This fascinating topic does not give me peace and it is hard to finish it. All in all, we differ little in our assessment of Paul. He was certainly a jealous and ruthless guy. I’m just showing you a lot more jealous and ruthless than you think.
Let’s disregard differences regarding Paul’s historicity. There is another question that seems interesting and helpful.
Christianity inherited from Judaism its detestation of paganism and idolatry.
How, then, could Christianity become Hellenized so quickly – within three decades? “the speed” is a problem.
From Bauer to Barclay and beyond, biblical scholarship is entangled in possible reconstructions without giving any probable answer.
However, if you take the methodology of content development, the answer is simple.
Paul (or its author) wanted to bury the competition (or the competing creation) by inventing Christianity for them with absurd demands and reversing the meaning of the Jewish tradition. And he pushed (imaginary) apostles and brother of Jesus into this hole after shaking hands. The early church brought quarreling heroes together through Luke’s creativity, not caring much about the historicity of the message. Primitive Palestinian Christianity disappeared in the magician’s hat without a trace.
And all biblical studies, believing in the historical veracity of Paul’s account, are investigating something that simply wasn’t there.
“How, then, could Christianity become Hellenized so quickly – within three decades? “the speed” is a problem.”
At the risk of derailing this productive exchange, I would pipe in to add that one of my biggest questions is how the Jewish Jesus movement broke out of Judaism and spread among gentiles. I’m less concerned with how Jewish Christians came to accept gentile converts and more perplexed by why gentiles were motivated to join at all. What message they were given? What background did they have that made them receptive to that message? How did they fit the new religion into their own antecedent world-view?
To be even more specific, I really want to figure out the author of Mark.
Mark and Paul are the two big enigmas for me. If one could really explain them, understand what made them tick, then one would have gone a long way to explaining the phenomenon of Christianity.
Robert, I’m trying to understand Paul’s written account in Galatians 2. Sometimes I do it for Paul the person and sometimes I do it for Paul the literary character.
We’ve come to the conclusion that Paul is acting ambiguously. On the one hand, he makes some kind of agreement, recognizes the position of the pillars. On the other hand, he talks about something shocking for the recipient, which could have happened and did not happen, and he reports some insignificant incident while talking about his newly acquired partners. He is a mean type who slanders other apostles.
I’m just going ahead because I’m saying that Paul wants to put his partner-competitors in a framework that didn’t exist in reality and that he invented himself. In the framework of some Judaic Christianity with a strange offer towards non-Jews. Christianity, which we only know about from Paul. Luke’s Acts is written 40 years later, it’s simply a false flashback. Act 16:3 is simply bizarre. The gospel message is also a flashback in which no one shares the views of the circumcision party. This Christianity no longer exists in the time of Luke, who is the only one who mentions the circumcision of Jesus. Once he has added the first two chapters to his gospel.
I have just read “THE USE OF “HELLENISTIC JUDAISM” IN PAULINE STUDIES” by Charles Lee Irons which is a cross-sectional set of various proposals for solving the problem by various biblical scholars: Bauer, Bousset, Bultmann, Goodenough, Hengel, John M. G. Barclay. There are no good answers closing the topic, which the author of the work himself states.
“Paul” invented a form of Christianity with absurd demands as supposedly the Christianity of his competition? That’s what he did.
What is absurd about Jewish Christians expecting those who joined their movement to become Jewish Christians? No no.. First you have to become a Jew for us to talk to you. When you are, we will tell you about Jesus. Baptism is postponed until you know everything and many years later you will receive this honor. But you will become a Jew in a moment with a knife. This is a caricature.
Jews had very different answers to the question whether a person brought up in a foreign environment in a foreign tradition can become a Jew.
Parphyry, as you may have noticed, my answer is radical. The writer of Paul’s epistles did not consider oral “gospel” stories to be reliable. Paul’s personal Jesus is the resurrected Christ, without a biography. He himself is the only true apostle, chosen by the Risen One. When competitors of the Apostle appeared – the disciples and the brother, the author of Paul’s epistles wrote Galatians as a sophisticated defense of his hero’s position. He knew that the Apostle after Revelation was in a worse position than the direct witnesses. Its hero Paul invents Jewish Christianity and encloses his competition in it – the heroes of later gospel stories.
Christianity developed in many places of the Diaspora based on different versions of the message about Jesus. In a very competitive environment. Jewish Christianity as known from the Galatians did not exist.
Robert, What is the point of writing that Titus was not induced to be circumcised even though he was a Greek. What is Gal. 2:3 for? This is to sow anxiety in the reader. What are they doing in Jerusalem? Paul meets the pillars, the brother of Jesus, and this is the most important message from the meeting. Titus was not forced to be circumcised, I got what I wanted and Cephas is a hypocritical weak man. And don’t worry, I’ll protect you all from them. Do not look at this text as a professional biblical scholar, but as an ignorant Galatian peasant. Paul is not writing to you or me.
Where do you see anything of this in the text??? Of course it’s not in the text. These are natural conclusions. You just became a circumcised proselyte. You must abide by the law and stop seeing your friends and family. From now on, at mom’s, only water, don’t touch the rest.
Jarek wrote: Robert, What is the point of writing that Titus was not induced to be circumcised even though he was a Greek. What is Gal. 2:3 for? This is to sow anxiety in the reader. What are they doing in Jerusalem? Paul meets the pillars, the brother of Jesus, and this is the most important message from the meeting. Titus was not forced to be circumcised, I got what I wanted and Cephas is a hypocritical weak man. And don’t worry, I’ll protect you all from them. Do not look at this text as a professional biblical scholar, but as an ignorant Galatian peasant. Paul is not writing to you or me.
Where do you see anything of this in the text??? Of course it’s not in the text. These are natural conclusions. You just became a circumcised proselyte. You must abide by the law and stop seeing your friends and family. From now on, at mom’s, only water, don’t touch the rest.
Have you given any thought to seeking an exercism, Jarek?
Just a suggestion.
The monthly “Exorcist” unfortunately declared bankruptcy 2 years ago. 10 years of beautiful public service. It’s a pity, because it was the only Polish publication that the American audience heard about thanks to Bill Maher.
PS I have only a tekst window without previous features. Is it normal or I should change something to get previous editor?
All other bibles translate “was (not) compelled to be circumcised”. I believe you can change the forum connection to bible.com to display a non-ESV (forced) translation. They have 20 bibles to choose from.
No one knows and no one will know the circumstances in which Titus found himself. The message of Gal. 2:3 is definitely negative and does not reassure anyone. In the same way, no one will be reassured by the sentence: “I was in the USA and despite the fact that I am Polish, I was not robbed”. Different interpretations depending on who and to whom he is speaking
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)