As a follow-up to my last post, I thought I'd take a look at one of the authentic letters of Paul, the one he sent to the Galatians. Unlike the Gospels and Acts, which were written decades after the events described, Paul's letters were written in the heat of the moment and give a more realistic sense of what was happening "on the ground."
What's clear, above all, from this and other letters is that Paul's missionary activities proceeded in an atmosphere of intense personal controversy, and that his opponents were emissaries of the Jerusalem church – representatives of the core group of apostles who actually knew Jesus in the flesh and had a very different idea of Jesus' teaching than did Paul. Since their authority could hardly be questioned, Paul was naturally put on the defensive and had to fight a constant rearguard battle to prevent his own converts from being swayed to the "Jewish Christian" version of the faith.
In Galatians, after a few boilerplate introductory remarks, he immediately jumps into the fray. (All quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. My analysis is largely dependent on S.G.F. Brandon's The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church., pp 136—139.)
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! (1:6,7)
Pretty strong stuff right out of the gate. He is saying that his opponents – who, as it will become clear, represent the Jerusalem apostles – should be placed under a curse. Clearly he has learned that his converts in Galatia, who previously were faithful to his own idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity, are now changing their minds and aligning themselves with the Jerusalem party. Since he is not in Galatia, he can defend himself only with a strongly worded letter. Very strongly worded, as we'll see.
Knowing that his standing as an apostle is inherently insecure, since he never actually knew Jesus, he takes the bull by the horns and boldly proclaims that what appears to be a defect in his position is actually an asset.
The gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ ... But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me [or "in me"], so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. (1:11 – 17)
In other words, he had no need of human contact with Jesus or those who'd known him, because he had direct supernatural contact with the risen Christ. In this way he tries to put himself on an at least equal (if not superior) footing with his opponents.
He goes on to say that after three years he finally went to Jerusalem to visit Peter for just two weeks but saw no one else except James — that is, Jesus' brother, who had assumed control of the movement after Jesus' death. (As Brandon points out, the fact that leadership of the early Jewish Christian movement was handled in dynastic fashion is yet another indication that Jesus was regarded as king in a political sense. After James was martyred, leadership passed to yet another relative, a cousin named Simon.)
Fourteen years later, Paul says, he went to Jerusalem again, apparently summoned there to answer for his unorthodox teachings. Though he does his best to whitewash his account and put the outcome in a favorable light, it is clear that the encounter was acrimonious in the extreme. His defensiveness and excitement are raised to a fever pitch, to the point that he becomes incoherent, leaving his thoughts unfinished and fragmented.
But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us – we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those leaders contributed nothing to me. (2:4-6)
Note also his defensiveness in downplaying the status of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, insisting that their leadership position was a matter of indifference to him and to God. Clearly, however, this was not the case; after all, he had meekly consented to travel to Jerusalem and defend himself before James and the others, thus implicitly acknowledging their authority.
In any event, he claims that they worked out an amicable agreement, but this dubious assertion is immediately undercut by the next event in his timeline:
But when Cephas [= Peter] it came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (2:11 – 12)
If we unpack this, we can see that whatever arrangement Paul arrived at with the Jerusalem church didn't last long. Paul and Peter were immediately at odds; James had sent word that Paul's policy of open admission of Gentiles was unacceptable; and even Barnabas – Paul's faithful companion in missionary work – ended up siding with "the circumcision faction," as Paul calls it. Of course, the issues involved ranged beyond circumcision. The disagreement was over whether or not one had to be an observant Jew in order to follow Jesus. Paul insisted that simple faith in Jesus was enough, and there was no need to be circumcised or to obey Jewish rituals, observe Jewish holidays, and follow the Law as laid down in Deuteronomy. The Jerusalem church, on the other hand, saw their movement as a subset of Judaism and, as such, required full commitment to Jewish practices, including circumcision, observance of rituals and holidays, and obedience to the Mosaic Law.
After some paragraphs arguing in favor of justification by faith, as opposed to following the Law, Paul returns to the sense of personal betrayal he feels from his own converts.
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? ... Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Do you experience so much for nothing? ... For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. (3:1-10)
Since Jews "rely on the works of the law," evidently they are "under a curse." Remember that he is talking, ultimately, about James and Peter and the other Jerusalem apostles.
Paul resumes making various not entirely lucid arguments against the Law, but quickly comes back to his converts' backsliding:
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted. (4:8 – 11)
Evidently Paul believes that pagans are enslaved by "beggarly elemental spirits," presumably demonic beings masquerading as the pantheon of polytheistic deities. There may also be an element of Gnosticism here, since the Gnostics held that the world was in the grip of low-level supernatural forces called the archons (a term Paul himself uses elsewhere, though in an ambiguous sense). Rather shockingly, he equates pagan belief to Jewish belief, saying that if the converts follow Jewish practices by "observing special days" and obeying the Law, they will again be enslaved by demons. No wonder he says that the emissaries from the Jerusalem church should be cursed – in his view, they are tempting the souls he has saved into an unholy communion with devils. The depth and intensity of the conflict splitting the early Christian movement is obvious.
Nor does he grant the Jewish Christian apostles even the dignity of a benevolent motive. He claims they are driven by petty self-interest:
They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them. (4:16)
And he suggests that they are cowards fearful of persecution:
It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh to try to compel you to be circumcised – only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. (6:12)
The idea here is that the Jerusalem faction wishes to avoid conflict with other Jews by downplaying the crucifixion (which was a "stumbling block" to Jewish acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah) and by requiring all converts to be circumcised, thus negating any criticism that they are selling out to the Gentiles.
Paul's opinion, in short, is that the emissaries of the Jerusalem church – and no doubt the apostles in Jerusalem themselves – are seeking only to build themselves up, protect themselves from the criticism of their fellow Jews, and play it safe. They are phonies and cowards, he thinks. Worse still, they are demonic tempters who are accursed, and who compromise the souls that Paul has saved, leading them to perdition.
These are the people who actually walked and talked with Jesus, including Jesus' own brother. The fact that Paul could dismiss them in such harshly derogatory terms shows how fully he had divorced himself from the roots of the Christian movement in Judea. But we aren't done yet.
After still more angry arguments against the Law, Paul reaches the climax of his sputtering rage.
Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace ... Whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty.… I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (5:2 – 12)
Yes, you read that right. Paul, who would later be canonized as a saint, actually suggests that the emissaries from Jerusalem ought to "castrate themselves." The sense of his remark is something like this: if those damned Jews are so enamored of circumcision, why don't they just chop off their penises entirely?
If this is what he wrote in a letter, we can only imagine how he must have carried on in face-to-face encounters with his enemies. I wonder how many Sunday school teachers have informed their students that St. Paul once told Peter and James to cut off their genitals.
In a last rhetorical flourish, Paul equates the Jerusalem faction to those who would scorn God himself:
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. (6:7)
Other authentic letters of Paul recapitulate the attitudes seen here. In 2 Corinthians 11:13 – 15, he fulminates against those he has identified sarcastically as "super-apostles," saying,
For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.
In other words, his enemies, the Jerusalem party of Peter and James, are Satan's minions.
There can be no doubt that the early history of the Christian church was marked by savage infighting and vicious schisms, as is true of many religious movements. The version of Christianity that has come down to us was written by the winners in these battles – and the winners were decidedly not "the circumcision faction," as evidenced by the fact that circumcision (along with other distinctively Jewish practices) is not required of Christians today.
Michael, do you see how what you've just written weakens your argument? You're saying that this small-minded man allied himself with an Osama bin Laden-like figure (your words), and that the two in combination founded the world's most influential religion?
Really?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 13, 2017 at 06:06 PM
Bruce, have you read much about the life of Mohammed?
He founded a pretty influential religion.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 13, 2017 at 09:32 PM
I don't know much about Mohammed, Michael. Was he a jerk? If so, you raise a good point.
In any case, I admit that I'm a strange one to be defending Jesus, since I have no connection with any religion whatsoever.
But having said that, let me share something personal. I don't know about you, Michael, but I'm in the habit of praying. I pray to God, whom I see as my larger self—the totality of my being.
And starting late last year, I found myself praying to Jesus too. How this came about would take some explaining, so instead, I'll just share a little excerpt from my journal, a passage in which I talk about these developments:
"Naturally, the whole situation felt odd! And hard to trust. Trying to make sense of it, I thought to myself that Jesus represents a personage who is part man, part God. He embodies the best in each of us—the best in me—and in calling on him, I am calling on that part of myself that is pure, wonderful, and supremely giving.
"I saw Jesus as perfectly suited to being my helper, since he lived in a human body, and knows the human experience well. Talking to Jesus, in some ways, feels more satisfying, and easier than, talking to God, for whom I have no image, no easy way to think of as friend.
"For the rest of that day, I continued to pray to Jesus. To talk to him. As I would talk to the best friend I can imagine. And I've been doing that ever since!"
So there you have it. I don't claim to know a thing about Jesus in a historical sense. But in practical, metaphysical, spiritual terms, he means a lot to me.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 14, 2017 at 01:35 AM
Michael wrote:
"He goes on to say that after three years he finally went to Jerusalem to visit Peter for just two weeks but saw no one else except James — that is, Jesus' brother, who had assumed control of the movement after Jesus' death….After James was martyred, leadership passed to yet another relative, a cousin named Simon."
James was the most prominent elder in the Jerusalem church. It doesn't follow that he had "control of the movement", much less that the movement was "handled in dynastic fashion" with a "king in a political sense", as you suggest elsewhere. The cousin named Simon you refer to lived to an old age, dying in the early second century. If he had the sort of position you're claiming and lived so long as a witness to it, then the lack of evidence for your view in the historical record is even more difficult to explain.
You write:
"Fourteen years later, Paul says, he went to Jerusalem again, apparently summoned there to answer for his unorthodox teachings."
Paul doesn't say that, and you've offered no evidence to support your conclusion.
You write:
"Though he does his best to whitewash his account and put the outcome in a favorable light, it is clear that the encounter was acrimonious in the extreme."
No, the fact that Paul stayed for so long (about two weeks) suggests that they got along better than you're claiming, and his positive language ("become acquainted with Cephas", 1:18; calling both Peter and James "apostles", 1:19; "the right hand of fellowship", 2:9; etc.) also suggests that you're wrong. Paul refers to how he and Peter share in the same apostleship with a division of labor (2:7-8). He tells us that the only thing they requested of Paul was that he remember the poor (2:10). That suggests they were in far more agreement than you've claimed.
You write:
"Note also his defensiveness in downplaying the status of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, insisting that their leadership position was a matter of indifference to him and to God. Clearly, however, this was not the case; after all, he had meekly consented to travel to Jerusalem and defend himself before James and the others, thus implicitly acknowledging their authority."
Paul refers to them as "apostles" (1:17, 1:19, 2:7-8). He isn't just "implicitly" acknowledging that they have authority. He says it explicitly, on his own initiative, without qualification. What he rejects in chapter 2 isn't their authority, but rather the overestimation of their status by some, the notion that they were "pillars" in an inordinate way (2:9). Similarly, Paul elsewhere corrects those who are overestimating his own significance by making comments like "Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). Within Galatians itself, he anticipates the potential for people to overestimate his own status when he makes his "even if we" comment (1:8).
You write:
"In any event, he claims that they worked out an amicable agreement, but this dubious assertion is immediately undercut by the next event in his timeline"
Nothing in Galatians 2:11-21 contradicts what Paul said earlier. The best explanation for why he criticizes Peter for acting hypocritically on the occasion in question is that Peter acted hypocritically. Paul says that Peter's behavior changed, and he says that it changed in a public, verifiable way (2:12). If Paul was willing to criticize Peter over that sort of hypocrisy, then the best explanation for why he expresses so much agreement with Peter elsewhere (Galatians 1:18, 2:7-10, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 15:3-11, etc.) is that they were fundamentally in agreement, even though Peter acted hypocritically on the occasion under consideration.
You write:
"The disagreement was over whether or not one had to be an observant Jew in order to follow Jesus. Paul insisted that simple faith in Jesus was enough, and there was no need to be circumcised or to obey Jewish rituals, observe Jewish holidays, and follow the Law as laid down in Deuteronomy. The Jerusalem church, on the other hand, saw their movement as a subset of Judaism and, as such, required full commitment to Jewish practices, including circumcision, observance of rituals and holidays, and obedience to the Mosaic Law."
You've also said that Paul disagreed with the other apostles about their highly political, dynastic view of the Christian movement. If Paul disagreed with men like Peter and James so much, then why does he speak so highly of them? Under your view, individuals like Peter and James would have been under Paul's anathema in Galatians 1:8-9. The idea that Paul held such a view of them, yet went on to speak of them as highly as he did later in the letter, is absurd and fundamentally undermines your position. Paul speaks of them as fellow apostles (Galatians 1:17, 1:19, 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 15:3-11) who taught the same things he did on the issues of "first importance" (1 Corinthians 15:3, 15:11). As I mentioned in a previous thread, Paul had a reputation for teaching the same faith that Christians held prior to his conversion (Galatians 1:23).
You cite Paul's condemnation of false apostles in 2 Corinthians 11. Given that Paul also speaks so highly of men like James and Peter in his correspondence with the Corinthians and refers to those other apostles as coworkers (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:3-11), it's unreasonable to take 2 Corinthians 11 as a reference to them. Rather, Paul is referring to other individuals he considered false teachers. One of the biggest problems with your view is that you're taking two different groups Paul refers to and lumping them together. In Galatians, Paul is focused on false teachers and false brethren like the ones he refers to in Galatians 2:4, "secretly brought in", who had "sneaked in", which wouldn't be referring to prominent leaders like Peter and James.
Another major problem with your position is that it's contradicted by the many positive references to Paul, the gospels, the unity the apostles had with each other, etc. in sources of the late first century and second century who were highly influenced by Jesus' original disciples and family members like James (First Clement, Papias, Polycarp, etc.). Your view is also contradicted by what the early non-Christian sources tell us about Christianity. It would have been in their interest to have said that Christianity was as radically redefined by Paul as you claim it was. They don't say that. Instead, they refer to Jesus and the early Christian movement in ways that fundamentally contradict your view.
Posted by: Jason Engwer | August 14, 2017 at 07:06 AM
Michael, I just want to comment that my King James Version of the Bible does not have the same translation as the New Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of anybody castrating themselves in the chapter and verse you cited.= AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | August 14, 2017 at 08:08 AM
"My King James Version of the Bible does not have the same translation as the New Revised Standard Version."
The KJV is not always accurate, and in this case, for propriety's sake, a euphemism ("I would they were even cut off") was employed.
Check out the range of translations here:
http://biblehub.com/galatians/5-12.htm
"Paul doesn't say that, and you've offered no evidence to support your conclusion."
See Brandon's "Fall of Jerusalem" for a long discussion of this point and the various other objections you raised. It's obvious that going to Jerusalem was something Paul did only when he felt he had no choice. On his final visit he was made (by James, who seemingly took all the leadership decisions, as befits the man remembered by tradition as the first bishop of Jerusalem) to undergo a humiliating public exercise in ritual observance designed to demonstrate his subjection to the Jerusalem church; this activity very nearly got him lynched and led directly to his arrest and (probably) his execution in Rome.
"I don't know much about Mohammed, Michael. Was he a jerk?"
Far be it from me to call the founder of a major world religion a jerk ... but Mohammed, after his revelation, did make his living by organizing bandits to carry out raids on caravans. The merchants were killed and their goods were stolen. Most likely he did not personally participate in the raids, but he ordered them and profited by them. See:
http://muhammadsquran.blogspot.com/2008/10/muhammad-caravan-raider-war-profiteer.html
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 14, 2017 at 08:53 AM
Michael,
I've just ordered Brandon's book from Amazon.
I've also gone to Amazon and Google Books to try to get some idea of how much of my material is addressed by the book. The indexes and my searches at both sites indicate that there's a large percentage of the evidence I've brought up that Brandon doesn't discuss. Earlier, I cited First Clement, Papias, and Polycarp as examples of extrabiblical sources that need to be addressed. Brandon discusses each one briefly, but not in a way that's relevant to what I've argued. (For those who don't know, First Clement is a document of the late first century written from the Roman church to the Corinthian church. Both of those churches had been highly influenced by both Peter and Paul, so both churches are significant sources for evidence pertaining to the relationship between the two apostles. As First Clement 63 notes, there were old Christians still alive at that time who had been part of those Christian communities since their youth. Papias was a disciple of the apostle John. And Polycarp was a disciple of multiple apostles, including John.) Some of the relevant patristic sources (e.g., Justin Martyr) aren't in the indexes of Brandon's book at all, nor do searches at Amazon and Google Books turn up any results. He apparently discusses or makes reference to at least most of the Biblical passages I've cited, but the ones Amazon and Google Books allow me to view are unpromising. Only one page is listed for 1 Corinthians 9:5, for example (p. 196), but the passage just appears in a footnote in a way that's irrelevant to my argument.
You write:
"It's obvious that going to Jerusalem was something Paul did only when he felt he had no choice."
Had no choice in what sense? He refers to a revelation that led him to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:2). Since he goes on to refer to his equality with the other apostles, the reference to running in vain in verse 2 is likely to be about coordination rather than subordination. He didn't need the approval of the other apostles, but disunity with them would have had bad results.
You write:
"On his final visit he was made (by James, who seemingly took all the leadership decisions, as befits the man remembered by tradition as the first bishop of Jerusalem) to undergo a humiliating public exercise in ritual observance designed to demonstrate his subjection to the Jerusalem church"
Where is Brandon getting those conclusions? From Acts? If so, how does he justify accepting that portion of Acts while rejecting so many other parts of it that contradict his hypothesis? And since Luke doesn't present the events in question as you describe them above, how would Brandon supposedly know that Luke's account is wrong and his (Brandon's) variation of it is right?
If Paul had radically redefined Christianity and had anathematized people like James (as your and Brandon's reading of Galatians suggests), why should we think that Paul would be "undergoing a humiliating public exercise in ritual observance designed to demonstrate his subjection to the Jerusalem church" years later? And if that sort of antagonism between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus continued so far into the middle of the first century, it's hard to explain why so many sources of the middle of the century and beyond seem so unaware of that situation and, instead, contradict it.
Posted by: Jason Engwer | August 14, 2017 at 06:51 PM
" ... how does he justify accepting that portion of Acts while rejecting so many other parts of it that contradict his hypothesis?"
The basic procedure used by many NT scholars involves giving credence to "admissions against interest." The assumption is that the Gospels and Acts are polemical documents designed to advance a certain agenda. If the document includes details that work against the author's purpose, those details are more likely to be true. They were apparently so well known that they could not be suppressed.
So when Acts says Paul and the Jerusalem church had a basically amicable relationship, it is seen as simply reflecting the author's standard polemical line as he idealizes early Christian history and whitewashes conflicts. (And it's contradicted by Paul's letters anyway.) But when Acts admits to conflicts such as Paul's argument with Peter, this is seen as an admission against interest - a historical detail that does not serve the author's propagandistic designs and so is likely to be true (albeit probably watered down or smoothed over as much as possible).
This is just how NT historians work when dealing with their source materials. Literalist Christians, of course, take a different approach. They seek to harmonize the documents and validate the claims made by the texts, because in this way they feel they can provide a firmer foundation to their faith.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 14, 2017 at 08:11 PM
Michael wrote:
"But when Acts admits to conflicts such as Paul's argument with Peter, this is seen as an admission against interest - a historical detail that does not serve the author's propagandistic designs and so is likely to be true (albeit probably watered down or smoothed over as much as possible)."
I asked you about some claims you made about James and Paul, claims that aren't found in Paul's letters or Acts. To have an admission against interest, you first need an admission. You don't have that.
The fact that Paul acknowledged a dispute with Peter in Galatians 2 doesn't justify assuming other disputes that not only aren't referred to, but are even contrary to the evidence we have. If Paul and other relevant sources refer to his relationship with Peter (and James, etc.) in generally positive terms, but sometimes make negative comments like the ones in Galatians 2, the most likely conclusion (unless other relevant evidence is brought in, which you haven't actually done) is that Paul had a generally positive relationship with Peter, even though it wasn't entirely positive. We apply the same sort of reasoning when a husband gets into an argument with his wife, two friends have a disagreement on an issue, etc.
You refer to "how NT historians work". I'm familiar with how they work, so I know that they take a lot of evidence into account that you haven't been addressing in these recent threads.
Posted by: Jason Engwer | August 15, 2017 at 05:30 AM
Seth states that what manifested was a gestalt tri-part entity, at once being born as John the Baptist, the historical Jesus and Paul.
This was part of a larger plan to initiate a new religious tradition that would change the wider culture.
John the Baptist paved the way for the historical Jesus, and the historical Jesus provided the context and a launch pad for Paul's universal vision.
So in this interpretation, Paul's vision of the Transcendent Christ was actually an encounter with his own gestalt self, or higher self - a self that had manifested not only as him, but also as Jesus and John the Baptist.
As I favour a gestalt, holonic structure of consciousness, I like this interpretation and find it plausible.
In this scheme, it doesn't matter that the historical Jesus was only preaching to the Jews, and was concerned with the Kingdom of Israel rather than universal salvation, he still played his part, a part of a wider drama that he himself was perhaps unaware.
Thus it is the transcendent Christ Consciousness which is really what this is all about, with the historical circumstances playing out in order to point us in the direction of the greater vision of the transcendent Christ.
While this is all well and good, Seth (or Jane Roberts), then threw a curve ball into this gestalt interpretation by saying that Jesus was never crucified but he was switched at the last minute - which is a tradition which seems to have survived into Islamic interpretation).
I find it difficult to buy into that as I don't see what the point of this would be. I wonder whether this last part was more Jane Robert's creative imagination than anything to do with Seth.
Posted by: Douglas | August 15, 2017 at 07:46 AM
It sounds a lot like you are saying that everything people agree about can't be true, but what they disagree on must be true. This kind of reverse [read: faulty] logic is why so many people give up on traditional religion.
Posted by: MichaelD | August 15, 2017 at 09:38 AM
My question for all of this would be: Why? Why would Paul and the Apostles go to all of this trouble to concoct a religion? Christianity wasn't a big money-making scheme back then (at least I don't think so). There were no evangelists on TV growing fabulously rich. It just seems like an awful lot of trouble - for what? What was in it for them? I guess these early Christians received some kind of donations and support, but I can't imagine much, and at the same time were often persecuted.
On a totally unrelated note, I thought I'd share something odd. For some odd reason, yesterday I happened to think of a man I worked with years ago. There was nothing even vaguely noteworthy about my very brief and entirely NOT worthy-of-note-dealings with this person. I can't even think of why I thought of him (nothing against him, it was a just run-of-the-mill business thing). I had just very briefly wondered what he was up to. Today, I woke up and found out he had died! The Skeptics will counter that this was pure coincidence (and coincidences will happen), but so very weird.
Posted by: Kathleen | August 15, 2017 at 02:14 PM
FYI, I've started reading a 2010 book by James D. Tabor called "Paul and Jesus," which makes some of the same arguments I've been presenting here. Unlike S.G.F. Brandon's book, it's aimed at a popular audience, and could serve as a good intro for people who want to explore this line of argument a little further.
"It sounds a lot like you are saying that everything people agree about can't be true, but what they disagree on must be true."
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a suspect in a murder case says he was nowhere near the scene of the crime, his statement carries little weight, since it's just what he would be expected to say. But if he admits he hated the victim and recently quarreled violently with him, this is almost certainly true, since it hurts his case and he would not invent it. It's an admission against interest. Of course, this approach requires us to interrogate the text as if it is suspected of lying. People who believe implicitly in the reliability and honesty of the NT materials naturally find such an approach distasteful. But it is standard practice among the more skeptical, liberal, or secular-minded scholars.
"You refer to 'how NT historians work'. I'm familiar with how they work ..."
From your comments, I'd guess that you're familiar with conservative NT scholars who work hard to harmonize and validate the NT accounts. I'm more interested in the critical scholars who view these documents as tendentious and polemical, and who try to tease out the facts from beneath layers of obfuscation.
By the way, I just reread Bruce's comment about Paul being "this small-minded man" who couldn't have founded a world religion. For the record, I'm not saying Paul was small-minded. Quite the opposite; I think he was a genius. His mind seems to have worked mainly in terms of imagery, symbolism, and vast sweeping patterns, rather than in a methodical, strictly logical way, and he did not systematize his thought, but he was wildly creative and inspired, and he was clearly willing to die for his unique vision. The fact that he could also be petulant, sarcastic, and malicious doesn't detract from his genius. Many inspired geniuses, prophets, and seers are temperamental, moody, and hard to deal with. And Paul had legitimate reasons to hate his enemies. They ultimately got him beheaded in Rome. The conflict that divided the early church was literally a matter of life and death, and we shouldn't be surprised that people used all their rhetorical (and other) resources to fight it.
Bruce, I also note that you've had meditative conversations with Jesus. This is exactly what Paul did. He appears to have had an ongoing relationship with Jesus (as he understood it) throughout his life, and to have derived and developed his theology through these meditations. This is why he was indifferent to the historical Jesus. As far as he was concerned, the Jerusalem crowd knew Jesus in the past, as a human being, but he himself knew Jesus here and now, as something more than human.
It sounds as though you may have more in common with old Paul than you think! 😊
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 15, 2017 at 02:29 PM
Kathleen, I'm not saying anybody "concocted" Christianity. Both sides were wholly sincere in their devotion to their vision of the truth. The Jerusalem faction honored the memory and purposes of the historical Jesus, while Paul honored the revelations he experienced in the form of personal, subjective visions. They were all willing to die for their faith, and Paul, James, and Peter did die for it, according to tradition. They were not in it for the money!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 15, 2017 at 02:35 PM
At the heart of most stories is a kernel of truth. Storytellers embellish and change the sequence of events to make the story more appealing to their audience. It doesn't have to be either "all lies or all truth." It can be some of both. If you examine a story and think about it we can see the truth hidden within. What makes sense to us.
I think Mediums do this with the information they are given. They are given glimpses of and information from the other side and they try and put together a story that fits the information they are seeing. Their interpretation may be completely wrong or it may be spot on. But I also believe that a lot of time they just ramble on to fill up the 50 minutes or so even though they may only have the briefest glimpse of the other side.
They stretch it out to fit the allotted time. If the editor says you got to have 200 pages you make up some filler so you can sell your book.
Posted by: Art | August 16, 2017 at 08:37 AM
Sorry for going OT, just wanted to know if anyone's familiar with U.S. medium Matt Fraser? Recently stumbled across clips that seem to suggest the "real deal", but also an industry of some sort that is always puts me off although I understand that everyone needs to make a living.
Posted by: Lisa | August 16, 2017 at 11:55 AM
Michael said:
"By the way, I just reread Bruce's comment about Paul being "this small-minded man" who couldn't have founded a world religion. For the record, I'm not saying Paul was small-minded. Quite the opposite; I think he was a genius."
There are different kinds of genius. If I were looking for a guru, I'd want him or her to shine not only intellectually and spiritually, but emotionally. I'd be looking at one of the clearest indicators of his worthiness to lead—how he relates to others.
As you describe him, Paul doesn't impress me in this regard, and that's what I meant by small-minded.
"Bruce, I also note that you've had meditative conversations with Jesus. This is exactly what Paul did. He appears to have had an ongoing relationship with Jesus (as he understood it) throughout his life, and to have derived and developed his theology through these meditations. This is why he was indifferent to the historical Jesus. As far as he was concerned, the Jerusalem crowd knew Jesus in the past, as a human being, but he himself knew Jesus here and now, as something more than human."
Excellent point! It does make me feel more comfortable with him.
And hey—anger management is a problem for me too.
But then, I'm not founding a religion. :)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 16, 2017 at 05:43 PM
Slightly relevant, albeit somewhat out of date, let's make fun of a terribly clumsy attempt at an anti-Christian moral in a really bad movie: http://celticpyro.tumblr.com/post/141297793019/hugsforvillains-not-a-hat-blog-i-cant-bring
Posted by: chel | August 16, 2017 at 06:27 PM
Everybody, see this discussion with Steven Novella:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/tribal-epistemology/
Posted by: Vitor | August 17, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Another nice post!
Yeah, Paul's words here are not a "good look."
As far as the extrapolations go, I'll repeat what I said in my comment on the preceding post: we just don't know.
I think it's easy enough to forget how the recent past was. Period detail is hard to get right in movies. Dial that back 2,000 years, and we simply have a hard time know what life was like then and how people thought.
How would we feel if we visited a Christian community of the time? Would it feel amazing, beautiful, supportive, alive? Or more like Jonestown with better beverages?
We just don't know.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 17, 2017 at 11:10 PM
"We just don't know."
"Que sçais-je?"
—Montaigne
Posted by: Roger Knights | August 21, 2017 at 06:46 AM
Sorry to go OT again, but I've just been spending time on countless youtube readings by John Edward and I find them fantastic! I do understand why Skeptics might find his work to be a hoax but I for one is very convinced he is the real deal! I like his humor, how he sometimes asks the silliest things because that's what the spirits bring to him, and how he usually insists on the messages he get although people often don't get it (at first). I mean, it would be so much easier to adapt according to what people suggest and wish to hear. And Skeptics totally miss his point when they suggest that he leaves a topic people don't connect to, but what he does is to go where the spirits take him, often to other people who are also there - and often coming back to a previous point when spirits have been able to provide further info that can be validated so everyone knows they're with the right person. And Skeptics ridicule the fact that he's providing letters and suggestions of several similarly-sounding names (what they call fishing to get "anyone"), when it actually is his way of working and validating connections through letters/sounds that he can be sure of although he very seldom gets whole names. Skeptics seem to expect that messages be loud and clear and something like us talking to each other, anything less will be dismissed. To me this is very significant at a moment in time when loved ones are passing as it seems one by one on a regular basis, to know that they can still hear me and takes an interest in our everyday activities. (Yes, I know I'm at a vulnerable phase, but it's not like it's the first piece of the puzzle that is put together - it's more "Yes, one of the final pieces!")
Posted by: Lisa | August 23, 2017 at 01:56 PM
Lisa: I agree that Skeptics' acusations of "fishing" seem overblown. First, the answers to them (unless a large number of such questions are asked, or unless the inquirer retroactively modifies his guess substantially) don't get the inquirer very far. Second, it seems normal to me that a medium would engage in some "groping" toward an answer, since information from the far side is likely to be foggy and incomplete.
Posted by: Roger Knights | August 24, 2017 at 11:48 AM