Judaism and Pauline Christianity

[Ronald Pies MD]

Being and Behavior in Pauline Christianity and Judaism
​

​

Ronald Pies MD

​

In their text, Classical Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism,

Chilton and Neusner make an intriguing observation about the second century Roman teacher, Marcion (d. ca. 160 CE). They state that “…He liked only Paul’s letters and one gospel (Luke), and wanted them expurgated of anything connected with Judaism…” Furthermore, according to Neusner and Chilton, Marcion made the letters of Paul “…the basis of his views…”

In order to explore the relationship between Pauline Christianity and Judaism, I believe it is important, first, briefly to explore the connection between Paul and Marcion. In particular, what is it about Paul’s letters that so inspired Marcion’s embrace? Hinson (1996) says of Marcion,



“…No early Christian thinker…did more than Marcion to bring to a head the question of Christianity’s relation to Judaism. Although often classified as a Gnostic, he is more accurately viewed as an ardent opponent of legalism and thus of Christianity’s ties with Judiasm.” (p. 91).



But whereas Hinson may be reluctant to classify Marcion as a Gnostic, other scholars are less hesitant. Here is Prof. Roland Bainton’s description of Marcion:



“…[he] was a Gnostic in his attitude toward the created world. It is bad, said he, and full of flies, fleas, and fevers. The God who made it, the creator God, could not have been the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but was rather a malevolent demiurge. Marcion’s contention meant that Christianity would have to sever itself from all its Hebrew antecedents and that the Old Testament must be rejected.” (p. 66).



Although the nature of Paul’s views remains a topic of intense controversy [see, e.g., R. Apple, cited below] I want to suggest that in many respects, Paul’s views are closely aligned with, if not directly expressive of, various Gnostic doctrines; that these affinities explain Marcion’s attraction to Paul; and, most important, that Paul’s Gnostic leanings set Christianity on a radically different path from that of rabbinical or Pharisaic Judaism—indeed, a path that would lead ultimately to Luther and Calvin. More broadly, I want to suggest that Pauline Christianity is essentially a theology of being, whereas rabbinical Judaism is a theology of behavior.

To foreshadow the argument a bit: a theology of being is fundamentally preoccupied with essences (in the sense intended by Plato’s concept of “ideal forms”); with purity of intention, belief, or thought; and with justification or salvation mediated by pure faith, rather than by righteous action. In contrast, a theology of behavior is fundamentally concerned with human contexts rather than with essences; with the consequences of action rather than purity of motive (though there are important exceptions to this principle in Judaism); and with salvation mediated by righteous action rather than by faith as such. Arguably, in theologies of behavior, there is also a de-emphasis on the day-by-day importance of salvation.

Although I will present a case for distinguishing these two types of theology, I do not want to suggest that they represent an absolute separation between rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Whatever his Gnostic leanings, there is no doubt that Paul of Tarsus was born a Jew; may have been educated at the feet of Gamaliel II, one of the leading rabbis of his time; and held many beliefs that were part of the Pharisaic tradition

( Hinson, p. 49). I am also aware that, in drawing from the arguments of Prof. Hyam Maccoby (University of Leeds), I am citing arguments that are themselves the object of considerable controversy. For a fairly balanced critique of Maccoby, see Appendix 3.



Paul as Gnostic?



In his book, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Prof. Hyam Maccoby argues that, “…the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history.” And what, in Maccoby’s view, was Paul’s perspective? Maccoby writes:



“Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation. Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering deity.”



If Maccoby is mostly correct—and this is the premise of my own argument—how does his thesis relate to the constructs of “theology of being” versus “theology of behavior” as outlined earlier?



Essences vs. Contexts



In Gnostic philosophy, there is a sharp and unbridgeable chasm between good and evil, flesh and spirit. In the Gnostic universe, being is a matter of “either-or”—either something is flesh or spirit, but not both (though man is viewed as “…spirit imprisoned in matter…”-Bainton, p. 65).

The either-or quality of Gnosticism is grounded in the notion of essential features or essences: the necessary and sufficient conditions that characterize any entity. Just as, for Plato, the “essence” or ideal form of a triangle must always consist of a figure with three angles (Republic, Book VI), the essence of Christ is spirit alone. As Bainton puts it (p. 65):

“Gnostic Christians believed in Christ as the Redeemer, but since his function was to deliver man from the thralldom of the flesh, he could have had no flesh. It merely appeared that he had. His body was a phantom which only seemed to exist. Plainly, this view subverted the whole Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.” (italics added).



Now, I do not want to claim that Paul takes this extreme view of Christ; however, I do want to argue that Gnostic beliefs about “the flesh” and its inherent sinfulness permeate Paul’s teachings; and that these represent roughly the same “essentialist” world view as that of the Gnostics. For example, in Romans 8.5-11, Paul proclaims,



“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God…But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.”



And again, in Galatians (5.16-24), Paul proclaims:



“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh…Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness…and the like…And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires…”



For Paul, then, the flesh is inexorably and essentially bound up with death, degradation, and sin. It is of considerable interest that in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Gospel of John, the word “flesh” appears a total of 23 times [Strong’s Concise Concordance, 1997, p. 236]. In contrast, in just two of Paul’s epistles—Galatians and Romans—the term “flesh” appears 41 times (ibid.), usually in a disparaging context.



In contrast, the rabbinical view of the flesh or the body is more nuanced; less “essentialist”; and more context-dependent. First, there is no absolute wall between holiness and sacrilege, based on notions of carnality. Indeed, “The greater a man, the greater his evil inclination” [Sukkah 52a], which term R. Joseph Telushkin takes to mean, the “sex drive” [Telushkin, 1994]. The rabbis also recognized that, “Even during the time a man is in mourning, his impulse is apt to overcome him” (Bavli, Kiddushin 80b). To be sure, we do find rabbinical warnings against excessive preoccupation with carnality (e.g., “He used to say: The more flesh the more worms…Avot 2:8). But this mishnah may be understood as “…a denunciation of gluttony…[teaching] that overeating and drinking fatten one’s body only in order to sustain the maggots in his grave.” (Lieber, 1995). The rabbis did not intend a general denunciation of the “flesh”.

As Sherwin and Cohen note (2001), Plato described the human body as a “living tomb” or prison (Phaedrus, 250)—quite in line with Gnostic views. In contrast, Jewish tradition compares the human body to the Temple. To take one example: sexuality, in its proper sphere, is not hostile to God, but expressive of the Divine nature. Rather than renounce the body, rabbinic tradition exhorts us to complete the body with “a complementary other” (Sherwin and Cohen, p. 154). Thus, the value or sanctity of the body and its sexual impulses depends on the human context. In Judaism,



“In themselves, bodily organs and functions are beautiful and good. Only when misused or abused can they become ugly or repulsive; but such is the result of human action, not divine intention.” (Sherwin and Cohen, p. 156, italics added).



Note the critical role of “human action” in determining the moral status of the flesh. This foreshadows the role of behavior in the theology of rabbinic Judaism.

See Part 2

 

[Ronald Pies MD]

Part 2: Pies: Judaism and Pauline Christianity


Purity of Intention vs. Consequences of Action



Let me be clear: I do not want to claim that “purity of intention” is unimportant in rabbinical Judaism. A good example is the rabbinical attitude toward tzedakah, often translated as “charity”, but more appropriately understood as “righteousness”. The rabbinic tradition certainly honors an “exalted variety of zedakah” ( Sherwin and Cohen, p. 218, citing Isaac Aboab) in which the giver donates “…selflessly for the sake of Heaven…”. In such cases, the tzedakah is regarded as being in the class of gemilut hasadim—acts of loving-kindness. But, as Sherwin and Cohen note, “…Aboab refuses to relegate zedakah to one realm and gemilut hasadim to another. Instead, Aboab perceives a certain fluidity between dutiful and benevolent actions.” (op cit, Sherwin and Cohen).

This refusal to place things in absolute categories is another example of the anti-essentialist, anti-Gnostic tendency in Judaism. But more specifically, it is an example of how one’s inner state or underlying motivation is usually a secondary consideration in Judaism. As Telushkin puts it, “When it comes to giving charity, the most important thing is not that your intentions be pure…[but that] the money you give does good.” (Telushkin 2000, p. 421).

The contrast with this pragmatic concept of zedakah and the Christian notion of “charity” (caritas; akin to “caress”, “cherish”) is quite striking. On the Christian view, one should help the poor and needy out of one’s love for them. But as Sherwin and Cohen point out, “Help for the needy based upon love is too unreliable to help ensure their welfare…”. In Judaism, what counts is not purity of motive, but the consequence of one’s action. As Leo Baeck has noted, in Judaism, “Only the right deed places man in the presence of God at all times, and only it can be demanded of [man] at all times.” (Baeck, 1948, p. 56). Baeck adds, “Judaism has its doctrine, but it is a doctrine of behavior…” (ibid, italics added). And this point brings us to our final and most important distinction between rabbinical Judaism and Pauline Christianity.



Salvation through Faith or Through Action?



“Justification” means, in effect, “to be declared innocent or free from guilt”; or, to cite one Christian-oriented reference book, justification is “…the process by which sinful human beings are made acceptable to a holy God.” [Nelson’s Compact Bible Dictionary, ed. Youngblood et al, 2004]. In Galatians 3, Paul sets up the argument that justification is by faith alone, not by obedience to the Law [Torah]. Specifically, Paul insists that “…a man becomes right with God only by faith in Christ and not by the performance of good works, ritual observances, and the like…” [Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1408]. The OAB commentator calls Galatians “…the Magna Carta of Christian liberty…”, since Paul’s principles “…made Christianity a world religion instead of a Jewish sect.” (ibid).

In Christian theology, justification is closely linked with salvation, and could be considered a precursor to it; e.g., in Romans 10:10, Paul says, “For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.” Salvation also carries with it the larger sense of mankind’s final salvation with Christ’s second coming; e.g., “For salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed…” (Romans 13.11).

Justification and salvation are foundational and essential elements of Pauline Christianity. In Judaism, these concepts figure much less prominently. An illustration of this is found in a quote attributed to Abraham Joshua Heschel:

“When I walk through the streets of a city and a Christian missionary meets me, the first question he asks me is: 'What do you do for the salvation of your soul?' I have never thought of salvation, it is not a Jewish problem. My problem is what mitzvah I can do next. Am I going to say barachah? Am I going to be kind to another person? To study Torah? How am I going to prepare for the Sabbath? Those are my problems. The central issue in Judaism is the mitzvah, the sacred act. And it is the greatness of man that he can do a mitzvah. How great we are that we can fulfill the will of God! (quoted by Apple, op cit).



To the extent that the rabbis talk of “justification” as the process by which sinful human beings are made acceptable to God, it is usually in the context of personal atonement. And, as Leo Baeck makes clear, atonement in rabbinical Judaism has virtually nothing to do with Pauline concepts of “faith”, “belief”, “grace”, etc:



“…this concept of atonement is no mere act of grace, or miracle of salvation, which befalls the chosen; it demands the free ethical choice and deed of the human being…Man is not granted something unconditionally; he has rather to decide for something unconditionally. In his deed is the beginning of his atonement…The sinner himself is to turn to God, since it is he who turned away…no one stands between him and God, no mediatior…no redeemer and no sacrament…Atonement is ours; it is our task and our way. This is the doctrine which, in contrast to Pauls gospel of redemption, has become the distinguishing characteristic of Judaism. This is the doctrine which gives ethical immediacy to the relation between man and God.” (Baeck, p. 167).



Two Divergent Paths



I believe that the overwhelming influence of Pauline Christianity eventually led to the Catholic Church to a “monolectical” theology of being. In contrast, I believe that a variety of tensions within Judaism led to a “dialectical” theology of behavior. By “monolectical”, I mean, first, that the goal of the early Church was the development of a single, orthodox dogma; and second, that there were few countervailing forces within orthodox Christianity to balance the powerful Pauline influence. Of course, there were any number of Christian heresies, such as Pelagianism (which argued, in effect, that man is the master of his own salvation); and there were some differences of perspective among the various Gospels. For example, in Matthew, the continuity of Christianity and Mosaic law is emphasized; while in the Letter of James, the concept of “good works” is given a much stronger emphasis than in Paul’s epistles (Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1467). Nevertheless, the overall thrust of the early Church was in the direction of suppression of heresy and the development of a unified, orthodox dogma. The numerous Church Councils (e.g., the Councils of Nicaea in 325 CE and 787 CE) are testimony to this tendency.

A number of dialectical tendencies in Judaism contributed to a more variegated theology. The interplay between p’shat and d’rash (surface versus “deeper” meaning of the text); between Mishnah and Gemara; between the written and oral Torah; and between fixed interpretation of Torah and the exegesis of the Sages, all contributed to “…the powerful tensions and balances that have structured Judaism over the ages…[and which] have provided mechanisms whereby Judaism could revise or critique itself for the sake of its ongoing integrity.” (Fishbane, 1987, p. 17).

I believe that these same dialectical tendencies led Judaism to emphasize behavior over being; human context over essence; and “good works” over “faith”. After all, when one is trying to balance opposing tensions, one aims, inevitably, at some kind of pragmatic compromise. One is drawn away from categorical or “essential” definitions, toward more context-based definitions. And, the stark, Gnostic divisions of flesh versus spirit, light vs. darkness, etc., become inherently less tenable. As Baeck notes,



“In [Judaism], there was no need for a constant, inviolable formula; this is necessary only in those religions at the heart of which lies a mystical, consecrating act of faith—an act which alone can open the door to salvation, and which therefore requires a definite conceptual image to be handed down from age to age. Such acts of salvation and gifts of grace are alien to Judaism…” (op cit, p. 13).



Indeed, in my view, these “acts and gifts”—so characteristic of Pauline Christianity--sent the early Church down a very different path from that of rabbinical Judaism.





References



Baeck L: The Essence of Judaism. New York, Schocken Books, 1948.



Bainton RH: Christendom. Harper and Row, New York, 1964.

Chilton B, Neusner J: Classical Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, Baker Academic Publishers, 2004.



Fishbane M: Judaism. New York, Harper & Row, 1987.



Hinson EG: The Early Church. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1996.



Lieber M: Pirke Avos Treasury. Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, 1995.



Maccoby, H: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986, p. 4



Nelson’s Compact Bible Dictionary, ed. Youngblood et al, Nashville, Nelson Reference, 2004



Sherwin BL, Cohen SJ: Creating an Ethical Jewish Life. Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001.



Telushkin J: Jewish Wisdom. New York, William Morrow, 1994.



Telushkin J: The Book of Jewish Values. New York, Bell Tower, 2000.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Great posts. Thanks.

I don't see much (if anything) in the genuine Pauline epistles of "Jesus's sojourn on Earth" as you put it. He seems to be talking about a Jesus existing in a mythical realm revealed to him through a secret hidden in the Hebrew scriptures. We know what scriptures he was talking about because later writers turned them into a teaching myth. But Paul doesn't say anything about the historical Jesus of Nazareth we know from the later Gospels.

 

[Ronald Pies MD]

Thanks for the good comments! Yes--it seems to me that Paul is largely interested in Paul...and that Jesus has been rather conveniently set aside, in the Epistles.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Thanks for the good comments! Yes--it seems to me that Paul is largely interested in Paul...and that Jesus has been rather conveniently set aside, in the Epistles.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels. He confirms almost nothing about the "historical" story of Jesus and is clearly picking the details of his understanding of the saving work of Jesus out of Hebrew scriptures as a hidden revalation of Christ's saving work in the word of God. Is it possible that Paul didn't set aside Jesus, but rather the Gospels are "historicizations" of Paul's (and/or his contemporaries') revelation in the form of a midrashic story of the suffering servant? In other words, when you say that Paul "set aside Jesus," might you be putting the cart before the horse?

 

[Ronald Pies MD]

Dear Abogado—Thanks for the note.



I may still not be grasping your point, but here is my response:

Re: “…rather, the Gospels are "historicizations" of Paul's (and/or his contemporaries') revelation in the form of a midrashic story of the suffering servant? In other words, when you say that Paul "set aside Jesus," might you be putting the cart before the horse?”



First, I’m certainly not qualified to pronounce on the motives behind, or the origins of, the Gospels! And, I have no reason to doubt your hypothesis re: the Gospels as “historicizations” of Paul’s revelation in the form of a midrashic story of the “suffering servant.” My points re: Pauline Christianity have to do with the philosophical content of the doctrines, and their relationship, e.g., to the Gnostic tradition. Yes, to be sure: scholars agree that Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels—Galatians and Romans are usually pegged at around 51-58 CE, versus roughly 75 CE for Mark. According to Prof. Michael Sugrue, “Paul is, as it were, flying blind, with oral traditions, but not the Gospels [as sources]. He knew the Hebrew Bible, may have known the author of the Q document [the putative “source” for all the synoptic Gospels] and certainly knew the earliest figures of the Church.” However, it is generally agreed that Paul did not know the historical Jesus. When I say that Paul “set aside” Jesus, I simply mean that—to the extent Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teachings from the oral traditions—Paul seems to have departed from them in a personalized and peculiar way. (My guess is that Paul’s early persecution of the Jewish Christians led to a certain kind of over-compensating “hyper-Christianity”, but this is pure psychologizing on my part!). Sugrue even notes that some scholars think the religion as it developed should be called “Paulianity”, given the intensely personalized stamp left on it by Paul! And, as Maccoby has argued, I think this Paulianic stamp has “Gnosticism” written all over it.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Dear Abogado—Thanks for the note.

According to Prof. Michael Sugrue, “Paul is, as it were, flying blind, with oral traditions, but not the Gospels [as sources].

Well, this is where I think we should start taking a very careful look at Paul. What oral traditions? Is there a "gospel" like story of an historical Jesus in oral circulation at the time of Paul? If so, he doesn't seem to know anything about it. What he does know about is a theological/metaphysical Jesus the Christ as "revealed" to him as a hidden mystery within the words of the Hebrew scriptures. I have yet to read a convincing case for the argument that there was an oral tradition resulting in the Gospel of Mark that predates the Pauline epistles.

He knew the Hebrew Bible, may have known the author of the Q document [the putative “source” for all the synoptic Gospels]

Q is the putative source for the teachings materials and a few other things in Matthew and Luke - but not Mark. Matthew and Luke appear to be composed of Markan material combined with Q sayings and then each authors' additional embellishments - for example, the radical differences in the post-resurrection stories show that there was no shared source for this information.

I've made a case elsewhere in the forum (following Crossan's lead) that Mark isn't even the earliest version of the passion/ressurection story, but that a careful comparison with Gospel of Peter demonstrates that Mark was either copying and modifying GPet or that the authors of GPet and Mark both had access to another common written source that we have not located. Crossan calls this document (whether it's GPet or something earlier) the "Cross Gospel." But Paul knows nothing of either the teachings of Jesus or the historical details of the synoptics.

and certainly knew the earliest figures of the Church.”

That is possible, but as to whom these people were and what they actually taught and believed, it is a complete unknown.

However, it is generally agreed that Paul did not know the historical Jesus.

That is probably true. He may not have even known any stories of an "historical" Jesus.

When I say that Paul “set aside” Jesus, I simply mean that—to the extent Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teachings from the oral traditions—Paul seems to have departed from them in a personalized and peculiar way.

And this is the heart of the issue I was getting at. If there was no oral tradition regarding the historical Jesus at the time of Paul's writings, then there would be nothing for Paul to set aside. That's what I mean when I ask whether the Gospels could be a midrashic story built around Pauline ideas. And that story may have gradually incorporated a set of Stoic teachings, perhaps through the Essenes, perhaps through some form of Hellenistic Judaism when the passion account of the Cross Gospel was combined in Matthew and Luke with the Q sayings. Scholars already talk in terms of a "Gallillean Tradition" embodied in the sayings and community of Q, and a "Jerusalem Tradition" embodied in the passion/ressurection story neither of which may have actually known of each other's existence until they were combined by the gospel authors well after Paul's epistles were written.

Sugrue even notes that some scholars think the religion as it developed should be called “Paulianity”, given the intensely personalized stamp left on it by Paul! And, as Maccoby has argued, I think this Paulianic stamp has “Gnosticism” written all over it.

The early Gnostics thought so too. If Marcion and Valeninus hadn't made such a point of basing their teachings on the writings of Paul, Paul's epistles themselves may have been sent to the dustbin of historical obscurity. However, Iraeneus made it a point to try to turn everything claimed by the Gnostics into an argument for proto-orthodoxy. He did it with the Gospel of John and he did with the writings of Paul.

 

[lunamoth]

Interesting conversation here--hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions. (BTW, I am totally not a Bible scholar so these questions come more from the curious believer).

First, greetings Dr. Pies, welcome to CR. Quite a meaty first post!

Interesting comments Abogado--I think I'm starting to get the hang of where you are coming from.

Directed first to R Pies, you suggest Paul has a Gnostic-like disdain for the flesh but I think overall his view is more like the Jewish perspective you also describe, that the body is a temple. He refers to the body as temple for the living God in at least three places. He certainly emphasizes the spiritual over the material/flesh, and exhorts his followers to be chaste etc as befits a temple, but I don't think he thinks of the flesh as evil as I usually associate with Gnostic belief. (added in edit: although Paul does emphasize the perishability of the flesh, which I think is also quite OT if I remember my Isaiah. This is different I think from believing the flesh to be evil/sin nature. Ironically a lot of Christians who do not identify as Gnostic seem to think of the flesh as somehow evil--I'm thinking of the term "sin DNA.")

Related to this, I think that one sees in the letters of Paul, Gospels, etc. what one's heart is prepared to see. I'm not sure it's correct to say that Paul was a Gnostic or that the writings are Gnostic, but rather that some people read them this way. Did Gnostics of that time actually call themselves Gnostic? I have the impression that there was a large variety of related beliefs that all kind of fell under the umbrella Gnostic, a label put on at later times. I guess I think of it as an evolving thing and Paul was the common anscestor, if you will, of all these types of thought which went on to become orthodox or not.

My impression is that Paul had an Experience of the Post-crucifixion Christ and was writing "fresh" from this Experience, albeit necessarily colored by his being devoutly Jewish.

Well, this is where I think we should start taking a very careful look at Paul. What oral traditions? Is there a "gospel" like story of an historical Jesus in oral circulation at the time of Paul? If so, he doesn't seem to know anything about it. What he does know about is a theological/metaphysical Jesus the Christ as "revealed" to him as a hidden mystery within the words of the Hebrew scriptures. I have yet to read a convincing case for the argument that there was an oral tradition resulting in the Gospel of Mark that predates the Pauline epistles.

I've wondered about this too, what did Paul know about the pre-crucifixion Christ and when did he know it. The one thing I'd point out is that he did, at the time of writing his letters, know the Jersalem leaders of the nascent Christian faith, including James. The letter of James in the Bible seems to indicate that he was familiar with the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, which is only found in Matt and Luke, the later Gospels. So I'm guessing that all of the Gospel information was part of the Christian faith at the very earliest stages, even while Paul was writing. Probably some groups had some bits of it and other groups others, and permutations of the same stories ended up being recoreded as seperate stories.

Q is the putative source for the teachings materials and a few other things in Matthew and Luke - but not Mark. Matthew and Luke appear to be composed of Markan material combined with Q sayings and then each authors' additional embellishments - for example, the radical differences in the post-resurrection stories show that there was no shared source for this information.

I've made a case elsewhere in the forum (following Crossan's lead) that Mark isn't even the earliest version of the passion/ressurection story, but that a careful comparison with Gospel of Peter demonstrates that Mark was either copying and modifying GPet or that the authors of GPet and Mark both had access to another common written source that we have not located. Crossan calls this document (whether it's GPet or something earlier) the "Cross Gospel." But Paul knows nothing of either the teachings of Jesus or the historical details of the synoptics.

I read The Birth of Christianity too and a lot of Crossan's hypothesis did seem to make sense to me.

And this is the heart of the issue I was getting at. If there was no oral tradition regarding the historical Jesus at the time of Paul's writings, then there would be nothing for Paul to set aside. That's what I mean when I ask whether the Gospels could be a midrashic story built around Pauline ideas. And that story may have gradually incorporated a set of Stoic teachings, perhaps through the Essenes, perhaps through some form of Hellenistic Judaism when the passion account of the Cross Gospel was combined in Matthew and Luke with the Q sayings. Scholars already talk in terms of a "Gallillean Tradition" embodied in the sayings and community of Q, and a "Jerusalem Tradition" embodied in the passion/ressurection story neither of which may have actually known of each other's existence until they were combined by the gospel authors well after Paul's epistles were written.

It's an interesting hypothesis but I just don't know, AdD. Paul certainly didn't seem to care about a lot of the teachings of the pre-crucifixion Christ, but at least James and the early dates of GPet/Mark/Q support the idea that the historical Jesus was central to Christianity from the beginning. I mean, they did not have photocopiers back then. It would take time for the stories about Christ, His teachings, and the Passion story to emerge in written form. It's just that Paul met the Risen Christ, so that is where his emphasis was. Maybe Paul didn't know much about the pre-crucifixion Christ, but in a way he probably didn't care. In that way it was a like a gnostic experience.

The early Gnostics thought so too. If Marcion and Valeninus hadn't made such a point of basing their teachings on the writings of Paul, Paul's epistles themselves may have been sent to the dustbin of historical obscurity. However, Iraeneus made it a point to try to turn everything claimed by the Gnostics into an argument for proto-orthodoxy. He did it with the Gospel of John and he did with the writings of Paul.

Well, I think they all were proto-orthodoxy . No offense--I'm appalled at the tactics used in the early Church to establish unity, crushing all other believers as heretics. I don't think this was the Holy Spirit at work protecting the Truth--more like the Holy Spirit working in spite of the sad failings of humans. I think at all times we have a real choice and can "get there" using love, rather than fear and oppression.

Forgive me, I guess I didn't really ask any questions. Just wondering what you think of my analysis.

peace,
lunamoth

PS, I see a lot of typos but sorry it's late so I am too tired to correct.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Very interesting points, Luna.

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll post a more detailed analysis later, but one thing to note about the James epistle is that it is predominantly regarded as pseudepigraphical and was probably written after the Synoptics.

 

[didymus]

I would like to know more about the theory of Peter being one of the earliest gospels. What reading do you recommend?

What I have noticed avbout Pauls letters is the use of the terms principalities and rulers. I always took thes to be literal body and flesh rulers but there is definitely allusions to the archons of Gnosticism.

Archons; ("rulers") angels set over nations and identified or equated with aeons.

Shamshiel or Shemuiel is "the great archon, mediator between the prayers of Israel and princes of the 7th heaven."
In occultism archons are primordial planetery spirits.

In manicheanism they were "the Sons of Dark who swallowed the bright elements of Primal Man." This reminds me of the gospel of John.

Principalities; one of the 9 orders of celestial hierarchy and usually ranked 1st in the 3rd triad. (I don't know what the 3rd triad is, is this like the 3rd heaven)

The principalities are the protectors of religion. They also as Dionysius declares,"watch over the people" and presumably inspire them to make right decisions.

Paul alludes to these rulers and principalities many times. I looked quickly in my concordance but can't find the locations of these verses in Paul's letters. Can anyone help me out there? I did find one though.

Ephesians 2:2 ..... when you followed the ways of the world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us lived among them at one time......

Notice the plural them above.

In NKJV the above is translated as ....the spirit who is now works in the sons of disobedience (This reminds me of the sons of darkness.)

Another interesting quote by paul is in 2 Corinthians 10:13...........We however will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere that which God appointed us-a sphere which includes you.
What is the meaning of the sphere that Paul speaks of here?? Is this related to the demiurge??

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I would like to know more about the theory of Peter being one of the earliest gospels. What reading do you recommend?

Short version: Crossan's "Who Killed Jesus?"
Long version: Crossan's "The Cross That Spoke"

 

[didymus]

Thanks, do you have insight into my last post?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Thanks, do you have insight into my last post?

Paul's reference to "principalities" and "archons" as the "rulers of this age" killing Christ is a curious way to describe Romans and Jews. (1 Cor. 2:8)

After 2000 years of embedding the gospels' stories in our culture, it is very difficult to read Paul without projecting into the epistles events of the gospels when there is no textual support for that projection. Many scholars (and not just liberal ones) agree that Paul's reference here is to evil spiritual powers ruling over the earth rather than earthly, political powers as is described in the canonical gospels.

The Gnostics certainly believed that this was a reference to the evil spiritual powers, among whom they counted the demiurge (which was considered by some Gnostics to be the "God" of the Hebrew scriptures).

As far 2 Cor. 10:13, I lent my copy of "The Gnostic Paul" to my brother-in-law and he hasn't returned it yet. When he does, I'll see what Pagels thinks the Gnostics believed about this passage. If anyone else has a copy, feel free to interject. Aside from that, I'll look at different translations and even slog through a little bit of the Greek and see if I can't figure it out. I can tell already that it's a real tough nut to crack, since some of the best English translators lacked sufficient confidence to translate it without dropping footnotes with alternative translations (see e.g. NIV, 2 Cor. 2:14, fn b).

 

[Ronald Pies MD]

Many thanks to Abogado, Lunamoth, and Didymus for your comments. As one struggling to understand rabbinics, I'm certainly not prepared to comment authoritatively on all the issues in the New Testament you three are addressing! So, here are a few quick responses to some points raised in several of the threads:

Re: Paul and "the flesh", it is very hard for me to read this passage without the sense that for Paul, the flesh is not exactly a Temple (though I take your point, Luna, that he may describe it that way in other contexts):
Galatians (5.16-24), Paul proclaims:

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh…Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness…and the like…And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires…”


What strikes me as Gnostic-like in Paul is his wish to "crucify" the flesh "and its passions". In the Judaic/rabbinic tradition, the "evil impulse" (yetzer hara) is dealt with a bit more gently--one leads it to the House of Study, or channels it into more acceptable behaviors (e.g., the aggressive child is encouraged to become a butcher). And, yetzer hara is given credit, e.g., for leading one to marry, build a house, etc...it is not, in fact, "evil" so much as, well... in need of close supervision! I simply don't find this nuanced view of the flesh and its desires in Paul...but I may not have found the "right" passages yet!


Going back to Abogado's earlier query about Paul's sources, and whether there was any contemporaneous "oral tradition" of Jesus for him to draw on, or (as I have suggested) to turn away from. One Christian scholar, Prof. E. Glenn Hinson (Baptist Theological Seminary) writes in "The Early Church": " [Paul] went to Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18), where he spent fifteen days confering with Peter and James, Jesus' brother (Gal 1:19-20)..." If Hinson is right, could this be the "oral tradition" Prof. Michael Sugrue refers to in my quote, up above? I would imagine James would have had a good deal of "oral tradition" regarding Jesus to share with Paul!


By the way, Abogado, your hypothesis that the Gospels may represent "a midrashic story built around Pauline ideas" receives some indirect support in
Rabbi Stephen Wylen's book, "The Jews in the Time of Jesus", though Wylen has the Old Testament in mind. He states, "Much of the passion story is a midrash, an interpretation of scripture...the passion story was composed with two Bible passages especially in mind--Isaiah 53 (the "suffering servant" passage) and Psalm 22." (Psalm 22:19).


As I try to finish up my rabbinics course, I may be less able to join in the discussion, so thanks to you all for the stimulating time!--RP

 

[bananabrain]

hi RP - and first, welcome! good to have someone so eminent paying us a bit of attention over here at CR!

part of the thing that interests me about the rabbinic process is that it appears so clearly linked to the humanisation of the Divine - namely, how can real people exist within a perfectionist framework? many people have, of course, written on religious behaviourism; paul, by contrast, always seemed like a frustrated sadducee who couldn't get a girlfriend to me.

anyway, i really enjoyed the article and i think it's sparked an interesting discussion. just one thing; remember this is a discussion board, not a place for people to post massive amounts of their own material as this tends to come across as somewhat non-conducive to discussion. not that you come across as the sort of person who is here looking for a soapbox. i would be interested, however, in hearing on insights you may have gained into the nexus between judaism and psychiatry. obviously, there are a lot of psychotherapists who use jewish structures in their work (i read a book called "sacred therapy" recently by a lady whose name escapes me which i thought was both useful and insightful, though i am a lay person in such matters) but i'm not aware necessarily of much of this in more traditional psychiatry; i haven't seen much evidence of it in, say, bettelheim.

i'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion on two subjects:

1) jung, archetypes and stuff he may have picked up from judaism, particularly the mystical tradition
2) whether you think freud actually knew anything about judaism, as opposed to a jewish clientele of uptight viennese hysterics.

feel free to start a thread or two over on the judaism board.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

One Christian scholar, Prof. E. Glenn Hinson (Baptist Theological Seminary) writes in "The Early Church": " [Paul] went to Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18), where he spent fifteen days confering with Peter and James, Jesus' brother (Gal 1:19-20)..." If Hinson is right, could this be the "oral tradition" Prof. Michael Sugrue refers to in my quote, up above?

But what tradition was conveyed? Doesn't it surprise you that Paul writes so much about Jesus as a mystery revealed to him in the Hebrew scriptures but says naught about the events in the life or the teachings of an historical Jesus?

Paul never identifies who Peter and James actually are and one conducting a scientific analysis of the text should be careful not to project into the text meanings and details that may not be there. You can garner clues about Peter and James from the context, though nothing about an historical Jesus. Instead, it appears that these people were like-minded with Paul in experiencing this revelation of Jesus Christ, but they differed from Paul in their dedication to Torah. Paul later refers to them negatively because Paul holds that the law is fulfilled through the mystical actions of the Christ. Thus, Paul warns his gentile followers: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

The only story that is illustrative of who James was and what the Jerusalem Christians taught is this one from Galatians:

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.


14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

The picture that emerges is that the Jerusalem church visited by Paul was perhaps some early version of the Ebionites. As to whether they were directly connected to a Jesus of Nazareth and an historical human, Paul doesn't say one way or the other, aside from a cryptic reference to "James, the brother of the Lord." But that's a whole other discussion . . .

 

[Ronald Pies MD]

Dear Bananabrain--Such a humble pseudonym...perhaps alluding to the high concentrations of serotonin, a vital neurotransmitter, in bananas? In any case, thank you for your warm greeting and questions. And please accept my apology for loading so much material onto the website. My intention was actually to elicit feedback on what is, in fact, a term paper I am planning to submit for a rabbinics course. And, I'm happy to say that I was richly rewarded!
Re: your excellent questions, I have to plead partial ignorance. I'm not familiar enough with Jung's views to relate them confidently to Judaic teaching (though critics have always had dark thoughts about Jung and his view of the Jews, as you doubtless know). As for Freud--author of "Moses and Monotheism"--I think Freud had a good "academic" understanding of Judaism, but I don't know that he really grasped its "essence" (as Leo Baeck would later do). My main response to you is in relation to Judaism and cognitive-behavioral therapy; in particular, I have written on the many links between Rambam (Moshe ben Maimon, Maimonides) and the cognitive-behavioral school of psychology. If you'd like to take a look, I can email you the galleys of the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy [Pies R: Maimonides and the origins of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 11:21-36, 1997)]. I am hoping to put together a book on this connection, as well.

Best wishes, Ron Pies

 

[didymus]

A curious quote from Paul is in Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written; "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

What is your interpretation of this passage?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

A curious quote from Paul is in Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written; "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

What is your interpretation of this passage?

More midrash possibly. This time based on Deuteronomy 21:23, which is where it is written that "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." The idea is that Christ suffered indignity and the curse of God as it says in Deut. 21:23 to save us from the curse of the law. It's easy to read into this a reference to Gospel account of the crucifixtion, but also easy to see it as more midrash based on Paul's revelation drawn from Hebrew scripture.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

On this issue of Paul and oral tradition, Paul seems to pretty clearly indicate in Galatians 1 that there was no such reliance on any oral tradition in forumulating his Gospel:

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.