»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Who Put The Sermon on the Mount in the Mouth of Jesus
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Who Put The Sermon on the Mount in the Mouth of Jesus |
|
|
Philmont Member
since 2004-01-10
Posts 61 |
My question is as the title says. Someone recently told me that the sermon on the mount was in fact put in the mouth of Jesus. The guy said this as though it were a commonly held belief. Perhaps some authorities on the Bible can clarify how scholars have arrived at this conclusion? Also, all you educated Christians out there, who supposedly accept as fact that the sermon was in fact put in the mouth of Jesus, can perhaps specify why you still think it's valid since it's just made up. |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Phillip R. Montgomery - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Some do say that the "Sermon on the Mount" is not a literal once-given sermon, but rather a collection of differernt sayings of Jesus passed on by oral tradition. This may have some truth in it. But, even so, it doesn't mean that the main body of the sermon itself wasn't delivered in actuality, literally from the hillside in one discourse. Most teachers (good ones anyway) have repetitive themes that are taught at many different times throughout the teachers' career. It's not at all inconceivable that such was the case with the sermon on the mount, with many of it's parts and themes being spoken throughout the teaching ministry of Jesus, as well as in that summarizing fashion on the mount. Others conclude (falsely in my opinion) that since the content is similar in many ways to Paul's teachings, that the influence of Paul had to do with these sayings being "put in the mouth" of Jesus. But if you remember, Paul was first and foremost a follower of Jesus, and of his teachings. The natural conclusion is not that Paul put these sayings in the mouth of Jesus, but the other way around. So overall, I don't think there's sufficient evidence that it's "just made up". Also it requires too much awkward reconstruction to try and say it all came from Paul. Stephen |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
well on stephen. i agree completely. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Ah but that's not exactly true is it? Saul was first and foremost a hunter/persecutor of Christians. quote: Perhaps, but where Paul is concerned much is awkward. His history, his conversion, and the conflicts between his teachings and those of Jesus/James. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Which teachings were substantively different? You're not dredging up the old "faith without works is dead" vs. "we are save by faith alone, not of works" argument, are you? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Nope, I'm dredging up the old "adherence to the Law" vs "my gentile/roman-friendly visions"  though, "faith without works is dead" always made more sense to me |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Paul would (and did, I think) agree with James. The confusion doesn't lie with Pauline or Jerusalem schools of early Christian thought - the confusion lies with modern readers who confound the indicative and imperative. I.e., We bark because we are dogs, we don't bark to become dogs. We do good things because we are Christians - we don't do good things to become Christians. Good works proceed from faith, they are not a means to faith. Under this rubric, both Paul and James speak without contradiction - Paul (in Galatians): We are saved by grace alone through faith ... yet we should not be lulled into antimomianism ... so beware - don't take your salvation for granted. James: Since works are evidence of true faith, where there are no good works, there is no faith ... so beware - don't take your salvation for granted. Or do you think God really cares whether or not my manhood still bears its foreskin? Jim |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Philmont, And what is your underlying desire? To be persuaded about Jesus? If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I've actually been thinking about this for days, but...sigh, the only answer I hear is "Who put the bops in the bop shoo bop shoo bop? Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?" Meaning, I guess, it doesn't much matter to me. *shrug* I just dance.  |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I disagree, its hardly an issue of 'modern readers' when schisms have existed within christianity since its creation. Nor is it, in my opinion, a matter of confusion. I think there are clear distinctions between Pauline thought and the early christians. Instances throughout Acts clearly show Paul was at odds with the apostles/sect. The confusion, lies instead, from the repackaging of christianity for a gentile audience. quote: I'm personally not a believer. But if I am to believe what has been written of God through the OT, and through the sermons of Jesus, then yes, adherence to the Law should be observed.The words of the apostle/sect who actually lived/served with Jesus over those of the 'reborn' persecutor whose only contact is a brief vision in the desert. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Raph: quote: You say these things are awkward. But can you present particulars that would cast doubt on the historicity of Paul, or of his personal conversion? Also, exactly what teachings contradict those of Jesus and James? Being fairly familiar with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and James, I don't see any "conflict" between them. Though there are different emphases with each respective teacher, and dialectical tensions involved, I see Paul's teaching as a natural outgrowth of what Jesus said and did. What is seed in the Gospels, becomes a full grown tree in the epistles. But what's important is that the seed IS readily found in the Gospels. Unless you want to argue that whatever is in the Gospels which even hints of Paul was put there (at a later date) by Paul and his flock. But as I am addressing in the "Religion" thread, this argument seems to have nothing substantial to back it. There are no "earlier" Gospels with which to compare the canonical Gospels with, in order to say with authority "They have been changed". It's much simpler, and likely, that the Gospels are accurate, and that Paul's theology was just a direct result of Jesus' teachings ... a development rather than a perversion. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
"Paul's theology was just a direct result of Jesus' teachings" We know of Paul's disagreements with the apostles and early sect. Who would have had more direct knowledge of Jesus' teachings, those of the sect that lived with Jesus or Paul who had no link before his fateful vision? As for James, doesn't it strike you as odd, that such an important person to the early church, the leader of the sect has so little a contribution to the NT or known about him? Probably not. You have your faith, I have my doubts. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: That depends on whether or not the "Christ" that Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus was really Christ or not. Also "indirect" knowledge does not necessarily mean incorrect knowledge. There are many today who understand Newtonian Physics better than perhaps many who knew Isaac personally. Though, you do raise an interesting question. Let me ask you one ... Assume for a moment that the teachings of Jesus were really not just a reestablishment of Judaism. That something more was intended than just a revival of strict adherence to the laws of Moses. That Jesus really did claim to be more (not less) than a prophet, since all of the prophets of the OT strove to reestablish obedience to the Law. That mission was nothing new. Okay, assuming the above. Let me ask: If Peter, among other Jewish Christians, had observed Judaism all their lives, having it's tenets and assumptions hammered into them from infancy, do you really find it so incredible that they might revert back to an old and inadequate understanding of the law, as it relates to salvation? Is it unreasonable to suppose they might vacillate in a moment of weakness? Would this have ever been a temptation? They were ALL Jews since birth, probably circumcised at eight days old. While only some of them were with Jesus a mere three years. (after all, we don't know that even most of the Judaizers "knew Jesus" personally, though some did, most notably Peter). Also, didn't Jesus' own experience with Jewish disciples, on many occasions, illustrate that they sometimes played the part of "fools and slow of heart to believe?" I don't say that deridingly, those were Jesus' own words who loved them more than anything. I too know how hard it is for ME to let go of old ways of thinking, and to embrace fresh truth. I'll return later to address your question about James. I need to think about that one. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I meant to answer this earlier and forgot ... quote: When I said "first and foremost" I wasn't talking about "first" in the sense of chronology. Of course Paul was previously a Zealous Jew who persecuted Christians. But we were discussing about how some propose that the Christian Paul, (after he became a Christian) influenced the writing of the Sermon on The Mount. So by "first and foremost", I meant in terms of his beliefs and allegience at that time. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Are you speaking of people Newton might have associated with,friends aquantencies? Or other mathematicians/scientists working alongside or with his theories? Because I'm speaking of more than a mere association with Jesus. To be a part of his early sect, one would have had things clarified and questions answered under his tutolage. quote: I do believe Jesus had more than simply the restoration of Law in mind. As descendant of David, Jesus would have been heir to the throne. As Rabbi/King, Jesus may well have been seeking to restore power and create a secular state much like the Maccabean dynasty. As such, Jesus was, or viewed himself as the King/Saviour. Which the apostles, some hesitantly, believed and followed. quote: But those who question Paul's allegiances/beliefs, by looking at his past for example, would question whether his beliefs were in line with Jesus' |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
"But if you show partiality, you are commiting sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all For He who sais "Do not commit adultery" also said " Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder,you have become transgressors of the law" James 2:9-11 Why have I quoted this? Because it's an example of the differences between Pauline thought and the early Sect. James is explicit: 'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all' It illustrates that strict adherence to the law was core to the early sects beliefs. Even the slightest deviation of the law, according to James, is a transgression. This chapter is also important because it warns, at least in my opinion, against showing partiality to Jesus(read James 2:1-4)over the law, which the diefication/glorification of Pauline christianity fails to do. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not to me. To me, it demonstrates that strict adherence to the law is impossible and, more importantly, was recognized as impossible. That road leads only to failure. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
On it's own it can be interpreted that way, but placed in the context of chapter 2, and all of James really, I believe otherwise. First we'll have to look at the full quote. "If however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to Scripture, "You Shall Love Your Neighbour As Yourself," you are doing well But if you show partiality, you are commiting sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all For He who sais "Do not commit adultery" also said " Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder,you have become transgressors of the law" James first expresses that adherence to the royal law is the correct path, he then asserts that failure to do so is a transgression offering up an example. Second, James is equally explicit in the preceeding chapter. "But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does." James 1:25 It wouldn't make sense to call a law impossible to fulfill, the perfect law. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Aenimal: quote: Geography and history explain it. First, Paul's missionary activity involved him with churches throughout Asia Minor, Greece and Rome, making letter-writing a necessity. James was Bishop of the Jerusalem church, wrote well before the other NT writers, and the early Jewish Christians were far less missions minded than Paul (i.e., they focused their attention on a relatively small geographic area). Because the Jewish Christians were not as spread out (and because other Apostles lacked Paul's educational sophistication), it is not surprising that letters from the Jerusalem apostles would be relatively rare. Second, Paul's early education included training at the academy in Tarsus, where he was versed in rhetoric and the art of letter writing. The sophistication of Paul's style as compared with the other writing apostles (with the exception of the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews) is easy to spot, even in English translations. Paul relied heavily on his training and, unlike his Jerusalem-church counterparts, considered letter-writing an important and effective means of instruction while he was absent. Third, James was brought before the Sanhedrin, condemned and stoned to death at a relatively early date in early-church history. Jerusalem became particularly inhospitable to the church in the mid-50s A.D.. Letter writing became more important to all early Church leaders at around this time, as evidenced by the late dates of 1, 2, and 3 Peter, the Gospel of John, 1, 2, 3 John, and the Revelation to John. James was certainly an influential person in the early church. Clement of Rome (Peter's successor) records that Paul met with James as late as 58 A.D. (approximately 6-8 years prior to Paul's death). Further, Acts 15 does not read as though Paul left the First Jerusalem Council dejected. Further, 2 Peter 3 provides a different picture of Peter's attitude toward Paul than the one you put forth: quote: It is noteworthy that the earliest extant MSS of 2 Peter date from 175-225 (struggles in the early church to claim the authoritative voice of Paul didn't begin taking place until the late 4th to 5th centuries). I don't think you conspiracy theory hold much water. Paul's writings and theology were accepted (and defended, in Peter's case) by the other Apostles. It is important to note that misunderstandings of Paul's letters in relation to James' epistle have plagued the church through history. Your finding of conflict between the theology of Paul and James, where the Apostles themselves found no conflict, is simply a perpetuation of the message of "[the] ignorant and unstable [having] twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant ...". Jim |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Jim Your theory does well to explain why Paul was a prolific, and eloquent letter writer. it still doesn't explain why there is little said about James scriptually or historically. Whether or not you believe the site at Qumran was in fact the early christian sect, there is no disputing that the site housed an immense amount of scrolls on sect rules, beliefs and scriptural commentary. While not as educated or sophisticated as paul's work, it still shows that while they may not have depended on letters, they certainly didn't shy from writing. So while your theory may challenge the quality of the work, it doesn't explain the absence of James or the early sect's work. Back to those scrolls for a moment. Paul would have had access to such literature in his 3 year 'probation period' with the early sect. Again whether or not you believe the Qumran sect was on in the same, Paul's letters and ideas show he was exposed to writing that the sects shared. Paul's theology rests on faith. In his letters to the Romans and Galatians he states that the scriptures say: 'the upright man finds life through faith' and 'we are told: the righteous man finds life through faith' respectively. Where did this idea come to Paul, what scripture is he quoting? Evidence points to the Book of Habakkuk, an apocryphal OT text. 'The upright man will live by his faith' ~Habakkuk 2:4 Why is this important? Because the sect at Qumran repeatedly makes mention of this scripture in their Habukkuk commentaries. The Qumran's Habukkuk commentary expands on this as such: 'Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the house of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.' That quote is extremely important, because it sounds incredibly like Pauline doctrine, suffering and faith in the 'teacher of righteousness' equal salvation or deliverance. Yet, retains an adherence to the Law, very much like Jesus' early words do. Its not unreasonable to say that Paul was exposed to this, or similar commentary during his time with the sect. That said, is it unreasonable to say then, that Paul got it wrong, preaching this passage not as it was intended by abandoning its adherence to the Law? There are other important features of the Habukkuk Commentary that make such a link and 'conspiracy theory' more plausible. It deals with the leader of the Qumran sect, who, like James is called The Righteous. The Righteous has two characters to contend with. The 'Liar', an outsider allowed to join the community who, disagreeing with their views, leaves along with some members to preach his version of the sects doctrine. This sounds an awful lot like Paul's role as described in the events in Acts. The Second character is the Wicked Priest, who is determined to destroy those 'zealous for the law' and has a role in the death of the teacher of righteousness. This would be the Temple priest (most likely Ananas) who we know was adamant about rooting out and destroying the early christians. Something Saul of Tarsus, by his own admission was party to. What we have of the Qumran's events of the death of their Righteous One, hold startling similarities to Eusebius & Josephus versions of James martyrdom. Is it merely coincedence that the Righteous leader and James have such similar histories? Perhaps, though the odds would be astronomical. But how do you prove or disprove they are not one in the same person? History. The church dates the people of the Qumran community and the battle spoken of in their War Scroll, to the 63BC Roman siege of Palestine. This places the christian sect, James death and the revolt of 66AD conviently out of harms way from the events and personages of the Qumran texts. But for some important details in the Habukkuk Commentary and War Scroll. The 66BC attack on Palestine is clearly Republican Rome, however, the scrolls mention practices of Roman troops making offers to their standards (which held the likeness or initials of the emperor) after victory. Troops in the Republic would have sacrificed to their gods, sacrificing to their standards and emperor is clearly a ritual of Imperial Rome. Josephus confirms the use of this practice in his history. Thus the attack Qumran community, their respective characters and the revolt they speak would more accurately by dated to 66AD. Right smack in the middle of James, Paul and the Christian sect. quote: Some historians have pushed the date up to around 62 AD, and have argued that James stoning in part prompted the revolt of 66 AD. In fact early church historian Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, emphasises this in his history of James and early sect. "'Let us stone James the Righteous', and began to stone him, as in spite of his fall he was still alive...While they pelted him with stones.. one of them took a fuller, took the club which he used to beat clothes, and brought it down on the head of the Righteous One. Such was his martyrdom...Immediately after this, Vespian began to besiege them." and by quoting Josephus who referring to the revolt: 'these things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous' This Josephus quote curiously, no longer exists in any available versions of his text. But we know the it exists because the same quote is used by Origen, another early church father and historian, in his work. Why is this important? Because i mentioned the Qumran community, and therefore the Righteous One mentioned in their texts, as more logically dated to around the time of 66AD. If James the Righteous' death is more accurately dated closer to 66AD as well, it makes the chances of coincidence less likely. quote: I like how the accepted Church interpretation of the the letters by the Church is fact, and any challenges are merely misinterpretations by the ignorant and unstable. Why is it implausible that it was Paul who misunderstood the teachings of the early sect? As the Qumran texts, or at the very least, Paul's own admissions of being at odds with some of the early sect, would show. I've never denied that some members of the sect or apostles agreed with Paul. I did say that Paul created a schism within the early christian sect. Is that so absurd, considering the numerous factions and divisions of christianity that have arisen over the course of the last 2000 years? Or is that just another ignorant and unstable assumption? A most telling quote into the psychology of Paul read: 'And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews...though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those under the Law' Paul shows that he will do whatever it takes, including deceit, to win new adepts to his vision and a look at the history of the church shows the tradition continued. A tradition of preying on the ignorant and unstable. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Raph, Just a point of clarification... The book of Habakkuk is not considered "apocryphal", by the Christian Church nor by the Jews. It is part of the Jewish canon of scripture. One of the minor prophets. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I stand corrected Stephanos, i believed it to be part of the apocryphal texts that are now included with some bibles. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Aenimal: I'll return to your other points later. One thing I can point out now is that "essentially literal" translations from Hebrew/Greek to English tend to confuse the interpretation of "The righteous man shall live by his faith." Contrast this with the idea that the righteous man shall live by his works, and I think the proper interpretation will unfold. The former is Gospel, the latter is Law. Law is not Gospel and Gospel is not Law. I believe the beginnings of error lie in the misunderstanding of this very important distinction, and also form the root of your misunderstanding of Paul and James. Faith is not strict adherence to the Law, but rather belief in and personal appropriation of the promise of God. A dynamically equivalent reading of the passage would be "Those who are by faith righteous shall live" (paraphrasing the RSV, which is an essentially literal translation with some use dynamic equivalence to more clearly express the thought conveyed by the phrase). How else do you explain Paul's writing that "No one is rightious. No, not one." Our righteousness isn't actual (i.e., a condition resulting from strict adherence to the Law), but rather is an alien righteousness, imputed to use by faith in Jesus Christ, our substitute. Jim |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
who put the words in the mouth of Jesus, perhaps the same entity who gives us our words, emotions? I believe in God...but I don't believe in all religion teaches...and the Bible, well, even though it is a good souce and set of rules for humans to live by...and it has helped me on many occassions...I have a difficult time with the content...meaning, the Book was written by men, and interrited by their own beliefs, not to mention, when released to the public by the priests, probably edited to fit their own need for power and control. I believe there is something way more... and I don't believe God ment for women to be surpressed....I really don't, and yet, some religions still evoke men to treat their women as slaves...without a thread of intelligence... How insulting...and I truly believe in those days, the priests and men were strongly intimidated by women and feared them...feared their potential for success and to lead or to even offer unto the thoughts of men... Think about it...those books were written by poets/profits, seers, people with great perception who had dreams...now I ask, you, have any of you ever had those so real dreams, where you woke up sweat from head to toe, and the dream came true...have any of you had perceptions, or been in a near death experience and heard a voice telling you, everythings going to be all right...I have... right down to names, places, etc? How many times has we ourselves read a poem and taken what we needed from the poem by what we believe and how we were raised, only to find, the meaning of said poem has an entire different meaning? Can you imagine for one moment if there is some fact to the Di Vinci Code? Think about it...have men changed? Has History Changed us...and look at the power the priests had in those days...when no one was allowed to read the Bible, but the priests...no, b/c men are selfish with a passion for power and greed, I cannot be a skeptic in some areas....which none of us will really know, until we journey to the other side. And so...I don't dispute all of your comments, whose to say...who really knows the truth...humans need so to believe in and has forever searched for meanings of the spiritual...it is a good thing to believe in, but in my case, and forgive me any insult, but man made religions/organized religion, just doesn't do it for me. I've seen way to many religions....which have changed rules....and if you believe in the Bible, several questions I have trouble me. It says in the Bible, we shall have no other Gods before God, nor bow down to anyone except God, nor shall we call any man Father when refering to God....He and He alone is our Father. It also says...but what gives one human being the right/and power to say, your sins are forgiven????? And then theres the born again belief? Which I've been told by these born again people that I should not keep the company of anyone who isn't born again... And please, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but simply stating the religions I've studied under. I was at one time a Sunday School Teacher and Youth Group advisor....but, could never agree with the political aspect of the Churches and their organized religions. Again, I stress, we will not know until the day we cross over to the other side...and to me...it's safer this way...and not listening to any human. Although, the Church is and has been responsible for helping to keep our freedoms intact here in the States...and so they are not all bad...they do hords of good for people, and there are also many examples of which I could write....so I'm on the fence here...always wondering...always pondering...and yet, somehow I know when it comes to these questions, I should be patient, all will come in good time. But I believe our muse is what motivated Jesus, and whose to say, that muse isn't God? I don't mean to challenge anyone, or take away from their beliefs... I would though, so like to believe that the seed of Jesus is walking this earth today...and to me, that's an ultimate thought? What I believe we all need to do, is humble ourselves, because it is by our education that we are sometimes fooled into believing we know it all, and we don't, we won't ever even come close...but by humbleness and submittal to God, I believe he does speak to all of us in different ways, according to our needs.... We can recite the Bible or any other writing but does that make it written in stone...? I don't know...just my thoughts Just my thoughts derived from personal experience and questions [This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-22-2005 03:11 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
wait.all non-church approved views are clearly misinterpretations based on overly literal translations by the ignorant and unstable....ok,got it. i cede |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Not at all. YOUR views are clearly misinterpretations based on a failure to read the texts in context and, in my opinion, on your blurring of the lines between two co-existant, but distinct, Jewish sects. Paul was not in conflict with James - he was in conflict with early Pharisee converts that sought to maintain the hedge around the Law (the Traditions of the Elders) as a mainstay for Christian life and conduct. Neither Paul nor James can be read to promote a legalistic system. James addressed antinomianism and Paul address Judaizer legalism. In both Paul and James, it is clear that good actions necessarily proceed from genuine faith - in this view, Paul and James enjoy harmony. Furthermore, a careful reading of Paul reveals that he never considered Christianity to be divorced from its Jewish roots. The culmination of the Gospel in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ simply extended the promise of God to all people, "grafting" the wild branch to the "true vine" by adoption. The Essenes were not Christians - they were an ascetic, Jewish, Messianic sect that was certainly not looking for a Jesus-like Messiah. I am not aware of any significant Christian documents being unearthed at Qumran. If you are, please share them. The church is a human institution and, like all human institutions, is capable of error. But new perspectives should be judged on their merits, not afforded equal authority solely on the basis that the new perspectives are new. Your perspective seems to be skewed by a misreading of James and Paul, as I think I've begun to demonstrate. Whether or not my reading of the text falls under the "church-approved" category is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not my reading places James' and Paul's writings in their proper, respective contexts. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Raph: quote: I think Jim's response did cogently explain why James' influence (through writing) is less prevalent in the early church than Paul's. But when you demand an explanation for the "absence of James or the early sect's work", these thoughts come to my mind: 1) The early Christian community was no established and ecclesiastically organized body. So it's not surprising that there is a lack of written material from the earliest days. 2) There was an oral tradition, which was the praxis of the earliest Christians, which resulted in the writing of the gospels, at a slightly later date. 3) The writing of Paul's letters and the Gospels are still very early in relation to the events of which they speak. The time lapse is perfectly fitting for the typical transmission process of that culture in that day ... which was a strong oral tradition, transferred to the written page. 4) The epistle of James was widely circulated in the first few centuries of the Church (though viewed as spurious by some). And while this is small in comparison with the many letters of Paul, the writings of James are completely absent from the Qumran scrolls. So the only solid trace of James' teaching is in the very tradition which you seem to call "Pauline" and "heretical". quote: Raph, It’s widely understood and certain that Paul was merely quoting the canonical book of Habakkuk. It requires no "evidence" when you can read it for yourself. And that fact, in no way, even begins to suggest that Paul might have borrowed from the Qumran community. Habakkuk was one of the Hebrew prophets, and Paul was a Pharisee, as thoroughly Jewish as Jew can be. The Qumran community too, was an offshoot of the Jewish religion, therefore their sacred texts were Jewish. The "borrowing" was theirs. Paul and Qumran community had a common source ... the Hebrew scriptures. That’s the most cogent explanation. Anything else is unnecessarily elaborate, contrived, and unnatural. I also want to briefly touch on the tenuous nature of Eisenman's theories. From what I’ve read, the world of scholarship finds his views extreme and marginal. And though many praise him for his originality and zeal (fitting attributes of artists, moreso than historians), he is considered a "reconstructionist" whose work is founded upon mountains of speculation. And before you say, "it's a ganging-up, and a conspiracy of the Catholic Church", not all who disagree with Eisenman are Catholics, or even Christians. Of course it's not fair for me just to point out that he is in the minority, and that his views aren't popular. That, in and of itself doesn't make one wrong. So I just want to mention a few points of what is very doubtful in his work: * His dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems "forced" into the years of early Christianity. Paleography (by comparing the texts to the "Nash Papyrus", a small fragment of the Old Testament from Egypt dated 2nd century B.C.) has concluded that the texts are older than 50-66 A.D. And I don't know how much stock you place in radio-carbon analysis, but it also has seemed to confirm this. It seems quite obvious to many that Eisenman has established his views, then proceeded to shift dating and various other evidences to fit. * His drawing of analogies between "James the just" of the New Testament, and "The Righteous One" of the Qumran texts, is inconclusive. The terms "righteous" and "just" were such general and common terms among ALL religious groups, that no connection can be assumed without something more substantial. * Likewise, his comparison of "The Liar" and "Wicked Priest" with Paul is arbitrary. First of all, one has to assume that Paul was indeed in the wrong, subverting the pure Judaic practice, before you can even make that comparison. It's circular reasoning. It's much more cogent to believe that Jesus DID bring forth something very different than Judaism, else he wouldn't have been handed over by the Jewish leaders for crucifixion. Therefore Paul (like his Lord and master) would also encounter the stubbornness of the Judaizers. Paul was merely guarding the heart and soul of the gospel, to keep it from slipping back. The "new wine" of the gospel could not be put in the Old Jewish wineskins of legalism. Therefore Paul was a defender or reformer. The comparison with the "heretic" of the Qumran texts can only be made if it is assumed that Paul was turning men away from the pure gospel. Also, EVERY religious community had teachings of "The wolf in sheep’s clothing". Any system which involves dogmatic truth, by it’s nature, will be in danger of corruption and dilution. Therefore "The Liar" and "The Wicked Priest" of the Qumran text, are just more examples of the same. You might as well connect Paul with the "Infidel" of the Muslim scriptures. Such features are much too general and common among religious groups, to even begin to make a connection. The only real connection I see is a theological / psychological one ... that God has put in the hearts of all, an awareness of the truth. And no matter how dim or perverted, various religious traditions attest to the common principles of God. quote: Again, martyrdom is more than common among zealot groups. Even less amazing if we think (as the soundest scholarship shows) that the Qumran community was most llikely an Essene community. Secondly there is NO proof from Eusebius or Josephus that Paul was an agent in the martyrdom of James. They rather confirm what the Christian scriptures also state, that the Church as a whole (including Paul) was suffering Roman and Jewish persecution. Also (I'm assuming that you mean "Ananias"), Ananias was a thoroughly Jewish high priest who persecuted the Church for not being jewish enough! His persecution was based upon the Christian deviation from Judaism, for he considered the Christians to be blasphemers and heretics. So how can you say that Paul (along with Ananias??) was persecuting James and the "early sect" for being too Jewish, when actually the early persecution involving the high priest was because they weren't jewish enough? So, on one hand you're arguing that Paul was an antinomian, breaker of tradition, leading people astray from the pure "Jewish" gospel, while on the other hand you are associating Paul with Ananias, who was anything but antinomian. quote: Because you have to first prove, with something substantial, that there WAS such an early sect. The only thing we can say with certainty is that there was a group of Christians who tended to fall back upon the tenets of Judaism, and that this group was confronted by Paul. There is nothing to suggest that this represents the "early sect", as if it were easily shown by chronology. And the question of which teaching (that of the Judaizers or that of Paul) more accurately reflects the teachings of Christ, is settled by textual internal evidence. Though I will concede that James (along with Peter) was likely swept up for a time in the error of the Judaizers, my argument is that 1) this error was not a reflection of original Christianity as much as it was a reflection of the old jewish sacrificial system, and 2) This schism was one in which Paul was vindicated and the other apostles seemed to come in line with the truth. I have addressed some of the historical problems with Eisenman’s views. Next I will examine the textual internal evidence which shows that 1) Paul and James were not (ultimately) in any fundamental disagreement, and that 2) Paul was not antinomian. quote: Only with a ruthless "hermeneutic of suspicion" could anyone read that into what Paul was saying. Do you not recognize the wisdom of causing as little offense as possible in merely outward things? Would you not eat what the natives cook, in a more primitive setting, if only not to offend them and to show respect? In the present world of an almost overboard pluralism, I’m surprised you can’t relate to what Paul was saying. Even the French said "When in Rome do as the Romans do". To attribute malicious deceit to Paul, whose goal was that he might "save some", is missing the intent of his heart. more later ... Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: 1. was the Qumranic community an established and ecclesiastically organized body? they somehow managed to produce a large amount of written materials 2. the sheer quantity of material recovered at the Qumran site proves that communities of the time did not rely as heavily on the oral traditions as you suggest 3.the qumranic community's scrolls are very early, in fact, most likely during or soon after the events in which they speak, as the republican/imperial rome argument would attest to 4.how would you know exactly what's missing from the qumranic materials when after 50 years only a fraction of what was recovered has been translated? the nag hammadi scrolls were released to scholars and completely translated by 1977. access to the dead sea scrolls was restricted to a specially selected group for over 40 years, causing an uproar amongst scholars and historians for the monopoly and the unprofessional handling of the texts. quote: I have copies of books on my shelf that pre-date my birth, whose language is archaic compared to our modern tongue. would you assume my age by the books I keep? But let's get to the facts you've proposed. First off paleographical evidence is often contested and it depends many variables. But let's look at it concerning the scrolls. The initial 'accepted' dates were based on the paleographical work of Solomon Birnbaum. Here's Birnbaum 'scientific' technique by which he dereived a final date for the text of Solomon found in one of the caves. The Qumran texts were believed to date from 300BC to 68AD (368 years) this established, he discovered 46 features of a one particular style of writing in the text, and 11 of another. With this information he came to this equation: 46? to 11 equals 368 to x. This somehow becomes 72. 72 is then subtracted from the starting number(300 BC) and the date for that specific text was determined to be 228 BC. Confused? Me too, and so were most scholars who threw out Birnbaum's method. Attempts to date Greek texts found at Qumran was also uncertain, one scholar said "the process is unreliable even with substantial manuscripts, but here we are dealing with dim and scrappy fragments which allow no more than a partial impression of the graphic ensemble" Now, with regards to carbon dating, it's important to note that the texts themselves were not scanned initially. For fear of damaging the texts, wrappings found in the jars containing them were tested. This was often contested and repeated requests for retesting the scrolls were denied. In 1991, 19 of the texts were finally tested, dating put them at 2-135 AD(CE). But these results have also been contested by supporters of a pre AD sect so carbon dating from either side is questioned. quote: I disagree, you assert that the Temple priests wanted Jesus killed for preaching a different kind of doctrine. You forget that the Priests at this time were appointed by Herod and later the Roman governors of Judea. It's much more cogent to believe that Jesus saught to restore dignity to the Temple, much like the Maccabeans had railed against their 'hellenized' Temple and priests. Thus, Jesus' anger and chasing of the money- lenders who had made 'his father's house a house of merchandise.' Josephus' history and more importantly the Talmud scorn the High Priests of this era, their legacy is one of wickedness and violence and they were hated by the Jews: Woe is me because of the House of Boethus, woe is me because of their slaves. Woe is me because of the House of Hanan, woe is me because of their incantations. Woe is me because of the House of Kathros, woe is me because of their pens. Woe is me because of the House of Ishmael, son of Phiabi, woe is me because of their fists. For they are the High Priests, and their sons are treasurers, and their sons-in law are trustees, and their servants beat the people with staves quote: I disagree,when looking at Jesus' words, the documented hatred and corruption of the Temple priests, the Qumran texts and Josephus' historical accounts, the pieces fit. You call it reconstructionism, I believe christianity as we know it is reconstructionism. And i'd argue the features are far too general, the descriptions of the characters when placed with the accounts of Acts or Josephus' history make sense as more than coincedence or general features amongst religious groups. quote: First of all, linking Jesus to the Essenes is not a new theory, But that assertion was based on the popular view of the Essene's were a pacifist ascetic and celibate people. But the Qumran sects 'Community Rule' scroll contains regulations on marriage and children, and indeed graves of both are found at Qumran, so there goes the celibacy theory. The Qumran site also houses a very non-pacifist 'War Scroll' and the ruins contain what look to be military defenses including a tower and forge.The Essenes were reported to no sacrifice animals, but the Temple Scroll describes procedures for sacrifice and animal bones were found buried in the caves or carefully in jars. The Essenes were said to be held in high honour by and friendly with Herod. But many of the texts are hostile towards practices that are traits of the Arab rulers, and towards authority. Eisenman mentions the Qumran community refer to themselves the Osei ha-Torah(doers of the Law) shortened this is Osim. It's important to note i have found in my studies, that shortening terms is common practice in Hebrew mysticism, its called Notariqon. Its not difficult to imagine the mystics at Qumran calling themselves the Osim(oseem). Why is this important? Epiphanius, an early historian, describes a dead sea 'heritcal' sect called the Ossenes. Its not difficult to merge the Osim with the Ossene. Consider the terms Nozrim, Nazoreans, Nazarenes and Nasrani, are interchangeable as early names of the christians. Speaking of the Nozrim, Eisenman notes that the Qumran peoples also dub themselves the Nozrei ha-brit.(keepers of the covenant) Nozrim could easily be a derivitive of Nozrei. I'm sure youre scoffing at the idea, but consider as Eisenman states, the evolution of Caesar, to Kaiser to Tsar. quote: Whoa, whoa whoa, where did I state he was? I mentioned Saul was there during Stephen's stoning that's all. With regards to James and Paul i simply stated my belief that they were at odds on the finer points of sect doctrine! If this is in reference to the Liar, Wicked priest, they were wholly seperate adversaries of the Righteous and I never stated anything differently. quote: Annas and Ananias are interchangable as Annas is a contracted form of the latter. I've already challenged your thoughts on the High Priests of the time and just how upholding of the Law Jesus thought them to be. Remember what Stephen says as he is stoned in front of Saul: "You who had the Law brought to you by angels are the very ones who have not kept it!" It is obvious that it is the Temple and High Priest's who are not 'Jewish' enough in Stephen's eyes, just as in Jesus' when he chased the lenders from the Temple quote: Considering the myriad of factions that exist in modern times, consider the factions that existed before the church was finally unified under Constantine it's not hard to believe. Prove it definitively? Prove Paul's vision. quote: Yes, according to the church. You have faith in their words. I have little faith in those who thought it best to hide, restrict and burn countless texts throughout their history before men could decide for themselves. quote: As surprised as I am that you can't see a difference in James' words vs Paul's. You say 'that he might save some', I say 'anything to get new adepts', a long standing practice of the church. look, i never set out to change your beliefs and only forwarded when questioned. philmont asked where the notion that the sermon on the mount was not jesus' came from, i offered a hypothesis. we're at an impasse, and I withdraw, not because of you, but the arrogant notion that anything more i'd put forth is ignorant or unstable |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Raph, We're not at an "impasse", if you still believe your facts to be stronger than mine. I'm not trying to be arrogant, just thorough. You haven 't even asked me what my interpretation of the scripture that mentions "the ignorant and unstable", or how I think it is properly applied. So why get upset, and drop out of the middle of what I consider to be a great discussion? It's up to you. If it's getting touchy and you don't want to continue, I respect that. But I am going to go ahead and respond to your latest reply. If you want to continue after that, then great. Personally, I think it's been civil enough. (give me a few more days to reply- No time now.) Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
stephanos, the arrogance i spoke wasn't in regards to anything you've said. by all means respond, and i may continue here or in private i don't believe my facts to be stronger, you challenged my evidence, and i challenged yours. the carbon dating and paleography for example. you should know this. as the thread has gone on i've defended Eisenman's theory, but it's not the crux of my belief that Pauline thought is a misinterpretation of Christ's teaching. my beliefs stem from reading the bible and about early church history. but as you asked for textual proof, I offered that the Scrolls were 'potential' proof. I could be absolutely wrong about them, it wouldn't change my view of Pauline thought. I would still, however, argue a strong link between them and Jesus. Mike O. Wise's:The First Messiah later believed the 'teacher of the righteous' of the scrolls to be a forgotten prophet who foretold the coming of Jesus. it would explain the incredible similarities and inconsistencies regarding republican/imperial rome, if they were visions. shrugs. i'm not sure, what I argued earlier, was that the texts should never have been in the church's grasp, (a church known for burning anything considered 'heretical.'), that scholars should not have been restricted access to study and date them, and that while Eisenman's views seem radical amongst scholars, so to is the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs amongst paleontologists. the debate still rages on their source and meanings |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: You yourself said "there is no disputing that the site housed an immense amount of scrolls on sect rules, beliefs and scriptural commentary." Does that sound like a new community, or an established one? Many organized rules, beliefs, and even scriptural interpretations, are not the hallmarks of a new religious movement. Why not take the more natural path of letting the evidence determine belief, rather than the other way around? Of the following statements, which would be more natural: 1) "There are organized, and numerous writings, therefore the Qumran community is probably an older sect.", or 2) "The organized and numerous writings of such a young sect, shows that the traditional version of Church history is mistaken, for it proves that such things can be written in a very short amount of time"? You have to assume that the Qumran texts ARE equated with the early Christians in order to argue that a relatively young group could produce so many texts, so quickly. That's a very circular argument. The largest segment of scholarship does not believe that the Qumran society was a new religious group, but one that had been established for a considerable amount of time ... at least enough time to establish the level of organization that the Qumran scrolls exhibit. quote: It also depends upon the nature of the community. A religiously established community with a scribal system such as the Essenes would be more apt to write things down, than a group of more common people, peasants and fishermen which comprised the early Christian community. Also you can’t rightly conclude that there was NO reliance on oral tradition in the Qumran community. quote: Some are close to the events described, some aren't. The dating of the scrolls also range from 1st century B.C. to around 66 A.D. Though I think your Imperial / Republican argument is not without it's own problems, even if it were true, this would be in accorance to the majority view that the Qumran community was a separatist and thoroughly Jewish sect. So I have no problem with your dating really (though I still think that the bulk of scholarship would argue for earlier dates overall). What I take issue with is your unfounded connection of the Qumran community and the earliest Christians. There is no evidence for this. quote: How would YOU know exactly what’s missing from the Qumranic materials when after 50 years only a fraction of what was recovered has been translated? Your argument really depends upon what is allegedly missing, not mine. From what I have read, the majority of scholars involved are/ were indeed Roman Catholic, but not all. Also the decision to keep the translation process for themselves seems to be one based upon a desire to profit monetarily ... The mercenary spirit is not such a flattering motive, I admit, but a much more likely one than a conspiracy worthy of pulp fiction. quote: Of course not. But someone might accurately estimate the correct century or decade of your life, based upon the books you write. And I was talking about what was written by the Qumran community, not the co-existing manuscripts of the Old Testament, among other more ancient writings, which were found. quote: Well in quoting Birnbaum’s "method", you have just gone over my head and yours too. Therefore it means little to me that you and I (laymen, with little knowledge of paleography) are confused about it. The only thing I can say is, the broad consensus of scholars is still for an earlier date. Eisenman’s theories are still viewed as fringe and unconvincing, by most scholars involved, Catholic or not. I’m not versed enough (neither are you) to really debate Paleography. But I think the strength of the more traditional views of the sect being a separatist Jewish group is not based in dating alone ... there is also interpretation of the texts, and a wholesale lack of any positive evidence that would suggest the Qumran community can be equated with the early Church. At best (and I really have no problem with this), what is known about the Qumran community might indicate that they were a zealot, messianic, separatist group who were looking for the Messiah. In which case, some of them very well might have known of Jesus, or even began to follow him. There was one of his Twelve disciples who was perhaps of like description, Simon the Zealot. But there is every indication (and no evidence to counter) that Jesus was anti-zealot, and quite different from the many militaristic Messiahs which inevitably popped up from year to year. quote: Before I respond, let me set a backdrop. I want to try to describe the the differing political mindsets of the Jewish leaders of that time ... The Sadducees (the priestly class) were the Liberal political party of the Jews. They were also collaborationists whose fault (in the eyes of the Pharisees, the more right-wing political body) was their compromise, and un-nationalistic cooperation with Roman authorities. Of course the Sadducaic practice was simply a political approach of purely pragmatic concern, to gain as much favor as possible with the Romans and so procure a relative peace, in the midst of national captivity. To be above all the other captives, though you may be a captive yourself, is not so bad. In fact it is making the best of the worst. That was their philosophy. They really despised Roman Rule over them as much as their conservative cousins, (the Pharisees), but they felt that the best political course was non-resistance and patient manipulation within the system. "Relax and work with what you’ve got", they seemed to say. The more rigid Pharisees, on the other hand, hated the Romans and hated them on mostly ideological / theological grounds. If Israel was God’s chosen, then a Pagan nation ruling over Israel was the ultimate disgrace ... dispeasing to God and Jew alike. So their hatred of the Roman occupation of Israel was more religiously fevered than that of the Sadducees who basically had ceased from believing anything supernatural. Seeing this polar division within the Jewish leadership, wouldn't it be natural that both would find Jesus threatening, even if for slightly different reasons? The Sadducees (of whom Caiaphas was a prime example) were threatened by Jesus since his popularity and controversy might cause the trigger finger of Rome to twitch. During that time there had already been political "Messiahs" who had procured a following, and made their rebellion known. The Romans, out of fear, tended to be quick in making examples of them, so that no further uprisings would happen. The Pharisees were threatened by Jesus for a slightly different reason (though they too did not want to see the Romans bear down hard upon Israel because of zealotism). His popularity presented a threat to their personal influence and religious sway over the people. He constantly questioned them publically, and exposed their hypocrisy on a regular basis. Their well loved status as the highest teachers of Israel was being challenged. Their persecution of Jesus was from the politics of personal power and grandeur in the eyes of the Jewish people. They didn't like to be discredited, and to have someone else be called "Rabbi" in any popular degree. So ... you're right that the Sadducees persecuted Jesus for potentially being "too religious", and "too Jewish" ... but I would add, not for pure concern of doctrine (they had little concern for dogma), but for mainly political reasons. But you fail to see that the Pharisees persecuted Jesus for preaching and espousing something different than the Rabbinical/ legal system of that day. He bristled in many ways against their dogma. So theirs was a more a religious contention with Jesus, because he preached something different than the Jewish religion as then practiced and viewed, and which allowed the Pharisees popular control. So they too persecuted Jesus more out of personal concern than out of any real desire for the truth. They just used their narrow doctrines as means to accuse and condemn him. But if Jesus was neither a re-establisher of Mosaic legalism, nor a collaborationist with Rome, nor a military zealot, but in actuality demonstrated views in common with all three of these groups, and yet different than all three ... Is it any wonder that the leaders of the Jews, whether on the right or on the left, would misunderstand and view him as a dangerous threat? Oscar Cullmann in his "The State in the New Testament" describes very well, using Mark 12:13-17, this precariously narrow, but middle way that Jesus walked among the political pundits of his day: “We know that it was just this question of taxpaying which was regarded by the Zealots as the criterion, so to speak, of loyalty to Judaism. As a matter of fact this very question was indeed addressed to Jesus in order to 'entrap him in his talk’ (Mark 12:13). According to Mark, it is the Pharisees and the Herodians who pose the question. Both groups are at one in wanting Jesus disarmed. And it is the only thing they have in common, for in other matters they are radically opposed. The question is: 'Should we pay taxes to Ceasar or not?' For themselves, the Pharisees would prefer to answer in the negative, although they do not, like the Zealots, draw the extreme consequences. The Herodians on the contrary, are the collaborationists who make common cause with the Romans and naturally for themselves return an affirmative answer. It is just the presence of both groups which constitutes for Jesus the special temptation. Both want him to compromise himself. If he answers yes, he will be shown up as a collaborationist and will disallusion the majority of the people. If he answers no, this is an avowel that he himself is a Zealot, and indeed a leader of the Zealots; and we know what that meant to the Romans. But Jesus does not so compromise himself. It is true that his answer has often been thus misconstrued, as if the sphere of Caesar is here presented as being of equal value with the sphere of God. But this is precisely not the case. If Jesus had really attributed to Caesar’s sphere the same value as God's, then he would have placed himself on the side of the Herodians. For this is exactly what the Collaborationists maintained: Ceasar is God’s counterpart. ... the double imperative logically follows: on the one hand, do not let the Zealots draw you into a purely political martial action against the existence of the Roman State; on the other, do not give to the State what belongs to God! ... Because Jesus' position on this question was not simple but had to be complex, men could mischievously distort his point of view, and the certainly did. Thus they distorted also his critical attitude toward the Temple, representing it as a revolutionary intention to destroy it." Jesus' position on the practice of Judaism was very similar to his position on Zealotism (in fact his take on Zealotism came from his unique view of Judaism). He had much in common with it, but rejected much of what had become of it. Therefore the left-wing Jews might easily misrepresent him. And yet so would the right-wing Jews. Because he was more extreme, by being essentially LESS extreme than any of them. So it's just not as simple as you've been making it out to be. Were the Jews persecuting Jesus because he was purely Judaic, and they were Rome-friendly compromisers? If that were the case, then many of Pharisees would have been crucified along side him. The truer, more subtly complex picture, is that the enemies of each other joined together to deal with a common enemy (who was really their friend, if only they would have heeded). It’s the old addage, that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". quote: First of all, there's still significant debate about whether "The Liar" and "The Wicked Priest" of the Qumran texts were talking about historical individuals in existence at that time, or whether they were in reference to groups of people and beliefs. As you know the writing of that expectantly "apocalyptic" community was often symbolic. They may have been prophetic writings referring to some future conflict. The point is that we just don’t know. But to connect the Wicked priest to Paul (whom we have much specific historical data about in the New Testament) is far fetched and on the outer fringe of incredible theories. If Paul were associated with the Qumran community, there is not so much as a mention of his name, or the names of any of these enigmatic characters within the Qumran texts themselves. In fact priesthood is the only thing that has any substantial commonality with Paul. But the title "Priest" could have easily been used for ANY leader of a religious populace. Internal evidence of Paul’s writings easily show that he was NOT anti-nomian, and never demeaned the Law in the way you describe. Internal evidence from Paul's works alone will suffice in demonstrating this. It is more likely that "The Wicked Priest" and "The Liar" might be applied to Jonathan the Maccabee or his brother Simon. But even that is unproveable, due to the ambiguity of the texts on the matter. So bottom line, the traditional view appears much more solid, and is not at all toppled by these hyper-speculative theories. As far as I'm concerned, my next goal is to demonstrate that the writings of Paul and James were not substantially opposed, though they have differnet points of emphasis. Your external evidence is very weak. But still the internal evidence of the scriptures is the strongest argument that the traditional view is the soundest view. And to that I will soon turn. quote: Exactly. But I (like the older and greater Stephen) am making a distinction between the true "Jew", and a mere practicer of the Judaic religion. The Jews who were responsible for his death also accused him of speaking "words of blasphemy against Moses and against God". (Acts 6:11). Remember that for the Christians, the Messiah and the very Gospel were naturally that to which the Law pointed to, and acutally (in history) led up to, which explains how they could criticize the Jewish authorities for despising and disobeying the heart and soul of the Law, while still preaching something other than the Law. But the only way the Jewish leaders could reasonably accuse the Christians of "speaking against Moses" was if what they were preaching, were really something other than the Mosaic law ... something different. You can see this throughout the New Testament. They did the same to Jesus. The view you are espousing, fails to take in account the nuances of thought on both sides. It's more complex than you are making it. If you're going to look at mere accusations of not "keeping the law", then you are in a quandary. Because BOTH sides were claiming that about the other. That information alone can't settle the argument. The real question is what each side meant by saying such things, and why they said them. quote: That’s not what I meant. I meant for you to offer proof that the Qumran community was positively Christian ... with textual proof, other than ambiguities. We're now arguing internal textual evidence. Defending Paul's conversion experience, beyond the texts themselves, would be a wholly separate consideration ... in metaphysics or psychology I suppose. quote: No, according to the writings of Paul and of James we DO have. But what do you have according to the texts which have been allegedly burned and subverted by the Church, in order to hide the real disunity between Paul and the other Apostles, with no proof whatsoever that they ever existed? quote: I never said I can’t see a difference. Just as I can see a difference between Paul and Peter... or between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, for that matter. What I don't see, is a difference so fundamental, that the two can’t abide together in the same holy house of truth. At least they themselves didn’t think so. And that’s what I will attempt to demonstrate next. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-06-2005 03:43 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
