The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[Stephan Huller]

What I am trying to distinguish here is the idea that old red herring that the Church Fathers use against the heretics when they say that the Demiurge was stupid - namely that the world is an amazingly great creation, better than anything they (the self-described superior elite) ever accomplished, so how could they say this great god was stupid. The text of Genesis says that Elohim - not Yahweh - created the world. The heretics explained this by saying that Elohim (= Jesus) was acting within Yahweh but once Elohim left than the Demiurge Yahweh was stupid (= phaulos). My point about Yahweh ceasing to be a Demiurge is just to note that creation actually took place over six days. Yahweh still thought of himself as the Demiurge, he still judged the world and kept it spinning around but he was stupid (= phaulos).

Adam is Yahweh's man just as Jesus (= Ishu) is Elohim's man viz. Ishu = His (God's) man or man of God. The purpose of Christianity is to 'make the two become one.' This takes place by means of communion where Jesus 'goes into' the man made after the image of Yahweh and thus becomes one.

A man is called 'phaulos' because (a) Yahweh is stupid (b) Adam is stupid and (c) he himself is stupid. Jesus enlightens the stupid with the power of God.

[Ulan]

Okay, I guess I finally got it. Elohim acted in Yahweh as Christ acted in Paul, as the actual power behind the Demiurge.

[Stephan Huller]

I wonder whether the origin of the title is to be found in Paul's frequent relation to 'desmios' - ἐγὼ Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Was he originally self-describing himself as a 'foul' prisoner of the 'good' (chrestos) Jesus?

[Stephan Huller]

If we modify the meaning to its most common usage in the literature we find many other applicable substitutions:

lowly minister of good Jesus- ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος = φαῦλος διάκονος (Col 1:23 cf. 1 Cor 3:5)
lowly slave of good Jesus - Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ = φαῦλος δοῦλος (Rom 1:1, Tit 1:1)
lowly apostle of good Jesus - Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ = φαῦλος ἀπόστολος (2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Col 1:1, 1 Tim 1:1, 2 Tim 1:1, cf. 1 Cor 1:1)
lowly prisoner of good Jesus - Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ = φαῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ (Phil 1:1 cf. Eph 3:1)
lowly brother ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος = ἀδελφὸς φαῦλος

[Stephan Huller]

The reader can't forget that for the ancient world (= Aristotle) φαῦλος and χρηστός were exact opposites. So the use here is clever rhetoric on the apostle's part emphasizing that Jesus is everything good (= χρηστός) and he as a man after Adam was everything bad (= φαῦλος). This is emphasized even more by the Marcionite understanding that the apostle was the awaited 'Paraclete' of the gospel (cf. Origen Homilies on Luke). The same idea shows up in the Acts of Archelaus where the bishop Archelaus explains:

For he (Mani) has given out that he is that Paraclete whom Jesus on His departure promised to send to the race of man for the salvation of the souls of the faithful; and this profession he makes as if he were somewhat superior even to Paul, who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said: "Or seek yea proof of that Christ who speaks in me? " [AA 26]

and again:

Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter." In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of "another" Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, "Or seek ye a proof of Christ is speaking in me? " and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above. Thus, too, he seals his testament for us as for his faithful heirs, and like a father he addresses us in these words in his Epistle to the Corintians: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the eleven apostles: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the l[e]ast of the apostles." [AA 34]

[Stephan Huller]

Phaulos nomos in Adamantius's debate with the Marcionite Megetheus:

The literary text is a transcript of a purported hearing between a staunch defender of orthodoxy, Adamantius, and a series of debates with 'heretics' beginning with the Marcionite Megethius, in the presence of a supposedly impartial non-Christian judge (dikastes) name Eutropius. We shall pick up the trial in the first book at ch. 22. Here, as one would expect, it is the authoritative status of the “Old Testament” scriptures that is the subject of debate, because it goes to the heart of what might be admissible evidence. Paul's Corinthian correspondence plays a major evidentiary role in this agon (“trial”) of interpretation. Adamantius has just quoted Romans 8:36, where Paul, he says, “used (chresthai) the same prophetic statement,” Psalm 43:23: “on behalf of you we are being put to death the whole day." At this point the judge steps in:

Eutropius (the judge): How then does the apostle use (apokechretai) the prophets? For if the prophets and he himself speak in the same fashion, then it is clear that he does not invalidate (akyroi),58 but makes use of them as good and lawful (kala kai nomima).59

Megethius (the Marcionite): Pauluses literally(apokechretai rhˆetos) none of the ancients.60 That's impossible!

Adamantius [long section but ends with] For in the law of Moses it is written: 'you shall not muzzle the ox when it is threshing' (Deut 25:4). ...

Megethius: You recognize that he said “the Law of Moses,” not “of God." Moseos nomon eipen, ou tou theou).

Eutropius (the judge): I recognize that he said “the Law of Moses,” but he ratified it (ekyrˆosen) by saying specifically, “Are the oxen of concern to God? Or is it for our sakes entirely that he says this? For indeed, for our sakes it was written." You see that Paul ratifies (kyroi) and uses (kechrˆetai) it as something inherently good. For no one uses (kechrˆetai) it63 as something inherently good. For no one uses (kechrˆetai) an outdated64 or inferior law (sapros. . . ˆe phaulos nomos) for proof (pros apodeixin) but rather one that is superior and currently authoritative (kreittˆon kai teleios).

Clearly the Marcionite used 'phaulos' to describe the Law of Moses. Notice also that the Marcionite distinction between 'Law of Moses' and 'Law of God' = the two powers group's distinction between the 603 statues given on the authority of Moses to that of the Ten Commandments (given by God). This is a well established 'heretical' position in contemporary Judaism (cf. Alan Segal Two Powers in Heaven and Abraham Heschel Heavenly Torah). The play on words with 'use' here clearly goes back to the Marcionite identification of Jesus as 'ho Chrestos' (= the good one, the useful one) as distinguished from 'ho Phaulos' the bad one, the useless one etc.

[Stephan Huller]

The more I think about it, it seems to me that 'phaulos' (= Hebrew אביון or 'ebion') was likely a commonly used adjective employed by the apostle to describe his physical self and all physical things (including the Law, the religion of Israel etc). What made him great or holy was that chrestos Jesus was dwelling within him. The term 'Paul' (or 'phaulos' for that matter) wasn't like a name of the apostle but a frequent adjective employed by him to depreciate his mortal being and direct people instead to the god within him.

[Stephan Huller]

And I think the Ebion = Paul thing seals the deal. The Church Father were either stupid or dishonest or both. There was originally only one heretical sect. When Tertullian and Epiphanius identify Ebion as head of the Ebionites its obviously wrong. So too with Paulos. Indeed Irenaeus acknowledges there are those who deny "Paulos" is an apostle's name

[spin]

I just realized the point isn't clear enough for the unfamiliar. The Aramaic "p" was pronounced as "f" so for most relevant Aramaic speakers that word on the page was "faulos" anyway ie going back to the Greek phaulos "the foul one" the evil one etc.

This is twaddle, Stephan... on many levels. The text was written in Greek, ie not for native ears of Semitic speakers. Saying 'that word on the page was "faulos" anyway' is nonsense. Greek obviously makes the distinction between pi and phi. Someone reading the Greek would have to concede this, so once again it is nonsense. To say that the 'Aramaic "p" was pronounced as "f"' seems to confuse the perception of Greek translators with the production of the sounds. You may just as wrongly conclude that the Aramaic "sh" was pronounced as "s" or the Aramaic tsade was pronounced as "s". Working from the Greek, which is the only source available to you, you have no way of knowing whether you are dealing with a sound-mapping problem, ie between the actual sound produced and the letter used to render that sound, or some other issue, so you are in no position to make definitive statements as to the sound productions as they are rendered in Greek. As a matter of fact, you don't know for sure how the Greek letters themselves were pronounced without markers from orthographies of different languages representing them and there are not many exemplars of that. Besides, they also transform through their own idiosyncrasies. Consider the fact that an English initial /p/ is pronounced differently from an English medial /p/. Now imagine an orthography that makes the distinction between the two sounds and a translator used those different letters: you would have the one perceived sound in English being represented by two distinct letters. If the Hebrew pe was an aspirated phoneme, the Greek translators may only have had phi as a transcriptional option. That would say nothing much about how Aramaic speakers would have reacted.

Yeah, hey, I'm back. Hola!

[Stephan Huller]

Well I am glad your back. In a rush driving to a soccer practice. I'll address this later but what do you think about phaulos = ebion. Not exact but close enough?