(30 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...In yesterday’s post I indicated that I really very much wish that we could have some of the writings produced by Paul’s opponents in Galatia. They believed that in order to be a follower of Jesus, a person had to accept and follow the Law of Moses as laid out in the Jewish Scriptures. Men were to be circumcised to join the people of God; men and women were, evidently, to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. Presumably that meant keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, and so on. Anyone who didn’t do this was not really a member of the people of God, since to be one of God’s people meant following the law that God had given.
Paul was incensed at this interpretation of the faith and insisted with extraordinary vehemence that it was completely wrong. The gentile followers of Jesus were not, absolutely not, supposed to become Jewish. Anyone who thought so rendered the death of Jesus worthless. It was only that death, and the resurrection, that made a person right with God. Nothing else. Certainly not following the Torah.
I often wonder whether Paul and the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along.
Matthew’s Gospel was probably…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, WHY NOT JOIN! You get tons of good stuff for very little money, and it all goes to charity!
“Matthew” is also very clear in chapter 23:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.’ ”
That sure sounds like an instruction to strict Torah observance to me.
You say there is only flimsy evidence to support the idea that “Matthew” was written in Antioch Syria. How likely is the alternative idea that this gospel was authored in Alexandria Egypt compared to an Antiochian authorship?
Not much evidence for that, probably less.
Paul is not opposed to the law. He is opposed to keeping it as a way of getting some sort of merit before God. Would it not sort out the apparent contradiction?
I’m not sure if “merit” is quite the right way to look at it (though it is the traditional Lutheran way). It seems to have to do more with required ethnicity.
The idea was already developing in Rabbinic Judaism of the late second temple era that a gentile did not have to full convert to Judaism to be accepted by God. Hence the growth of those gentile sympathizers of Judaism known as “God-fearers (yirei shamayim)” who attended synagogues. Other schools were more strict and maintained this was only a half-way house to full conversion. In the Talmud the former view won out and become normative, and the rabbis of the Gemara required Gentiles to only keep what they called the “Seven Commandments of Noah”, a post-biblical development. BUT, it’s possible that the NT is the earliest written testimony to the early stages of the development of this idea, where both Peter’s council in Acts and Paul in his letters still require Gentile followers not to worship idols or their sacrifices, improperly slaughtered meat, and sexual immorality. These three are very close to three of the seven “Noahide” laws for Gentiles later reported in the Talmud and I don’t think that’s entirely a coincidence.
Could it be that Paul was taking the now normative rabbinical Jewish opinion that full conversion to Judaism was not necessary for Gentiles, and the author of Matthew was taking the stricter position that it was?
Was Paul in his letters saying at the same time that Jews should abandon Torah observance, or was he just saying that the Gentiles didn’t need to adopt the whole shebang (which is what circumcision would entail)? In Matthew, Jesus would presumably have been speaking to an all-Jewish audience. Was he just affirming that Torah observance *for Jews* would remain obligatory, without being able to infer whether or not he would think that Gentiles (if he even envisioned them as followers at that point) must also fully convert?
I think these questions cannot be fully appreciated outside of the context of the debates of rabbinic oral law and halachah during late Second Temple Judaism.
Yup, it’s possible! It’s hard to know if Paul thought Jews were still to ovserve the law, in my view….
I agree. In my opinion, he did not, but he had to tread very carefully on that point because the rest of the apostles did and he was already in shaky standing with them. Not that he was afraid to confront them when he thought important matters were at stake (such as the one described in this very blog post), but I guess he thought that was not a high-priority battle.
When I believed the Bible had no contradictions, I believed the preachers who twisted its meanings to make it seem “consistent”. It wasn’t what they said that convinced me – it was because I really, REALLY *wanted* to believe that the Bible was God’s perfect Word. But I couldn’t close my mind tightly enough to keep believing that.
Hi, I believe that the limited size of a blog post may have forced you to oversimplify the matter. I don’t think it’s so easy to make a sharp comparison of Matthew and Paul due to some internal contradictions we find in both authors.
For example, Paul recognizes the importance of the Mosaic law (“the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Rom. 7:11). Also, he is dealing with specific issues of a gentile mission that it’s not the focus of Matthew’s gospel (let alone Jesus’ mission).
Matthew has Jesus speaking to a Jewish audience confirming the Law (which law, btw?) and then contradicting it (e.g. the law says to make punishments fit the crimes […], to fulfill it you should show extreme mercy).
Jesus tells his disciples to “not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans”, so his teachings were apparently valid within Jewish boundaries. However, after resurrection Matthew has Jesus telling his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” so we have a gentile mission stuffed with proto-trinitrian theology.
I don’t know what to do with such contradictions, that in some cases may even go back to Jesus, but I think they hardly provide a solid ground to compare Matthew and Paul, for at least we don’t know if Jewish and Gentiles had to observe the Law in the same way after Jesus’ resurrection. It should be noticed that Torah-observant Jewish already had different Law prescriptions for gentiles, the Noahide Laws, that by the way do not include circumcision practices. Paul may have developed along these lines in absence of more precise indications, Matthew we don’t know; if I don’t go wrong this was a debated topic in Jewish world even before Jesus, Paul and Matthew (I think that also Josephus says something about it).
In conclusion, I wouldn’t exclude that both Matthew and Paul may have agreed on the fact that Jewish had to follow the Mosaic Law. Anything else about non Jewish is in my opinion a little obscure.
Yes, but the emissaries from James were insisting on strict observance among the Jews in Galilee and Paul oppose them in this. So the Jerusalem leaders seemed to view the law as vital at least for Jewish Christians while Paul felt it was a problem
Thank you Scott. The main issues with the emissaries from James (as far as we know from Paul) were about practices like circumcision, kosher food, etc. We have nothing explicit about these practices from Matthew and his Jesus. They could well “assume” them implicitly, that’s for sure, but while such assumption applies to Jewish followers – it does not necessarily for gentiles. That was a debated issue in Judaism even before Christianity. So, regarding mission to Gentiles, in my opinion it’s hard to say if Matthew fully agreed with Paul, or fully agreed with the emissaries from James, or if he held a position somewhere in between (e.g. Noahide laws, etc.). Thank you.
Awesome post Thank You
Dr. Bart,
I really enjoyed reading it. That is one of the reason, I mentioned in a comment a few days ago that I believe that Paul is the real founder of Christianity because he always taught opposite what the Gospal’s Jesus taught. For example, as you said Jesus insisted that no one will enter the kingdom of heaven until all the law is fulfilled but when you read Paul, he explicitly says not to follow the law. Thanks so much for your outstanding writings
Is it possible the author of Matthew included this point to be specifically directed at Pauline communities (or any others who accepted Gentiles)? After 30 years surely Pauline ideas had spread a bit regardless of whether they were accepted.
It’s possible, though Matthew doesn’t directly address any of Paul’s points….
Hi Bart,
Presumably then, Jesus would have agreed with the stoning of adulterers, Homosexuals and unruly children and the separation of menstuating women who were thought so unclean, they had to atone for that by giving a sacrifice in the temple?
In a nutshell Bart, they were all crackers and had no real thinking skills to really believe the Torah was given not by stone age Jewish desert dwellers but God Almighty! I will add God Almighy, how did and how can today, anyone believe in any of this ‘stuff’? Yes, billions do…Without really giving it a great deal of thought, even the great intellectuals of yesteryear and today don’t.
When I read through the synoptic gospels trying to find out IF the teachings of Jesus himself was the salvation of all mankind by his death and resurrection. I personally found very little in them to confirm that. Indeed as I often quote, he forgave sins while he was alive, whether he could or couldn’t is irrelevant but the story of Zacchaeus suggests that was not essential or necessary at all. More importantly, trying to foist that doctrine on the world was and is counterproductive to religious harmony and much historical conflict causing the death of many people. IF people could just see through all this ‘stuff’ and use their OWN brains, like you have and many more, they would surely see it all for what it is!
No Jew or almost No Jew today would implement all the 613 laws given by God including those above. I emailed Rabbi Tovah? I think his name is who proudly keeps repeating that these are God given in debates with Christians and I asked him if he would execute Adulterers and Gays then? NO answer!
I’ve been talking about Matthew’s view of Jesus, not Jesus himself!
A limited knowledge is indeed very dangerous.
The 613 precepts are discussed in the Talmud (book of discussions between rabbis on all sorts of subjects). The rabbis inventoried the precepts they found in the Bible and there is general consensus on the figure of 613.
Precepts are NOT G-d’s laws as you seem you believe. They are more akin to ‘directives’ to live a good life. They are NOT applicable to all Jews, let alone all Humanity. Most precepts seem self evident, others have taken a long time to understand. And some are not yet fully understood (for example why to extract the nerves before eating the meat).
Re. chastisements for various misdeeds, the overall concern is to establish a system of ‘Justice’ and to chastise misdeeds. It is up to Jewish society to define most punishments. There was indeed a time when adultery was punished by death. This was removed by Rabbi consensus a very, very, very long time ago. In modern times, Israel has no death penalty since over 60 years (except in one case of a nazi criminal who was hanged).
It seems to me the Rabbi you wrote to in order to submit the “got you” question simply determined he had no time to waste on your silly question.
Where on earth
Pope Francis now thinks that anyone that does good in the world will be loved by God and as such Atheists can go to heaven! I told you I would see you there one day. 😉 Then you may find out what all of Paul’s enemies thought of him at the time. They may even have a religious harvest of any manuscript that was ever written and if people ask, as they do, what will we find to do with all that eternal time? I can think of one man at least who will be able to fill their days and not just that! To have all the original authors there as well to clarify a point here and there. 😉
This is a very good post showing one distinct difference between Paul and Jesus.
I recently had a short discussion with a friend about such differences but she said she can’t detect any differences in Paul and Jesus’ message.
When such differences are so obvious I wonder why readers of the NT, especially those like her who take a literal view, can’t see the wide variety of different perspectives presented.
Because she believes it would be a horrendous and literally damning to acknowledge the Bible has contradictions. That’s a powerful motivator millions like her.
Is this a tacit endorsement of Langton’s divisions of the text?
I’m not sure what you mean!
Sorry… The phrases “It is 28 chapters long, and the last 8 chapters…” seem like a foreign way to make a point when they come from the hand of an author from whom you are used to hearing about how there was no attribution, punctuation, indentation or even space between words in the manuscripts.
Yes indeed. One could also say that between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Gospel is on the Passion. But that would assume ancients used fractions. 🙂
Do you think Paul’s view eventually dominated because the pagans could accept his teachings, and there were a lot more pagans than Jews, and the Jews had a problem with accepting the Matthew-like teachings of a crucified so-called Messiah?
That may have been a factor!
Paul clearly opposed Gentiles keeping the Jewish Law when they became followers of Christ. But I interpret him as having no objection to Jewish followers of Christ keeping the full Law, and indeed it sounds like he regarded it as entirely applicable to them. (E.g. Romans 2:12, “All who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”) Keeping in mind that Jesus’ original audience would have been Jewish, it doesn’t look to me like there’s all that much of a contradiction.
Was Peter just keeping the law as a good Jew when he avoided eating with gentiles in order to keep kosher?
Probably.
Does Dispensationalism resolve the conflict?
It does for dispensationalists!
Ba-dum tssch!
The conflict between the writer of Matthew and Paul is quite interesting. Thanks for exploring it. I have always thought that the idea of just having the “correct” belief about Jesus gets you saved seemed more than a little simple and way too easy. Sounds like wishful thinking….No work or study or good works required. Just have the correct belief and Presto one goes to heaven.
In light of this discussion, I have a question. In the relatively small Montana community where I live, almost every small church has erected giant signs showing the ten commandments. Why is this movement so big given the differences between Paul and Matthew?
Well, Paul would have agreed that Christians should keep the ten commandments, I think (except the Sabbath commandment); and most Christians don’t see a tension between Paul and Matthew!
It seems, then, that the author of Matthew would think that Paul would be “called least in the kingdom of God.”
Paul’s view of the impossibility of following the Law has always struck me as odd and faulty. It seems that he had either been hardened against the Law by his own inability to live up to it according to his, not God’s, standards of perfection or he missed the significance of the fact that God loved David in spite of David’s transgressions or he missed or ignored the many figures in the LXX who walked perfectly in the Law (Noah, Josi’ah, Job, Caleb, Hezeki’ah) or he was being purposefully manipulative in order to scare people (Jews at least) into following his teaching (because they faced doom since they could never follow the Law perfectly) or any combination of these. Like a good salesman he first sells the problem and then offers the solution.
“The controversy with the Galatian opposition was not over whether Jesus’ death brings salvation.”
Is this stated in the text of Galatians that Paul’s Galatian opponents agree that Jesus’ death brings salvation? (sorry, too lazy to look up)
No, Paul never states the views of his opponents, but assumes that his readers know them. But if they denied the salvific effect of Jesus’ death, Paul certainly would have found that even more offensive than he found the circumcision issue.
The author of Matthew is unknown. What he writes can’t be trusted as reliable. We can’t be certain that Jesus said the things recorded in this book. We don’t know where Matthew got all his information.
We do know He wasn’t an eyewitness Like Paul… Matthew did to know, Peter, John, nor James. Matthew doesn’t claim to have been commissioned by God or Christ to write his account as Paul does…For all we know Matthew was a false prophet deliberately introducing false teachings to deceive the true believers.
Quoting Matthew as though he were a trustworthy authority is like quoting Bill O’Reilly’s account of what Jesus said and did and why Jesus said and did it in His book, ‘Killing Jesus”. It’s futility…
On the other hand, Paul’s teaching is authoritative. He received it directly from Christ himself. Paul was literally commissioned by God to preach His gospel…This is what Paul claims…Whether we believe his testimony or not is a different issue.
Paul knew what he was talking about when speaking about the law of moses and circumcision. In His own words, “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions…
Paul understood and knew that those who bragged about the law did not keep the law themselves…
Paul had a revelation and a teaching directly from Christ’s mind, that the entire law was fulfilled in one statement:
Galatians 5:14-For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Paul also understood that in Christ what matters is Faith working through love:
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
And the last thing I’ll state is that Paul received from Christ the revelation that the way to receive God’s spirit of righteousness as a gift is through faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by walking in Love, and not by observing days, months, seasons and years, or by rituals such as circumcision…
There is no law against Love…..
Love others as you love your self? I have never quite figured that statement out. How many people actually ‘love’ themselves? One may assume that Jesus loved himself in order to make that statement. What did he mean, when he asked Peter, if he loved him more than any of the others? Does that sound like a Gay Cabal?
Hitchens used to say its perverse to ask anyone to love their enemies. eg Does any American Christian including Billy Graham, actually love those Muslim Terrorists who flew into the world trade centre? What about someone who rapes and kills a child? Should they be ‘loved’?
That is crazy talk by someone who has no real experience of the world. I don’t think God would love any of the above. OK, Hitler who murdered six million of his chosen people then? The NT teaches that all these can get salvation on their death bed, whilst all non christians no matter how good they have lived will go to hell.
I would advise ALL Christians to give some serious thought to their beliefs.
Well, most of us do feed and clothe and shelter ourselves, for example….
Paul, Rom. 3:31 <>
Paul, Rom. 2:13 <>
Shouldn’t we conclude that Paul, like Matthew, thought that the Law was good?
Mt 28:19 <>
So apparently Paul did what Matthew expected.
Do we know anything else about what Matthew expected about the message to be spread among the gentiles (vs. the message among the Jews)?
Thank you.
Yes, Paul thought the law was good. But because of sin, it put everyone under God’s curse. So the problem is sin.
Thank you!!
Paul, Rom. 3:31 “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
Paul, Rom. 2:13 “it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
Shouldn’t we conclude that Paul, like Matthew, thought that the Law was good?
Mt 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ”
So apparently Paul did what Matthew expected.
Do we know anything else about what Matthew expected about the message to be spread among the gentiles (vs. the message among the Jews)?
Thank you.
Paul was baptized by Ananias. Is there any indication that the authors of the gospels — including Matthew — were baptized, either by John the Baptizer, Jesus, James or any of those disciples commissioned at Pentecost to spread the good news, or any of the itinerant preachers who baptized according to the guidelines laid out in the Didache?
Nothing explicit. But it’s usually assumed that they were almost certainly baptized Christians.
I suppose it’s an assumption that seems logical and an assumption that might be difficult to upend.
The prayer of thanksgiving in the Didache seems very much linked to the God of the O.T.: “We give thanks to you, O Holy Father, for your holy name which you caused to dwell in our hearts …”
Given that the authors of the gospels never refer to the prayer — or the implied religious experience, I have to wonder how much of a personal religious experience of the baptism these authors had.
When I asked Larry Hurtado about this prayer he wrote:
“I’d see the reference in Didache as referring more to the ongoing acceptance of the Christian/Jesus message in the hearts of those who framed the text.” Which to me means that from his perspective the prayer was largely ceremonial or a literary construct.
I am working on a paper whose thesis rests heavily on this verse from the Didache.
Please refer me to scholars do you know of who have looked at — or compared — the baptism as described in the Didache and the baptism as described in the NT? I’ve yet to uncover any.
Thanks for considering.
Off hand I don’t know where to send you. You might think about looking at the collection of essays edited by Jonathan Draper or that edited by Clayton Jefford.
Thanks for the leads. My university’s library has essays on the Didache compiled by both Jonathan Draper and Clayton Jefford. The Draper book is not available but I was able to read some of it on Google Books. The Jefford book is available for loan but Google Books offers a more limited availability.
Each book has an essay about the Didache’s instructions on baptism but none on the prayer of thanksgiving, at least as far as I could tell from scanning the tables of contents.
Interestingly, P. Sabatier (in Draper) cites 50 – 70 AD, or mid 1st Century as the provenance of the Didache while Harnack and others come in at mid 2nd Century. This collection has a 1995 publication date and perhaps these estimates have been more specifically pinned down since, but as you mentioned earlier, the Didache’s date of origin is usually placed very late or early-mid 2nd Century, right?
David Flusser has an essay in the Draper book that contends — and at length — that Chapters 1 – 6 have a strongly Jewish provenance, which I find very interesting.
Thanks.
This verse has always seemed ambiguous to me (“whoever looses one of the least of these commandments and teaches others in this way will be called least in the kingdom of God”)
In English, that can mean:
1) You will be called least by those in the kingdom (and therefore not allowed in) or
2) You will be called least among those in the kingdom.
Is it unequivocal in Greek or is it also ambiguous?
Also ambiguous!
I accept that it’s ambiguous in the Greek. It’s likely the Greek author didn’t understand the nuances of Second Temple Jewish thought. Any Pharisee would say that obeying Torah is good and anything against Torah is bad. I’m sure some believed those who inadequately honored Torah would be the dregs within the kingdom of God. Others believed they would be excluded from it.
I think I should point out that even when I was in my teens, back in the Fifties, young Catholics were being taught that nonbelievers could “go to Heaven” – Catholics simply had the advantage of knowing the full truth (for example, that an actual miracle took place in every Mass, when bread and wine were transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ). Whatever the formal doctrine may have been, we were being taught that salvation depended on how one lived one’s life, not on beliefs.
At least, that was how it was in a “good” Catholic high school. I don’t know about the appalling Catholic elementary school I attended, or the even worse Catholic college I somehow endured for two years…
(And of course, I don’t believe now that a “miracle” takes place during Mass! I suspect even very few practicing Catholics believe it.)
“most Christians don’t see a tension between Paul and Matthew” — only because Christians are taught that there shouldn’t be one. All the synoptic gospels portray Jesus as teaching full obedience to Torah. He was never even accused of doing any less. That’s what the person Jesus did while living on earth. Paul was all about the consequences of his sacrificial death, not about his life or teachings. To be a Christian is to believe the teachings of Paul, not those of Jesus. And yes, Christianity was the first religion of the region to be about what you believe, not what you do (offer sacrifices).
The author of Matthew represented both concepts. He portrayed Jesus on earth as a good, small-town Jewish sage. But he also presented ideas of later Christianity, the sacrificial death of Jesus, and also explaining why Rome would execute a good man. Answer: He was accused of being a Zealot, declared innocent, but executed to prevent riots. He was innocent. It wasn’t his fault that others threatened to start riots about him.
Dr. Ehrman,
Regarding the issue of Jewish Christians following Mosaic Law and Paul’s insistence that Gentiles need not avail themselves of the Law entirely–I have always felt that Exodus 12:38 (“A mixed multitude went up with them also…”) was the type or shadow of future Jew and Gentile believers (Gentiles=multitudes??). Even Revelation seems to make a possible distinction between Jews and “Multitudes.” If the multitudes in Egypt were in fact some of the Egyptians themselves who believed in the Jewish god, doesn’t it stand to reason that they are the type or shadow of the Gentiles to come in the day of Jesus? Or at least that Paul might have been echoing this distinction in his ministry, along with various prophecies about Gentile followers and thus the non-need to follow all things Jewish? Unless of course “multitudes” in Exodus is just referring to a bunch of farm animals following them out of Eqypt!!??? What do you think? -Jen
Interesting idea — I’ve never thought of that. But you’re right, it does look like some non-Israelites went with them. I’m not sure who they would have been, given all that is said earlier in ch. 12.
This has me thinking of the controversy that surrounds the Gospel of Judas wherein it appears Jesus is pulling Judas aside to ask him to do this terrible thing. Elsewhere in the canonical Gospels Jesus appears to do just this sort of thing—first thing coming to mind is when he tells the disciples to go get swords in order to be “numbered with the transgressors” to fulfill prophecy. Why is it such a stretch that he would do the same with Judas in order to fulfill the betrayal? Or to at the very least echo the betrayal of Joseph? Perhaps the notion of Jesus possibly having been in on the whole thing was thrown out in order to be more in keeping with an envious brother Judah/Judas in the Genesis story? Has this ever been explored anywhere?
Interesting idea…
I guess it might seem nuts of Jesus to want to be crucified or turned over to the authorities, but it seems he is being painted out to be the new Isaac, who willingly carried the wood on his back to his own potential death at the hands of his own father.
Just out of curiosity, do you still hold to the Bauer hypothesis?
I haven’t changed my basic views since my earlier career. I don’t think Bauer is right in (most of) the details as he spells it out in Orthodoxy and Heresy, but I think the overall perspective is right — especially over against a Eusebian model.
I take your point, but let’s look closer. *Which* commandments of the law is Jesus reinforcing? They are pretty much the most ethical parts of the law – adultery, vengeance, murder. He is prohibiting harshly what Paul would certainly include among “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5 and elsewhere.
Jesus is not bringing up any of the arbitrary, non ethically-obvious stuff of the Jewish law (like sabbath and Kosher). It’s not like he’s saying “Moses told you not to work on the Sabbath, but I tell you not to get out of bed on Saturday”, or “Moses told you not to eat pork, but I tell you to be vegetarians”.
Oh, you address that in the following post. Nevermind.
Jews would not have given a secondary status to liturgical and ritual laws; they did not see them as “arbitrary,” any more than any of the laws are. It’s very hard indeed to find Jews differentiating between ethical and other laws — even if Paul and Matthew later seem to do so….
Jesus was teaching Second Temple Judaism, so the law (Torah) included moral and ceremonial, including the sacrifices. Only in a few places in Torah do the moral laws seem separated a little bit. They later divided them when they summarized all of Torah into two great commandments, love God, and love other humans. You demonstrate the first by obeying the ceremonial law; the second, by the moral laws.
By calling Jesus the universal sacrifice, Paul obviously had to reject the sacrifices. If he really was a Jew, many think he expected his followers to follow the other Jewish laws. According to Acts, Peter was the one who rejected the dietary and other ‘unclean’ laws on the basis of a dream. But Christians still said that the Jesus (as God) was the God of Israel. Yet they ended up rejecting all of Torah. So they were left with no moral law at all. Paul seemed to quietly adopt that of his society without giving any reason. On the other hand, the Ebionite Christians said that, since Jesus was the God of Israel, then God still wants people to do what he said in Torah (except for the sacrifices). That’s no big deal, since they did without the sacrifices in Diaspora.
Do you think that the 500 mentioned in the pre-Pauline creed referred to men and women or just males? Some manuscripts mention 500 brothers and sisters (that’s what the NIV uses). Does the Greek entail both sexes?
If the early creed was supposed to keep a chronological order of witnesses, why isn’t Mary Magdalene mentioned as the first witness in the pre Pauline creed, since she was the first, not Peter?
The word is “brothers” but it is usually used inclusively (just like “men” in English used to mean “men and women”)
If the 500 entails men and women witnesses, why doesn’t Paul mention Mary Magdalene (since according to Mark, she was the first witness)? Is it a possibility that the legend of the her seeing Jesus was not invented yet?
It may well have been invented but Paul hadn’t heard it….
Do you think Paul thought that prophecy and speaking in tongues would be bestowed on some believers in Jesus by the Holy Spirit only during the era of the apostles (33-100 a.d)? Or do you think he thought that they would continue until Jesus’s second coming?
My sense is that Paul thought that Jesus would return during “the era of the apostles”
Yes, that is what Paul believed. His writings show it. But by late first century, everyone figured out that it didn’t happen, so they spiritualized it. Some said it would happen in an afterlife.