Ah yes, I remember that.
But that isn’t at all what Paul talked about.
He believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being, an angel–as Bart has also said. And I assume you knew that. Why’d you leave it out? Paul’s concept is, beyond question, a much higher Christology than “Jesus was born human, but was raised up by God.” To Paul, Jesus had never been truly human–it was a disguise he put on. This is what I was saying, and I guess you misunderstood?
So we’re talking at cross-purposes again. You’re talking about divinization, adoptionism, which I know Jews also had. But Paul was talking about something else entirely, and his idea became dominant over time.
Glad we could clear that up. You have a good memory. You should do something with that. 🙂
In an interview about his last book, I heard Dale Martin say that his next book will be the about the differences between the view of Paul in Acts and what we can glean about him from his authentic letters. I look forward to that one.
As far as distortions of Paul’s actual views, I’m pretty dang sick of hearing folks mention Paul’s “misogyny” and then quoting the forged letters. But since they were traditionally considered Pauline I guess the damage is done.
It seems logical to me that Paul might have had an already well developed apocalyptic viewpoint and that his “conversion” consisted of fitting his vision of Jesus into that framework. Paul likely already had a cup and Jesus was the wine he poured into it.
Robert said
No, Hurtado and now Bart and and many other scholars also see the incarnational christologies as pre-Pauline. See Bart’s next chapter:We don’t know how soon Christians started thinking of Jesus not merely as a man who had become an angel or an angel-like being, but as an angel—or some other divine being—who preexisted his appearance on earth. But it must have been remarkably early in the Christian tradition. This view did not originate with the Gospel of John, as I used to believe (as have a lot of other scholars). It was in place well before Paul’s letters, as evidenced in the fact that the pre-Pauline Christ poem of Philippians attests it, as does Paul himself in scattered and sometimes frustratingly vague references throughout his writings. I don’t think we can say for certain that this incarnation Christology dates earlier than the early 50s CE, but there’s no reason it could not do so. Possibly it is much earlier. Once Christians thought of Jesus as an angel—and that could have happened very early, perhaps in the first years of the movement—the way was opened for the idea that he had always been an angel, and therefore a preexistent divine being. And so an incarnation Christology was born.
Again, talking at cross-purposes. Almost like you’re intentionally missing the point.
Paul was not influenced by this ‘matrix.’ He did not want to believe Jesus had been raised up to a divine level. He believed Jesus had been up there in heaven at the dawn of creation, and only came down for a few moments to help us out. That’s so different from what you’re talking about as to be an entirely separate order of thought. Obviously, as a Jew, he knew these ideas. But after his perceived revelation, he very quicky changed his thinking, and came to think of Jesus as never having been a man at all.
Maybe you just didn’t express what you were saying very clearly, which is sometimes a problem. Fewer words can often be better. And why don’t we try for none this weekend? Happy President’s Day. 😉
I think that your basic point is true: the messiah idea in Judaism had developed theologically in a number of ways including the idea that the Messiah – like a number of Righteous Ones – were pre-existant but incarnate (an adoptionship approach being also possible). There is a version of this in some modern Judaism – the idea of the 36 Righteous Ones whose existence protects humanity from destruction. The role of James the Righteous as perhaps one of these – protecting Jerusalem from destruction while he lived is, its destruction coming about after his execution in about 62 CE – is one possible implication from a passage in Josephus that is no longer extant but seems to have been seen by Eusebius and I think also Origen, and is hinted at by Hegiseppus:
From Eusebius’ Church History Book 2, Cpt 23:
19. These things are related at length by ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for no other reason than their daring act against him.
20. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** slew him, although he was a most just man.
This rather contradicts the idea that Jerusalem is destroyed because of Jesus, but there you go.
That said, it is still very hard for me to read Paul and to imagine that whatever he is teaching, whatever theoretical roots it has, conforms with the Church as it then existed. One the contrary, the defensiveness, the avowals that he isn’t lying when…well, that’s not so clear…the lack of credentials, the insistence that he received his gospel directly from Jesus and not from any humans… – it speaks to a man that wants to claim connection to the church but honestly himself sees what he is teaching as different.
Very well put, and I agree. Paul is a fascinating man. It’s easier, in many ways, to understand him than Jesus. Partly because we have actual writings from him, and when we write something we believe in, we tell the truth about ourselves. Partly because he was never as revered as Jesus, so the author of Luke and Acts can treat him as more of a human character–a bit of a trickster.
It’s hard for me to like him, but I can’t help but appreciate him.
Perhaps that’s why I chose Paul as my confirmation name. Though there are times when I regret it. 😉
Robert said What did Cephas and the other disciples think of Paul’s complicated theology? His midrash. His Greek language skills. Perhaps some distrusted it, others were dumbfounded, others jealous, others just didn’t like the guy; he wasn’t very likable. Others may have thought he might be on to something as long as he didn’t upset the authorities in Jerusalem, whom they were trying to convince they were just as observant of the law as anyone. What did they ‘teach’ about the Christ other than that he was raised up to heaven, vindicated. That he or someone else would be coming back with the mighty angels and the power of God to bring about the Kingdom of God or the resurrection of the dead or all of this all at once? That he was seated at the right hand of God? An angel? That he was an angel before becoming human for a while? No one knows who first imagined that. That he was the divine instrument of all creation? An impossibly high christology. Who cooked it up? Paul or Apollos or their Hellenistic theology buddies? Who knows? They were not (only) teaching christology, but primarily teaching about God and the imminent coming of his kingdom on earth, in heaven. Was there any such thing as orthodox theology at that time. Pretty soon none of that would matter.
great quetsions
Sure would like to know more about these “churches of Judea that are in Christ“.
Elsewhere he has no difficulty acknowledging what he has received from others before him (1 Cor 15,1-2.3-6), so what part of his gospel was not received from men? His personal experience of the resurrected Messiah and his conviction that he was sent to spread this message to gentiles who would be admitted into the kingdom while remaining gentiles. That’s my best guess.
Yes that makes sense.
What did Cephas and the other disciples think of Paul’s complicated theology?
Perhaps they knew very little about it? By the time Paul is writing (the 50s?) it must have been pretty clear that the belief that Jesus was the Messiah was not going to be very successful among the Jews in Palestine. The Jerusalem group becomes aware at some point that a former enemy had converted and is having success among Gentile groups outside of Palestine. Surely they must have been curious and wanted to investigate. To what result? If you go by Acts of course it turns into one big lovefest. But from Paul’s letters it seems much more contentious than that. So much so that several scholars have suggested that there might have been an actual split between Paul’s churches and the home church in Jerusalem. Some have speculated that the whole point of Acts is to provide (and create?) a connection that had long been severed. And of course after the first generation of disciples had passed and Jerusalem (and the home church?) had been destroyed there was no one left to provide an opposing perspective. Jewish Christianity had been completely marginalized.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)