, XIX and
Appian (95-165, from Alexandria), The Civil Wars, III, XIII, 91 "... They hoped also to change those of the opposite faction as soon as it became a contest for liberty. When they sought for the mother and sister of Octavius, and did not discover them either in any open or secret abode, they were again alarmed at finding themselves deprived of such important hostages, and as the Cæsarians showed no disposition to yield to them they concluded that these women had been carefully concealed by them." (the events related here happened right after Julius Caesar's murder in 44B.C.E.)

I think "Christian(s)", which according to Acts was a name given by outsiders to (mostly) Jewish Christians in Antioch (probably to infer those were switching their allegiance from Caesar to Christ as their king), was avoided by Paul because of its suggestion of opposition to the imperial rule.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Non-HJ Interpretation of Paul's Letters

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:Peter Kirby wrote:
As a matter of fact, how do we prove that Paul is a "Christian"? He does not use the word. .... the question becomes whether Paul was a pre-Christian author who had some ideas that fed into the birth of Christianity proper....
Considering the following:
The Greek word for "Christian" is 'xristianos'. It seems to be derived from 'xristos' ("Christ") the same way 'kaisarianos' (meaning supporter of Caesar in Greek) was from 'kaisaros' ("Caesar"). Both derivations are fairly irregular.
The word 'kaisarianos' appears at least three times in ancient Greek literature: Epictetus (55-135), Discourses, III, XXIV & I, XIX and
Appian (95-165, from Alexandria), The Civil Wars, III, XIII, 91 "... They hoped also to change those of the opposite faction as soon as it became a contest for liberty. When they sought for the mother and sister of Octavius, and did not discover them either in any open or secret abode, they were again alarmed at finding themselves deprived of such important hostages, and as the Cæsarians showed no disposition to yield to them they concluded that these women had been carefully concealed by them." (the events related here happened right after Julius Caesar's murder in 44B.C.E.)

I think "Christian(s)", which according to Acts was a name given by outsiders to (mostly) Jewish Christians in Antioch (probably to infer those were switching their allegiance from Caesar to Christ as their king), was avoided by Paul because of its suggestion of opposition to the imperial rule.

Cordially, Bernard
Thanks for this, Bernard.

To add to this, I do regard the indications in Tacitus and Suetonius as indications that the name "Christian" was in existence by the time of the reign of Nero (towards the end of it). However, we can't just use that to assume that the term was in use in the reign of Claudius (or earlier in the reign of Nero), when most of Paul's letters are traditionally assigned.

I actually think that this is one of several arguments that can be made for the earliness of some of the letters of Paul, based on indications of the absence of features that came to characterize the movement.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply