Paul, Please Take the Stand --- Jim and John and a Guy Named Rock

[robert j]

Judge: Paul, you stand accused of attempting to solicit donations from your Corinthian followers for non-existent “saints” in Jerusalem, purported beneficiaries that you invented. How do you plead?

Paul: Not guilty.

Judge: I would like to warn both sides that whatever god or gods in which one might believe, the personal faith of anyone is not at issue here. Our only interest is to determine if the defendant willfully attempted to defraud others.

The Defense would likely portray Paul as a true believer, but a late-comer to the movement. Often hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, mistreated and homeless, toiling with his own hands night and day with the sole purpose of providing Gentiles with access to the ancient God of Israel, and with providing them the opportunity for eternal life and salvation from the coming wrath. And that Paul only sought to help provide for the needs of the poor “saints” in Jerusalem, and thereby show thanksgiving to God.

The Prosecution might present the following arguments ---

Paul’s letters provide several examples of how he trotted-out stories of those he claimed to be predecessors in the faith to bolster his arguments when it served his needs --- typically providing very significant support for his work.

But Paul tried to have his cake and eat it too by downplaying the authority of the Jerusalem Pillars at times, and he even used them as straw-men to throw under the bus when it suited his arguments.

Paul’s letters demonstrate that his entrepreneurial efforts were aimed directly at Gentile audiences --- many of whom probably already had interest and affinities for the great and ancient God of Israel. Critical scholars often acknowledge such interest and affinities as common among many Greco-Roman Gentiles of the times.

But for Paul’s Gentile converts around the fringe of the Aegean Sea, just how likely would it be for some of his converts to travel to far-away Jerusalem to try and verify Paul’s story, to attempt to find the 3 leaders that Paul claimed to be his predecessors in the faith?

I suspect just about anyone in Jerusalem, had they been asked, would know or know of, many, many James and Johns. Those were among the most common as Semitic names at the time. And few, if any, would likely have known anyone named Cephas/Kephas --- one of the rarest Semitic names at the time with only one earlier extant possible example dated to 416 BCE.

Had such a triumvirate actually existed, any attempt to track-down such persons would have been very difficult. And if such a triumvirate didn’t exist, trying to find them would have been frustrating and inconclusive. I think for Paul to have contrived these figures would have been a pretty safe gamble, and any risk would have been far out-weighted by the significant benefit his stories about those figures provided to him.

Seemingly out-of-the blue and for no clear narrative purpose, Paul tossed-in a disclaimer to the Galatians that Judean assemblies of God wouldn’t recognize him (Galatians 1:22-23). The very assemblies that Paul claimed to have previously harassed to an extreme degree and had tried to destroy their faith.

Also, seemingly out-of-the blue, why did Paul find it necessary to tell the Galatians that his meeting with the 3 Pillars was in private (Galatians 2:2)? It doesn’t seem to add anything to the narrative, but clearly limits the named witnesses of the meeting to the 3 Pillars and Paul’s own two partners. And there is no evidence that the Galatians, or any of Paul’s congregations, had ever met the elusive Barnabus.

Paul’s story of his early harassment of the Judean assemblies provided him the means to explain how a devout Judean such as himself could come to believe that one could be a full participant with God’s chosen people of Israel without the benefit of circumcision --- contrary to unmistakably clear and very explicit words of God in the Scriptures. Paul’s story in chapter 1 of Galatians can be summarized like this --- ‘hey, I thought it was a crazy idea too until God himself revealed to me the way, and chose me to spread the good news’.

The stories of Judean assemblies and of the leadership of a Jerusalem-based triumvirate provided Paul the very valuable ability to claim his faith system was part of a wider spiritual movement taking place in the Judean homelands --- the perception of tradition.

Paul’s story of his meeting with the Pillars provided very significant support for his problem with the Galatians. Paul’s points are very useful to his overall argument --- ‘they added nothing to my teaching, they didn’t require the Greek Titus to be circumcised, and they granted to me the authority among the Gentiles’ (Galatians, chapter 2). And in verses 2:11-14, Paul made the point that the Jerusalem leaders were not even on the same page when it came to table rituals.

Paul used the formulaic reminder of his backstory and of his predecessors --- in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 --- to support his version of resurrection for believers, apparently in the face of doubts expressed within the Corinthian congregation (1 Corinthians 15:12). viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674

In 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul used his claim of predecessors to introduce and support his explicit and extended arguments that the Corinthians should pay him directly for his efforts, despite his lame disclaimer (1 Corinthians 9:15). Why would it be so noble to work for the Corinthians without compensation, only to be supported by the Philippians? (2 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Of course, these observation don’t prove anything other than Paul could be slippery, and was obsessed with his own authority and with monetary compensation.

But where is the independent evidence for these predecessors?

There is none.

The fallback excuse of lost texts or otherwise lost traditions is an exceedingly weak argument. One can propose just about anything that is physically possible based on “lost evidence”. Even the term “lost evidence” assumes that something did exist, but was lost. I prefer to refer to these sort of solutions as texts and/or traditions that don’t exist beyond suppositions.

By way of contrast, many elements and events in Paul’s letters have independent witnesses of sorts. When Paul wrote in his letters about getting sick among the Galatians, and about the Corinthian involved with his father’s woman --- and all the other events and situations of which the audience of the letters would have knowledge --- the recipients of the letters serve as independent witnesses of sorts. But I think one must draw a bright red line between those sorts of situations, and separate-out Paul’s tales of predecessors in the faith for which the audience of the letters had no apparent knowledge other than Paul’s own conveniently useful claims and backstories.

Interpreting certain passages in Paul’s letters to identify other Christian workers in Paul’s time is highly questionable. There is no evidence in the letter Galatians that the opponents were Jewish Christians. I think Paul’s opponents as local Jewish friends and neighbors of his converts is by far the most likely solution --- local Jews that weren’t overly concerned about Paul’s spiritual logos, a son of the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings. But those Jews strenuously objected to Gentiles gaining full access with the God of Israel without the benefit of circumcision --- and rightly so.

The so-called ‘super apostles’ in the Corinthian correspondence were most likely professional Jewish missionaries working the Diaspora circuit. These apparently impressive speakers probably incorporated a few brief mentions of the anointed savior (Christ Jesus) --- a figure likely mentioned to them by their Corinthians hosts --- into their presentation about the mysteries of Moses. Paul’s information about those competitors was third hand --- from the Corinthians to Titus to Paul. Statements in 2 Corinthians often used to identify those Jewish competitors as Christian are rife with conditionals, assumptions by Paul, and ‘hopeful’ translations. Paul even stated directly that the competitors were only “disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13), and rightly so. I think Paul knew darn well there were no other apostles of Christ other than himself and his junior partners.

And the idea of Christian congregations in Rome in Paul’s day hangs entirely on chapters 1 and 15 of the letter Romans. Both chapters show signs of tampering based on MSS evidence and early attestations. In one ancient manuscript ("G"), both the two mentions of Rome and verse 1:3 about Jesus Christ being Davidic are missing in chapter one. And chapters 1 and 15 are the only place in Paul’s letters in which anything is found about writing to or visiting Rome and the only place where Paul’s Jesus Christ is identified as Davidic. Gamble has presented evidence of an early and geographically widespread 14-chapter version of Romans, eventually arguing that he thinks the letter was edited-down to that form. But the evidence can be used just as effectively to argue for the shorter version as more original. I think portions of chapter 1 and all or part of chapter 15 were polluted by early catholic additions to the letter. And relevant to this discussion, chapter 15 of Romans contains the only clear mention in any early Christian text about Paul having completed his collection for the “saints” with plans to deliver the collection.

Mark is not an independent witness to James, John and Peter. I find arguments that GMark was not dependent on Paul, and represents an independent witness, as apologetic and dismissive of the relationships between the texts.

With no independent witnesses to support his claims, is it reasonable to accept Paul’s all-too-convenient stories that his entrepreneurial efforts among the Gentiles were part of a wider spiritual movement taking place in the distant Judean homelands? Is it reasonable to accept that Paul’s extended efforts to garner collections from the Corinthians to support the far-away “saints” in Jerusalem were anything other than a ploy to get some money from the wealthy but reluctant Corinthians who were not paying Paul directly for his work?

To each his own, but I don’t buy Paul’s stories about predecessors in the faith in the distant Jewish homelands. Based on my studies, Paul constructed his system by means of creative and generative use of the Jewish scriptures to develop an attractive short-cut for Gentiles to fully participate with the great and ancient God of Israel. Paul's work in support of his independent entrepreneurial ventures is the most likely well-spring from which subsequent Christian traditions and legends evolved.

robert j

[davidmartin]

ok i'll play along with this

In Acts the memory of Paul defends himself from these charges

Therefore I testify to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all men, for I didn't shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. .. I coveted no one's silver, or gold, or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me

So some folk believed he'd accumulated stuff and failed to pass it on quick enough or at all?
The reference to blood is another rumor about his persecutions although here, like in the Shepherd of Hermas, this is post-conversion persecution where he prophecies his opponents will get wrath, and they do. This is later massaged into a pre-conversion context only?

All this unsavory stuff possibly makes Jesus seem rather more appealing. What a strange old world we live in if there's any currency to these rumors!

[robert j]

Paul's Construct ---- An analysis of 1 Corinthians 3:9-11

From the concluding paragraph of the OP ---

... Paul constructed his system by means of creative and generative use of the Jewish scriptures to develop an attractive short-cut for Gentiles to fully participate with the great and ancient God of Israel. Paul's work in support of his independent entrepreneurial ventures is the most likely well-spring from which subsequent Christian traditions and legends evolved.

As in the body of the OP in this thread, I have occasionally written about Paul’s perfidy. But Paul was also prone to hubris, and when he bragged about his own work I think significant insights can be gained by “listening” closely to his choice of words. Sometimes he just couldn’t help but toot his own horn --- to crow about his construct.

Drawing on Isaiah 28:16, Paul described his system as a construct and himself as the skilled chief-craftsman. He described his work in terms of a construction, “I laid the foundation … which is Jesus Christ” ---

According to the grace of God having been given to me, as a skilled chief-craftsman (σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων ***) I have laid the foundation, but another is building upon it … no one is able to lay another foundation, besides the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:10-11)

*** σοφὸς (sophos, skilled, cunning, clever, wise, learned, ingenious);
*** ἀρχιτέκτων (archi-tektón, chief-craftsman, often translated here as master-builder)

In a wider context, consistently employing scriptural constructs Paul presented the death and other events of his Jesus Christ in his letters as having occurred according to the scriptures. In Paul’s letters, the death of his Jesus Christ is not foretold in the scriptures.

On the other hand, Paul presented his own evangelizing work --- his gathering together of assemblies of God --- as having been foretold in the scriptures. Notice Paul’s clever use of the term προευηγγελίσατο (foretold the gospel) --- to Abraham no less. The term nicely describes a scriptural foretelling of his gospel, his announcement of good news (τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν) --

And the Scripture, having foreseen that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, foretold the gospel (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham: "All the nations will be blessed in you." (Galatians 3:8)

And Paul claimed that his work bringing the blessing upon the “nations” was an assignment given to him by God, again with heavy reliance on the scriptures ---

… the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might proclaim Him among the Gentiles ... (Galatians 1:15-16; Paul constructed this from Jeremiah 1:1-10 and Isaiah 49:5-6)

… that God … placed in us the word of reconciliation … Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God is making an appeal through us … (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, and 3 verses later, in 2 Corinthians 6:2, Paul gets back to Isaiah 49, citing 49:8.)

Paul claimed that it was by grace that God revealed to him Jesus Christ. But Paul clarified how that actually worked in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11 --- Paul constructed his foundation of Jesus Christ ---

… the grace of God having been given to me, as a skilled chief-craftsman I have laid the foundation … which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-11)

Paul crafted his system, he laid his foundation of Jesus Christ from his creative and generative use of the Jewish scriptures. And then Paul gathered together his assemblies and characterized those as “buildings” on top of the foundation he crafted ---

For we are God's fellow workers, you are … God's building. (1 Corinthians 3:9)

I think all this reveals how Paul viewed and chose to characterize his faith system and his work. As something constructed. As something he himself constructed.

robert j