Dream's Pauline Defense Initiative

[Dream]

That's a cool thread you've got going Juantoo3 on the Dead Sea Scrolls -- a bit beyong me right now, but I'm going to try to go through it because I like what you're doing.

So many papers have rotted. All I can do with regard to Paul is to check his writings. If he has been edited or has originally written quack recipes or has compromised this should be detected. With regard to comparative religion, it matters to know what is the same and what isn't, so I think we can go a long way towards establishing that.

[juantoo3]

It is just a bit outside of my understanding, but would probably make a nice addition to what I wrote, to look at some of the textual criticisms.

One I hear quite a bit is that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews.
There is a rather vigorous debate among scholars over how much of his other epistles can actually be attributed to him (through his scribe, usually Timothy I believe). But it seems a rather uniform consensus that Paul is not the real author of the book of Hebrews. So there are a lot of deeply thinking people (whose motivations I sometimes question) that are actually detecting compromised manuscripts.

Around here somewhere I seem to recall a thread dealing with a couple of texts. The Textus Receptus is one you will often hear of in certain circles. It is the oldest known set of complete manuscripts, and it is from these that the King James Version of the Bible was translated. This set is in the British Museum still, as far as I know.

Some fellow whose name I don't recall found a set of manuscripts in a monastery a couple of hundred years ago, and when he compared notes he found a handful of discrepencies. Some would think them minor, but there has been a lot of hullabaloo raised over these inconsistencies, that they even existed. Some scholars would try to make this set more important, other stood behind the T.R., the battlelines were drawn and all scholarly hell broke loose. I want to know where this second set was found, where *precisely* within the monastery. It seems during the scribal period (which was well over a thousand years, prior to the printing press) scribal errors of sacred texts were treated with certain dignity and respect. One didn't just throw your mistakes in the trash and start over. Consequently, there are scriptoriums within monasteries that house these erroneous texts, which were never intended for public use, but which were afforded some sense of dignified "burial." I suspect this second set of texts is something dug up from the burial in the scriptorium, not meant for public view, and some collection of scholars are attempting to use them to further their careers (best case) or undermine Christianity (worst case).

Point being, there are a lot of people far better versed than I that *do* look very hard at the editing and compromise question, and not just with Paul.

Not the thread I was looking for, but it looks like it starts off discussing some of the textual criticisms:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ered-8250.html

Another thread, but still not the one I was looking for:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...or-5708-2.html
My post 30 sums up nicely what I was saying here.

[Dream]

I don't know textual criticism, either. I've skimmed information on it, and I thought there were now 3 or 4 old major codices and not just two; but what you're saying makes sense. I had only heard that Paul might have written Hebrews, but not that he definitely did. To us today it is just as cryptic as any of the other ancient letters. That's been the real trouble with Hebrews down the ages but is a gift to us now when we are trying to date the book and detect alterations. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, Hebrews is antagonistic to substitutionary atonement, so why didn't any scribe, gnostic, cardinal, or cleric edit it to better conform with that doctrine? I think changes to the text tend to get noticed, because they're too tangential and skin-deep and the original texts are elegant.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dream

I don't know textual criticism, either. I've skimmed information on it, and I thought there were now 3 or 4 old major codices and not just two; but what you're saying makes sense. I had only heard that Paul might have written Hebrews, but not that he definitely did. To us today it is just as cryptic as any of the other ancient letters. That's been the real trouble with Hebrews down the ages but is a gift to us now when we are trying to date the book and detect alterations. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, Hebrews is antagonistic to substitutionary atonement, so why didn't any scribe, gnostic, cardinal, or cleric edit it to better conform with that doctrine? I think changes to the text tend to get noticed, because they're too tangential and skin-deep and the original texts are elegant.

There probably are more codices I am not aware of, I didn't get terribly deep into it, it was all quite confusing to me. And little consensus to be found among those bickering, at least when I stumbled into the stuff almost 20 years ago.

I would have to see what you are referring to about Hebrews being "antagonistic to substitutionary atonement," its been awhile but I seem to recall being one of the better books in my opinion, even if Paul turned out not to be the author. It just has a feel of genuineness to it that is lacking in the other epistles. But then, I am a huge fan of the book of James. In practical and pragmatic terms I think his is the best book of the New Testament, possibly excepting the Gospels; and I hesitate really in that regard.

If there is a conflict to be laid out and defined, I think there is a nice place to make the distinction: James against the epistle of choice by Paul. Its fairly easy to see the Judaic connection with James, the "Judaism plus" so to speak. Whereas Paul comes across as "Judaism lite." Tastes great *and* less filling. I can't help but think some of this view is latent modern doctrinal interpretation on my part, because while I can see some of the typical denominational interpretations, at the same time I see a lot that is out of context or otherwise misconstrued. Which seems to me an attempt to force and justify a view that isn't necessarily there. Examples would be teachings on the rapture and "once saved always saved," but there are more. James on the other hand is cut and dried, common sense, cut to the chase, get 'er done. Paul plays to the audience; James tells it like it is, take it or leave it.

"Even devils believe, and tremble."

Yours is a good question, why, when Hebrews seems so contrary in some respects to the rest of Paul's epistles, that it wasn't edited? Or included in the canon at all, for that matter. Hard to say. I suppose there may be an explanation out there (won't say a good one until I hear it). The whole canonization process is an interesting story in itself, one that probably would make a good addition to the other thread too. What great ideas you are giving me! I had stopped posting there because I was running out of ideas of where to go to chase the evidence to where it leads. Now I've got some fresh ammo!

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

There probably are more codices I am not aware of,

What great ideas you are giving me! I had stopped posting there because I was running out of ideas of where to go to chase the evidence to where it leads. Now I've got some fresh ammo!

Codex Sinaiticus, I am pretty sure that is the Codex I remember reading about. The wiki gives it a lot more credit dating it to 400 AD, while claiming at one point that the Textus Receptus dates to 1500 AD, which I am certain is incorrect.

At any rate, I updated the other thread with some textual criticism and non-canonical book stuff. Should make for some interesting reading for a student. I know it has for me.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

Yours is a good question, why, when Hebrews seems so contrary in some respects to the rest of Paul's epistles, that it wasn't edited?

I meant to leave it as an open case and didn't mean to say Paul was definitely in conflict with Hebrews. That would be against the purpose of a thread that defends Paul. Paul is supposed to be in agreement with both Hebrews and James. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe Paul doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement either?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dream

I meant to leave it as an open case and didn't mean to say Paul was definitely in conflict with Hebrews.

I don't know enough about the details, but it is my understanding that there *are* some conflicts between the book of Hebrews and the other Pauline epistles, hence the suspicion that Paul may not be the author.

It is quite common, even before the time of Jesus, for sacred and semi-sacred texts to be attributed to an author with a bit more clout. This is not limited to Christianity, nor even to monothiest religions.

Originally Posted by Dream

That would be against the purpose of a thread that defends Paul. Paul is supposed to be in agreement with both Hebrews and James.

Supposed to be in agreement. Of course one does need to ask who is supposing and why? What is the motivation for encouraging the unquestioned presumption that the whole of the NT is in agreement? Hebrews as I recall seems to me more in agreement with James than the other epistles, but I really haven't thought about it beyond the intended audience; both were directed towards groups of Jews. By contrast, the epistles are directed towards Greek minded Roman political Pagans and those they did business with.

Originally Posted by Dream

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe Paul doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement either?

OK, there's that term again. I am not certain what you are getting at, so I'm going to take a stab. Is this a reference to sacrifice? Sacrifice for at-one-ment? Specifically, the selfless sacrifice of Jesus as a substitute for the ritual animal sacrifice? Before I tread in this direction, I just want to be certain this is what you are pointing to.

[Dream]

Just as I don't feel the need to answer line by line all of Pauline Conspiracy, I also can't see going through every word of Hebrews and James and comparing them to all of the Pauline letters. I will say that if Paul teaches substitutionary atonement as I think of it, this would truly put him at odds with Halacha and invalidate him. I will explain my understanding of substitutionary atonement, and you can compare it to what Dauer has explained about atonement over in the Judaism/Babylonian Captivity and the Ritual Law section post #4.

Substitutionary atonement is like the whipping-boy concept or the sin-eater concept requiring a unique concept of sin. If I teach substitutionary atonement and I say to you 'Sin must be punished' what I mean is that *somebody* has to be punished as a result of your sin, although not necessarily you. Simplified, it means that as a result of *someone's* punishment your sins are forgiven, hence you are being forgiven through punishment. In this frame, a sacrifice is required to literally absorb your sins, which are some sort of mystical substance (think of tar). These sins then cause your punishment to fall upon the sacrifice, instead of you. This is really a very simplified view.

This is very different from saying that the individual who sins must repent and confess and that sin can have irreversible results sometimes.

[Dream]

Paul and Substitutionary Atonement?

Originally Posted by Jauntoo3

Of course one does need to ask who is supposing and why? What is the motivation for encouraging the unquestioned presumption that the whole of the NT is in agreement?

I will suppose Paul never taught substitutionary atonement and see if it is defensible by putting up a given epistle of Paul's for discussion. Let me choose an epistle ....like you said 'any epistle' whatever is the easiest.... Titus has three chapters.

Originally Posted by Titus 2:14

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Respective to this, Paul is referring to the Torah in which he sees Jesus as a lamb at Passover. Both the lambs and the Egyptian firstborn were cursed, while the Hebrew firstborn lived. This is not about atonement at all, since the Israelites did not obtain any atonement at the passover. They were simply passed over by the death angel. Any suggestion that Paul teaches substitutionary atonement is an imposition upon the text.

Originally Posted by Corresponds to

James 1:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead," among others.

Exodus 13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the L!RD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast:therefore I sacrifice to the L!RD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

claiming at one point that the Textus Receptus dates to 1500 AD, which I am certain is incorrect.

No, that's correct. I don't know where you got the impression that "Textus Receptus" is an old manuscript; it is simply collated from the late medieval manuscripts, by the Dutch scholar Erasmus, a little before the Reformation started. It is the oldest PRINTED version of the Greek text; it is very late, in terms of the manuscripts it is based on.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dream

...if Paul teaches substitutionary atonement as I think of it, this would truly put him at odds with Halacha and invalidate him.

Substitutionary atonement is like the whipping-boy concept or the sin-eater concept requiring a unique concept of sin. If I teach substitutionary atonement and I say to you 'Sin must be punished' what I mean is that *somebody* has to be punished as a result of your sin, although not necessarily you. Simplified, it means that as a result of *someone's* punishment your sins are forgiven, hence you are being forgiven through punishment. In this frame, a sacrifice is required to literally absorb your sins, which are some sort of mystical substance (think of tar). These sins then cause your punishment to fall upon the sacrifice, instead of you. This is really a very simplified view.

This is very different from saying that the individual who sins must repent and confess and that sin can have irreversible results sometimes.

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this. I'm still not fully sure I get what you mean, but here goes: in some convoluted sense I think most Christians have a sense that sin will reap "punishment." This concept is not limited to Christianity, there is an analogy in the Buddhist Karma. You reap what you sow. The idea that the "reward" can be transferred again I think is more than strictly monotheist; the idea of sacrifice to appease those who hold the just rewards (punishment) of disobedience, not to mention godly whim and wrath, is pretty extensive throughout the Pagan world. The Roman and Greek pantheons and how they were approached and appeased serve well as examples, but the Pagan sacrificial ritual in many ways paralleled the Judaic / monotheist sacrificial ritual. I think there was an underlying psychological difference; from the supplicants' POV there is a major shift in the mind between "G-d!" and "god(s)?" But the motions are considerably similar.

Originally Posted by Dream

Paul and Substitutionary Atonement?

I will suppose Paul never taught substitutionary atonement and see if it is defensible by putting up a given epistle of Paul's for discussion. Let me choose an epistle ....like you said 'any epistle' whatever is the easiest.... Titus has three chapters. Respective to this, Paul is referring to the Torah in which he sees Jesus as a lamb at Passover. Both the lambs and the Egyptian firstborn were cursed, while the Hebrew firstborn lived. This is not about atonement at all, since the Israelites did not obtain any atonement at the passover. They were simply passed over by the death angel. Any suggestion that Paul teaches substitutionary atonement is an imposition upon the text.

Ummm-I am thinking "no." First, the sacrificial lambs for Passover were *not* cursed. Quite the contrary, they could not have served as a suitable sacrifice if they were cursed. My second point is that the Passover *was* a point of "at-one-ment," in that instruction was given; obey and live (be "at-one"), or disobey and die (as the archetypal enemies of G-d did). The challenge for the newly freed Hebrews was to remain in a state of at-one-ment, which I think even they would be willing to acknowledge they failed to do. (As an aside and point of clarification, it was the scapegoat that was cursed.)

I am reminded; to those who are given, much is required. G-d gave a heckuva lot to the Hebrews that fled Egypt into the desert. And they still griped and grumbled until they got a sentence passed. They got to wander for 40 years in the desert until all of the adults died, it was only the innocent children and those born in the desert that would ultimately enter the Promised Land.

And then it all started over again, rise and fall, rise and fall, rise and fall...The story of Christianity is really just one more "rise and fall" chapter in a 6 thousand year old saga.

At this point in my study I believe Jesus served in the final role as Passover Lamb. Some points surrounding this I struggle with, but the timing and the events during and the prophecy fulfilled such as Psalms 21 all speak to me of Jesus' role in finalizing the sacrificial fulfillment for atonement. Like the Hebrews going into the desert though, what do we do with it? We can embrace it, or belittle it; one to our betterment and atonement, the other not so.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

the Pagan sacrificial ritual in many ways paralleled the Judaic / monotheist sacrificial ritual. I think there was an underlying psychological difference; from the supplicants' POV there is a major shift in the mind between "G-d!" and "god(s)?" But the motions are considerably similar.

Now that I've had a little time to review this, I am reminded of another teaching I hadn't considered in awhile. I think with this "whipping boy" concept you are suggesting the sacrifice takes the heat as a replacement, in effect so the perp can walk free. That's not how I understand the sacrifice coming from Judaism. I am welcome to correction by our Jewish friends, but I was taught that the blood sacrifice was to cover the sin. Perhaps having heard the saying "washed in the blood of the lamb?" The lamb did not take the sin as a substitute, per se, but the blood "mystically" covers the sins of the sinner. I think in practical terms it probably gave the penitent something to think about as well, that their *missing the mark* comes at the price of a life.

But this does give me cause to think, because if this is so it puts the Messianic sacrifice into a bit different light than I typically hear presented...which would seem to be more in line with the "whipping boy" concept you mentioned.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

First, the sacrificial lambs for Passover were *not* cursed. Quite the contrary, they could not have served as a suitable sacrifice if they were cursed. My second point is that the Passover *was* a point of "at-one-ment," in that instruction was given; obey and live (be "at-one"), or disobey and die (as the archetypal enemies of G-d did). The challenge for the newly freed Hebrews was to remain in a state of at-one-ment, which I think even they would be willing to acknowledge they failed to do. (As an aside and point of clarification, it was the scapegoat that was cursed.)

Oh, you're right. The Passover lambs didn't get cursed verbally like the scapegoats did. (I never said what it was I did for employment, did I?)

I admit I'm relying upon the pudding section in my memory right now, however I still don't think the passover lamb was considered an atonement. The Day of Atonement called 'Rosh Hashanah' is a completely different day than when the Passover is celebrated (although the Passover lamb was a sacrifice that everyone in the house participated in by eating it). Passover seems to me more about God making a distinction between Israel and Egypt. It also seems like all the Israeli homes become like tiny cities of refuge as the angel of death passes them by (Numbers 35:28). The lamb's death and the people inside remind me of how those accused of accidental murder must wait in a City of Refuge until the high priest's death.

Back to the nitti-gritty: do you remember and of those potential conflicts between Paul and Hebrews?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dream

Oh, you're right. The Passover lambs didn't get cursed verbally like the scapegoats did. (I never said what it was I did for employment, did I?)

I admit I'm relying upon the pudding section in my memory right now, however I still don't think the passover lamb was considered an atonement. The Day of Atonement called 'Rosh Hashanah' is a completely different day than when the Passover is celebrated (although the Passover lamb was a sacrifice that everyone in the house participated in by eating it). Passover seems to me more about God making a distinction between Israel and Egypt. It also seems like all the Israeli homes become like tiny cities of refuge as the angel of death passes them by (Numbers 35:28). The lamb's death and the people inside remind me of how those accused of accidental murder must wait in a City of Refuge until the high priest's death.

Back to the nitti-gritty: do you remember and of those potential conflicts between Paul and Hebrews?

The Passover lamb was indeed an atonement and should one accept that atonement they would be spared. Indeed, it was a a precursor to what was to come, and that is the Christ who's blood would spare us, if we chose to accept it on ourselves.

I'm amazed how things fit together between the old and the new testament.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

I am welcome to correction by our Jewish friends, but I was taught that the blood sacrifice was to cover the sin. Perhaps having heard the saying "washed in the blood of the lamb?" The lamb did not take the sin as a substitute, per se, but the blood "mystically" covers the sins of the sinner.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The Passover lamb was indeed an atonement and should one accept that atonement they would be spared.

You probably are right. Also, since noticing the similarity between the Passover Home and a City of Refuge (Joshua 20:6) it jumped out at me in John that when Caiaphas prophesied about Jesus' death for the nation.(John 11:51) The writer of John specifically mentioned that the prophecy was not about Caiaphas' own death, suggesting that perhaps there is more to a high priest's death than just release of prisoners in the Cities of Refuge. The writer of Hebrews makes a big deal out of the high priest's death, and that does seem related to the Passover lamb.

Still no whipping boy, though. I don't know of any sacrifices listed in Leviticus or elsewhere that are intended to obtain forgiveness for breaking one of the Ten Commandments. From what I can tell, to atone for breaking these requires repentance, prayer, sometimes restoration of lost property or other compensations, marrying the girl, etc. The sacrifices relate to Peace, Purification, Thanks, and Burnt. I do not see a 'Forgiveness' offering, besides the prayer of an intercessor such as Solomon, Daniel, Jesus, etc. It is hard to imagine Paul saying otherwise.