Loading...QUESTION
And what do you make of Paul’s statement that he didn’t get the good news (= the resurrection and thus the triumph over death) from other humans but from the ‘risen Christ’ himself? If he persecuted the Christians because of a resurrection belief then he would have heard about it before, from other humans, no?
RESPONSE
Ah! This takes me to the issue that I was planning on posting about today anyway. Several people in their comments have pointed out that if Paul claims to have “received” the teachings about Jesus’ death and resurrection from others (1 Cor. 15:3), then it is hard to make sense of what he says in Galatians 1, that he received his “gospel” directly from Jesus himself. How could Paul have it both ways?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
So the religion should have been called Paulianity not Christianity?
No, that’s what I’m arguing *against*
But if the original Jewish followers of Jesus thought that gentile followers would have to become Jewish then I doubt it would have become a world religion. Paul removed that requirement and enabled its spread.
While referring to the religion as “Paulianity” is surely overstating the case, would it be reasonable to refer to later orthodoxy Christianity (and especially Protestantism with its emphasis on the role of Faith, and on the concept of Sanctification by Grace) as, at least in part, “Pauline Christianity”?
That is, in a way comparable to –but, of course, distinct from– other Christianites (e.g. “Jewish”, or “Jamesian”, or “Lukan”; or even such things as “Gnostic” or “Marcionite” Christianity).
I’d say that lots of forms of early Christianity claimed that Paul was the one who pointed the way (to their views): not just the proto-orthodox, but also the Valentinians and the Marcionites, for example.
What shame we don’t have an “Acts of the apostles” written by someone from the Jerusalem church!
Do you see Romans 15:20-21 as relating to Paul’s self view of “fulfilling” the Prohets? This has been gnawing at me for several weeks and would love to hear your views.
Yes, I think he did see it this way!
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question! Just finished reading the new book for the second time, and have enjoyed learning some new insights. I have quite the Ehrman Library and appreciate your insights, thoughts, and especially your courage in passing this information on to us. Your personal story resonates deeply with me and my own 35 or so years of study, and experience both within and outside the church. Thank you!!
Galatians 2 must be the most-fun chapter in all of the NT. Seems to be the only first-hand account we have of some of these earliest figures. My careful (but completely unschooled) read of it leads me to think there were three approaches on this issue:
1. Paul’s stringent anti-Judaizer view, in which the observance of the law by gentiles is a fatal heresy;
2. James’ view, which seems to require conversion to Judaism and circumcision (!) of new Christians; and,
3. Peter’s view, which does not require circumcision or observance of the law by gentiles, but doesn’t hold James’ view as a fatal heresy; Peter doesn’t mind accomodating James’ followers’ sensibilities in Antioch.
That is as close as I can come to reconciling Paul’s claims that (1) Peter endorsed his gospel, and yet (2) Paul had to confront Peter on this issue later. I suppose either (or both) claims could be dismissed as ahistorical, and Paul would certainly have motive to claim Peter’s imprimatur. But something about the passage’s tone makes me slow to dismiss it. Paul is really wound up here. And it seems slightly incongruous for Paul to falsely claim Peter’s endorsement and then point out how he rebuked him. Thoughts?
In the spirit of your blog I chip in a little extra when I slow you down with questions; I hope others consider doing that too. Your time and expertise are appreciated!
I don’t think we know James and Peter’s views of circumcision from this passage — only their views about whether it is right for Jews to have table-fellowship with Gentiles.
Hmm. Had assumed that the unwillingness to eat together was all about adherence to dietary laws, and probably reflected a more general attitude toward the law. I’ll try to assume less!
I think Galatians 2 would make great fodder for an in-depth series of posts some day! Thanks again for your time.
Mark
It probably did have to do with dietary laws. But not necessarily circumcision.
Was Saul Circumcised before he became Paul?
He seems to be so against the act of getting the bit chopped off that I have to wonder if he was a Jew or not!
He would have been circumcised when he was eight days old.
For one, and I don’t know Dr. Ehrman’s view on this, was Paul ever named Saul? Regarding Jewish laws, I wonder if he wasn’t using a sound marketing strategy not to force the Gentiles into follow strict Jewish code. Something about the man’s ego and need to puff up his own worth and esteem always made me think that it was less revelation than finding a means to an end (gathering more converts).
It’s usually thought that Saul was his Hebrew / Aramaic name, and Paul his Greek name.
I know this is a very complex question and there is a lot of debate and issues associated with it: was Paul’s gospel–“that belief in this death and resurrection *apart from the Law* is what brought salvation, to the Gentiles as well as the Jews”–different than (or possibility even at odds with with) what the historical Jesus likely said about what brings salvation?
Yes, I think it’s very different. I’ll say more about that in a later post or two.
‘He is talking about “his” version of the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection – namely, that it brings salvation to all people, both Jew and Gentile, apart from the need to keep the Jewish law. That is Paul’s gospel message.’ > ok, that sounds plausible.
It raises the (theological) question though as why ‘the risen Christ’ wouldn’t have told this already to his earliest followers?
Historically speaking the reason for this ‘omission’ is of course that Jesus’ Jewish followers didn’t care much about the Gentiles. It’s only with Paul that the Gentiles come into the picture. He offers them an easy way to become a follower of the One God (without the need to cut of your foreskin and follow a zillion dietary rules). That’s why I side though with calling the religion, as it is since Paul!, Paulinity … Or Chrispaulinity 😉
The direction of the whole religion changed because one man had a vision he believed was real, and he believed his own interpretation of it?
Well, what I’ve been arguing is that Paul is not the one who “invented” Christianity. But he certainly argued more vociferously than anyone else we know of that following the Jewish law was unrelated to salvation.
Does not Paul’s letters indicate that he did not follow the Law himself, anymore? It seems to me that he thought observance of the Law was optional for Jews as well.
He indicates that he did follow the law when among Jews.
Again, in my humble and willing to be corrected opinion, it wasn’t Paul who invented Christianity, though he seems to have changed its original intention, which was to make right the relationships between God and man, and not by the shedding of blood on the cross, nor such a miraculous resurrection, but through repentance followed by obedience to the law, born out of love for God and for fellow man. Paul obliterated all of that, and in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus, himself who made it quite clear, time and again: Not one jot. Not one tittle. Not before all of heaven and earth pass away; and surely Jesus truly believed that end was upon them, which made it all the more important to him that everyone get and stay right with God.
If anyone actually “invented” Christianity, it seems to me, it would have to have been the church fathers who, from the first through the fourth centuries hammered out what it, Christianity, would and would not be, even going so far as to dictate what and what not the masses were to believe, and even what would and would not go into our Bibles.
I am trying to understand what made Paul’s message “click” with the Gentiles. I don’t think it was about living in pease and harmony. Did his message adapt to one about sex and about preparing for the imminent distruction of the world?
I thought Paul started in the synagogues of the diaspora Jews. Apparently this message was DOA.
So did Paul have to invent a new idea to allow him to preach to the Gentiles? Was this the inspiration for his gospel?
Obviously sex was not so important for the impending Kingdom. Was this a good idea for some Gentile women, especially wealthy ones who could finance and shelter Paul’s missionary work?
Obviously since salves would benefit equally in the Kingdom, Paul’s message found fertile ground.
So is this it?
No, I don’t think his teachings about sex had much of anything to do with it. When he describes his missionary preaching it is all about leaving idols to worship the one true God. (see 1 Thess. 1:9-10) My guess is that he convinced pagans that the God of Jesus was more powerful than their gods.
Do you have any thoughts on what the thorn in Paul’s flesh was that he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12? Of read some postulate that it may have been sexual in nature?
There are lots of theories (some involving sexuality), and none that is particularly persuasive (epilepsy? onset of blindness? sexual orientation? speech impediment? Make a guess!!!)
“That’s why Gentiles who start following the Law are in danger of losing their salvation…And if they don’t believe that, then they cannot be saved.”
Is this squarely the Old Perspective? Would E.P. Sanders disagree about Gentiles losing their salvation if they follow the Law?
No, I don’t hold to the old (= Lutheran = justification by faith not by good works) model/perspective.
Do you think that any of the original apostles or early disciples were convinced of Pauls’s “revelations”?
Yup! At least he claims they were and I imagine some of them did.
I think the point people are making, and there may be some merit to it, that by relaxing the requirement of adhering to Jewish laws, in particular, not insisting on circumcision or following kosher dietary laws, Paul made ‘Christianity’ attractive to Gentiles – in a sense, Paul was the ultimate marketing man. Would Christianity have spread so fast if adherents had to undergo a painful snip of their privates and couldn’t eat pork again? Maybe not. I think that’s what many people have in mind when they give Paul a pre-eminent position.
Religion used to sound so simple to me, but this stuff (the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, atonement, exaltation, incarnation, etc.) really is complicated. Did people in the first century really think in such complicated ways?
Paul is pretty complicated (read Galatians 3-4!!). But some of the topics (trinity, e.g.) were not broached yet in the first century; and the topics that were (atonement, divinity) were not worked out yet with the theoretical sophistication of later times.
Like the old Jewish joke, “Why do we need a middle man when we can go straight to the top!?” Much simpler.
It is quite probable I have missed the point somewhere, but my assumption regarding Paul’s conversion was that he had absolutely heard from others the stories and claims about Jesus as the messiah and as the Christ, He just didn’t believe any of it and hence his persecution of those who spread these stories as blasphemy. Paul’s conversion en route to Damascus via the direct intervention of Jesus implies Paul’s effectiveness as an opponent of this very early Christianity. Once Jesus and his gospel message was revealed, Paul’s zealous nature was redirected, as it were, to the spread of Christianity and not to its eradication. Thus his ‘receiving the gospel from Christ directly’.
For me the gentile aspect of Paul’s approach to Christianity is why the new faith prospered. It was open to all and open to different cultures to fit local circumstance. The Torah can be seen to be a straightjacket in this regard, whereas Paul’s Christianity was far more accessible to outsiders. Obviously, given the subject matter of Paul’s “letters of correction to recalcitrant congregations” this flexibility could cross the occasional line, but nonetheless the fundamental openness has to be a critical factor in the spread of the new faith.
I have just finished your new book and am still digesting it – thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I will have to explore some of your earlier volumes for sure.
On the other hand, Judaism was open in that it did not teach that one could never attain a sufficient relationship to the one God if a person was not Jewish whereas, the New Testament, in at least 15 places (and, loosely speaking, fundamentalist Christians today), believe and teach that, if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, you are out of right relationship with God and cannot have salvation. This to me is the hypocrisy of the cliché that the Old Testament God was all about anger, wrath, jealousy, and punishment and that the New Testament God is all about love and forgiveness. Poppycock. One might say that God so loved the world that he gave the Torah to the Jews but did not require everyone to live by it but God so lacked love for all the world that, unless you believe he gave you a free gift–which is invisible, you’re doomed. I am not a religious Jew; I’m just saying that this perspective makes perfect sense to me. I understand being punished for murdering someone but for not believing something? Very, very strange….
Dear Bart,
This question/topic is not relevant to this post’s discussion, but it is something that might be on a lot or readers of HJBG minds, that is, degrees of divinity. I include the CNN link below to the recent canonization of two popes for the miracles that the Vatican church believes occurred as a result some people praying to God, through the pope/saints, to be healed.
So this ancient institution of a billion people says God is somehow working through these men in ways that “He” does not do through other less special people, such as the rest of us.
So these pope/saints have been granted some kind of divine power, (sound familiar?) and yet, both of them are fully human. I don’t believe in the supernatural, but the issue of degrees of divinity is still being taken seriously by a lot of people. Might you take this up in a future post? Just a thought.
Tracy
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/04/25/vatican-miracle-women-gallagher-pkg.cnn.html
I hadn’t planned on doing so, but it’s very interesting indeed!
Go for it!
Because most Christianity as we know it uses Paul’s theology as their theology instead of preaching God’s Kingdom as Jesus did, it appears to me that John Bradbury may have it right.
Otherwise, all churches would be teaching about God’s Kingdom on earth instead of salvation theology.
Off-topic, but this thought just occurred to me: If you no longer believe that there was an empty tomb, and Paul never mentions that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene in 1 Corinthians 15, do you still believe Mary was one of the original people who had a “vision” of the risen Jesus? And if so, on what grounds? Why shouldn’t anyone think that her role is as dubious as the historicity of the role of Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea?
Yes, I think Mary had a vision; otherwise I don’t know why shed be so prominent in the Gospel narratives.
It can be noted from DSS material, that belief existed that salvation resulted from God’s grace. I can readily see how Jesus believed to be divine would be inserted as an author of grace, but understanding the blood atonement of Jesus as a necessity is harder to grasp why that change occurred. Hadn’t human blood sacrifice become an anathema to the Hebrews? Do you think that the idea of Jesus blood atonement came after the Christian movement was Hellenized?.
I think the idea of a blood atonement was prominent in Judaism (yes, not a human sacrifice, but the Christians insisted this was different from someone killing his daughter as a sacxrifice: God did this one). My sense is that it was one of the earliest understandings of Jesus’ death, among Jews, who saw this as the “perfect” sacrifice so that temple sacrifices were no longer needed.
In Jesus and Judaism E.P. Sanders, in order to draw a continuous causal thread from Jewish eschatology through teachings of Jesus and on through Paul. He points out that the fact that the apostles in Jerusalem would be on board with Paul’s mission to convert Gentiles implies that they thought the end was imminent. The only dispute we know of being over to what extent Gentile converts would have to obey Jewish law. (What were they thinking? How many uncircumcised grown men want to be circumcised??!!) Sanders of course uses this as evidence to support the thesis of Jesus as a first century apocalyptic Jew, but I think it helps to illustrate the point you make here. If James and Peter weren’t okay with Paul’s teaching the resurrection, I think he might have mentioned it.
There isn’t any historical evidence at all that Paul had any other disagreement with the apostles in Jerusalem or any objection to Paul’s teaching the resurrection at all, is there? It would seem quite odd if a former Pharisee shows up out of the blue wanting to spread the good news of the resurrection and atonement, while Peter and James say well “he died three years ago, brought no kingdom (of heaven, of God, or otherwise), but hey, knock yourself out.” And James (as learned in your book on the subject, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium) probably didn’t become a follower until after Jesus’ death, and that fact needs explaining.
No, no evidence that they disagreed on the ideas of atonement and resurrection — just other things (table fellowship with gentiles)
This is not connected to the current post but I have a more general question concerning a topic in “How Jesus became God” (perhaps there should be a separate page for such questions. 😉 )
Concerning the discussion about the bodies of prisoners not receiving “proper” treatment following crucifixion:
One of the few pieces of actual archaeological evidence we have about crucifixion involves the body of one “Yehochanan” (most notable because of the nail found piercing the ankle bone).
The relevant point here is that the remains of Yehochanan were found in an ossuary (engraved with his name). While, presumably, the body may not have been given a formal “tomb burial”, can’t this be counted as an example of at least one crucified prisoner whose body was not carried off by scavengers nor simply tossed into a common grave, but actually treated with some respect?
Yes, the Yehochanan find is very very very interesting. Unfortunately, it’s not evidence of much of anything because we don’t know anything about him or his circumstances. Why was he executed? What were the charges? Was it by Romans? (I assume so.) Was he wealthy? Was his family well-connected? Was he executed on the birthday of an emperor? Was he left on the cross for five or six days before being buried? What was his first burial and where? And so on — I have a hundred questions, and don’t have answers for them.
I don’t know if you commented on this before, but in a previous post you indicated that one of your strong objections about belief in the tomb was that in Roman crucifixion practices, they never allowed proper burials of the condemned. In Josephus, Jewish Wars, Book 4, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, he mentions the Jews taking bodies of the crucified and burying them before sundown in accordance with Deuteronomy. I think the context implies that they were crucified under Roman Law. Sounds very much like the circumstance of Christ’s supposed burial.
Should I not read too much into this passage?
Thanks
I may post on this issue, since I’ve been asked it several times. For now: the most important thing is to read the passage *in its context*. Which crucified people is Josephus referring to? This is a very specific set of cases that he is discussing, of no relevance, in my judgment, to general practice. (Note when and where these crucifixions were evidently taking place. )
So from whom did paul specifically receive his pre-pauline creed regarding incarnational christology? Which specific disciples? or Which early church? jerusalem, hellenic?
I wish we knew!!!
So is it highly likely that Paul may not have received the pre-Pauline creed regarding incarnational christology from the actual disciples of Jesus?
I doubt it very much.
Sorry Dr Bart… you mean you doubt that the disciples DID adhere and convey the message of incarnational christology to Paul that he received as a pre- pauline creed?
Yes, I do not think that hte original disciples of Jesus had an incarnation Christology. But I do think there were other Christians who did, and one of them for example produced the poem that is now in Phil. 2:6-11.
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
If following the law could bring about salvation, Christ would not have had to die. And so the Law is not part of what is required for salvation. Only faith in the death of God’s messiah is what matters. But if the Law doesn’t matter for salvation, then it doesn’t matter if someone follows the Law. Even more than that, anyone who thinks they have to follow the Law has completely missed the point. That’s why Gentiles who start following the Law are in danger of losing their salvation, because in doing so they show that they do not really believe that it is the death and resurrection of Jesus – and only the death and resurrection of Jesus – that makes a person right with God. And if they don’t believe that, then they cannot be saved.
MY COMMENT:
I’ll agree with you that following the MORAL law only, without initially believing in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead will not save us. However the MORAL law, the commandments spoken by God Himself on Mt Sinai, that is, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, etc, are not nullified when we accept Christ by faith. Romans 3:31 makes the point that through faith we establish the law.
ROMANS 3:31-Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Furthermore in Romans 13:8-10 Paul indicates that the way we fulfill the law is by loving our neighbor. He says Love does no wrong to a neighbor therefore Love fulfills the law.
ROMANS 13: Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9-For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 10-Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
GALATIANS 5:13-For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14-For THE WHOLE LAW IS FULFILLED in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 15-But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
YOUR COMMENT:
He is talking about “his” version of the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection – namely, that it brings salvation to all people, both Jew and Gentile, apart from the need to keep the Jewish law.
MY COMMENT:
I’ll agree that we gentiles or Jews are not obligated to keep the ceremonial and dietary laws kept by the Jews under Moses. We don’t have to be circumcised. We don’t have to abstain from eating pork, etc. However Paul also instructs us to remain in the condition in which we were called, being circumcised or uncircumcised doesn’t matter. If we abstain from eating pork or consuming it doesn’t matter either. If we drink wine or don’t drink it doesn’t matter. if we observe a holiday or not observe a holiday is not important to God. WHAT MATTERS IS KEEPING THE MORAL LAW.
1 CORINTHIANS 7:18,19-Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19-Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but WHAT MATTERS is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20-Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
In the book you point how adopted sons in antiquity had higher status than natural-born sons, which would account for the attractiveness of an exaltation Christology. If this view of adopted vs. natural children is correct, why would there need to be a “backward Christology” movement, in which Jesus becomes God’s begotten son at birth?
It was an incredibly exalted Christology from the get go. And Christians made it even more and more exalted with the passing of time, until Christ wasn’t the adopted son of God but was the co-eternal Son who had always existed with and was of the same substance as the Father. An incredible development….
Bart, you suggested elsewhere I read your “How J. Became God” and I will. Just have to say here, since you put it so boldly that “It was an incredibly exalted Christology from the get go,” that it makes no sense to me that illiterate Galilean Jews could have had such a high (if not the highest) Christology. You said in that earlier post that the beginnings of a high Christology came with the Apostles’ (or some other Jewish followers of Jesus?) belief that Jesus had been resurrected. Not that I believe their beliefs had to have logically sound relationships to one another, but, even though it might have been an uncomfortable jolt to Jewish thinking, there’s nothing un-Jewish about believing that Jesus was the messiah even though he’d been crucified or believing that God had raised him or even somehow exalted him as a very especially favored son of God or that he would return from wherever he was to complete the tasks a Jewish messiah of “power and grandeur” could have been expected to carry out. But it does not seem credible that these Galilean Jews would have lept from such beliefs to a believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection meant he was at the right hand of God and had salvific power (sufficient unto itself for salvation) and that Jesus was at least partly divine. That the Apostles were truly illiterate Galilean Jews that seems to me some evidence in itself that there were more differences between them and Paul than just circumcision and diet. If anything a lack of high Christology, it seems to me, should be the default assumption and suspicion over statements to the contrary that were composed later by non-Apostles should be suspect.
What did Paul mean by “being saved”? Today, conservative and fundamentalist Christians equate salvation to avoiding hell and entering heaven. Is Paul’s picture of salvation very different?
“Saved” for Paul was a technical term referring to what *would* happen to a person on the day of judgment, yet to come.
I have long been fascinated with the development of (small “c”) catholicism. The idea that God is the god for all of humanity is to me a big deal and something that I admire about Christianity. I would like pointers to where I can learn more about the development of this idea.
My (untrained and uninformed) speculation:
Once Jews became monotheistic (instead of “there is one god for us”) it becomes harder (though not impossible) to imagine such a god being linked to a particular tribe. One could say, “well, this is the one god for all of humanity and He wants our people to in charge. But I do think that as the world modernizes and becomes a bit less tribal that position becomes harder to hold.
Jesus really didn’t seem to pay much attention to Gentiles. We’ve got one story in which he is flattered into ministering to a Gentile (Matt:15:21-28, i.e., “even dogs get crumbs from the master’s table”), and we’ve got a the highly dubious Matthew 28:19. As, you (Dr Ehrman) said it was Paul’s vision that salvation was available to the Gentiles.
To what extent did “the Twelve” preach to non-Jews? Can we glean anything from Acts about such history? And if they did they pick up this idea independently of Paul? (I’m guessing that the answer will be “we just can’t tell”, but I’d love to know.)
Paul also appeared to be actively hostile to Gentiles becoming Jews. It would be one thing for him to say that it is unnecessary. It is another thing to rant against it and wish that the “knife would slip”. Are there any theories about this. (I’ve got speculation of my own, but I’d prefer to hear from scholars).
So in short, is there something anyone can point me to in English that discusses the history of this “God is god for all of humanity”? I’m happy to (attempt to) read things written largely for scholars, but I’d need something written in English and would prefer something that attempts to review the various schools of though.
There have always been universalists among us — people that believe the salvation brought by Christ applies to all people, believers or not. But I’m afraid I don’t have bibliography on the tip of my head to suggest — maybe someone else on the blog does? My sense is that the 12, or at least their leader, Peter, preached principally to Jews, although the book of Acts definitely wants to claim that the Gentile mission was given by God to Peter before Paul showed up on the scene. Historically, I doubt it…. (Since Paul indicates that Peter’s mission was strictly to the circumcised)
Thank you so much for your response. I wasn’t so much asking about Universalism (everyone is saved), but instead I was trying to focus on what I may be miscalling “catholicism” (salvation does not depend on ethnicity).
It does seem that salvation for the Gentiles originates with (or through) Paul. For me, this seems hugely significant in the history of Christianity and the world. Almighty God was the god for all nations.
I really don’t like “what if” history, so I won’t speculate about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. But I do think it was something that had to happen eventually. Henotheism is hard to maintain in an increasingly cosmopolitan world.
I think Christians before Paul believed that Gentiles could be saved. But they had to convert to Judaism first….
jpgoldberg – regarding your question “is there something anyone can point me to in English that discusses the history of this “God is god for all of humanity”? – in terms of ancient Judaism you may find the book by Terence L. Donaldson, “Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE)” helpful.
Mr. Goldberg, I think Jews DID believe that God was the God of all humanity. By the 2nd century BCE, the writer of Jubilees (verses 7:20–28) wrote about Noah and his family (who were not Jewish but the new beginning of all human beings) and says Noah gave to his grandsons the ordinances, commandments, and judgments he knew. I wish I could point out exactly where the Hebrew Scriptures say or suggest that the righteous of all men are blessed by God. We can say that the Law was meant for Israel and that does not imply that those outside Israel were condemned in any way. Some Jews might be snobbish or clannish or exclusive (I can say this as a Jew), but it’s not because they think all gentiles are condemned (unsaved and unsaveable). They. certainly are no more arrogant than Christian fundamentalists who think their way is the one and only way.
Thanks SBrundney,
I certainly never mean to suggest that Jews thought that all gentiles were damned. Obviously such thinking is highly atypical. But I think that this helps make my point that Judaism wasn’t catholic in the way that Pauline Christianity and Islam are. As a consequence, there needs to be a somewhat more flexible notion of monotheism.
Pretty much every religion has a creation story, and most creation stories don’t leave room for gods of other religions. But at the same time many of these cultures recognize a kind of “god(s) for our people, and different god(s) for your people”. So sometimes your god(s) will be the god(s) of all creation, and other times they will be the god(s) of your people.
As we know, concepts of the divine change over time within a culture, and so by the second century BCE, God may well have been viewed more of a god of all humanity. But I still contend that it was Paul who really brought the notion that God wasn’t tribal.
“No, I don’t hold to the old (= Lutheran = justification by faith not by good works) model/perspective.”
But I’m not surprised that others hear thought that you do:
“Only faith in the death of God’s messiah is what matters. … But doing so has no bearing on their salvation, which comes only through faith in the death and resurrection of God’s messiah.”
One can only be saved from Lutheranism by faith in the subjective genitive! And realizing that Luther added the word “only” of ‘sola fide’ to Rom 3,28: “So halten wir es nun, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, *allein* durch den Glauben.” It is just not there in the Greek: λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.
Even the “new perspective” understands that Paul has a doctrine of justification! It’s the understanding of how it *works* differs: it has to do with good works versus the works of the law, not the difference between the subjective and objective genitive.
Of course. I’m not saying that Paul does not have a doctrine on justification or that the new perspective requires the subjective genitive. But I do think the subjective genitive allows an even better understanding of the Jewishness of Paul.
You have to admit that you your post here sounds rather like Luther’s sola fide:
But I’m not surprised that others hear thought that you do:
“Only faith in the death of God’s messiah is what matters. … But doing so has no bearing on their salvation, which comes only through faith in the death and resurrection of God’s messiah.”
But only if you take it out of context! (Note your ellipsis!)
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to take your words out of context, just trying to quote from a couple of statements a couple of paragraphs apart.
It would be interesting if you would post in more detail about your view of the pistis xristou subjective/objective genitive debate. A single article by Richard Hays way back in my graduate school days changed the way I’ve read Paul ever since.
Yes, Richard is the one who swung the debate around. I’ve never been convinced. Responding would involve some pretty involved exegesis, but I’ll think about it!
Prof what evidence is there that James converted after the death of Jesus?
Well, Paul says so, and he had no reason to make it up, so that’s pretty good evidence.
“he had no reason to make it up, so that’s pretty good evidence”? Bart, that makes no sense at all. We don’t know what reasons he might have had to make it up. And, when I read Paul at least, I find a man with an enormous ego and an arrogant, sensitive hold on the power he has on the churches he started. He wanted to and did start an entire movement. One might be able to go on and on about hints in the texts of his letters. But the main point is that, aside from evidence there might be of reasons why he might make this or that up, assuming he had none seems to me a very procedure.
Bart, when Paul speaks of his past persecution of the Church, what exactly do think that meant he did? Did it involve violence?
I’ve always thought so — but I’m not sure what he means! Was he beating people up??
Hi Bart, where do you think that Paul received the 1 Corinthians 15 creed from? Do you think he received it from the apostles or do we really not know?
Apart from him hearing it before he wrote it (and possibly using it in his celebration of the weekly Christian meal) I don’t think we know exaclty the line of transmission.
I also read on Dan Wallace’s blog that you date the creed 2-5 years after the resurrection. Why do you think it was this early?
I don’t recall every saying that. Maybe I did! Does Dan Wallace cite a reference where I say it? My view is that we can’t know how early it is, only that it is prior to Paul’s letter.
It was in his article that reviewed his debate with Dan Barker, he wrote, “It is also agreed upon by all teaching scholars (Ludemann, Dunn, Ehrman, etc.) that this creed Paul is quoting in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 dates to within 2-5 years of Jesus’ death.” He didn’t give a source.
(https://danielbwallace.com/2015/08/01/fact-checking-dan-barker-from-our-recent-debate-june-6-2015/)
Do you think it could be said with any probability that the creed was formulated this early and that Paul received this creed during his meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18,19)? Or is it really just speculation?
Yeah, actually it’s not agreed on by “all teaching scholars” at all…. And yes, it’s speculation but possible that this was Paul’s source. I lean toward some such view myself.
Perhaps I missed your argument earlier in the blog for the creed being established before Paul. Right now, all I recall is that it sounds, in so many words, like something pre-packaged. Someone (or some group) before Paul would have had to come up with it. Why could Paul not have done so?
The way these things are determined is by seeing if there are non-Pauline words, phrasing, grammar, and style in the passage. If so, possibly he didn’t write it.
So, keeping in mind that Paul did not invent Christianity, is it fair to say that Christianity is more the religion of Paul than of Jesus (keeping in mind your thesis of Jesus as itinerant apocalyptic preacher)?
Yes, probably — but I don’t think Paul *invented* it. He inherited it.
Thank you. I should have phrased it differently. I wasn’t claiming that Paul invented Christianity but was asking if the religion, as we know it, has more to do with Paul’s viewpoint than Jesus’ viewpoint.
Bart
What do you think of Dr.Steve Mason’s view that Mark is basically writing Paul’s version of Jesus life and death ? Hints such as the language Mark uses around ‘Good News’, the response of the gentiles compared to the Jews, the focus on Jesus’ imminent return in the end days. Dr.Mason describes these as Pauline theology being summarised and promoted by Mark. Do you think this view is valid ?
I’d say it doesn’t work very well. Almost none of the stories in Mark are in Paul and almost all of Paul’s concerns are absent from Mark. Mark’s major interest is in the words and deeds of Jesus leading up to his death; Paul says nothing about his deeds and only quotes him a couple of times, never directly in the form Mark has. They certainly share some theological views, but so did lots of followrs of Jesus (for example in the salvation brought by his death and the gospels’ availability to gentiles). So Mark may have been influenced by some of Paul’s theology, but he certainly, I owuld say, is not putting Paul into narrative form.