Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Pauline and Jesus Movements

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Pauline and Jesus Movements
  • Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 17:13:56 -0400


On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Mark Nanos responded to a post by Dave Hindley:

>>This [i.e., that Paul's message had its source in, but diverged
from, that of the original Jewish followers of Jesus] is a thesis
(Baur now articulated again by M. Goulder's Two
Missions) with which I disagree as well.<<

Could you elaborate? What kind of theology do you think Paul may have
brought with him when he become associated with the Jesus movement?
Are you basing your opinion, in part, upon the testimony of Acts with
regards to the early history of Paul? How seriously should we take the
"history" related in Acts? Forgive me if this has already been stated
in earlier posts to Moon, etc, but I could not take the time to tease
them out of the archives.

>>[When you say that Paul's movement existed as an independent and
unrelated movement, does that mean] until the meeting Paul mentions in
Gal. 1:18? And what was the Paul movement about? How would you label
it if not an independent (for a while at least) Jesus movement as
well?<<

The relationship between the Peter of the Gospels and the Cephas of
Galatians is textually very tenuous. In the Textus Receptus,
PETRON,PETROS/PETRW appears in Gal 1;18; 2:7,8,11,14, and KHFAS
appears in 2:9 (and 1 Cor 3:22; 9:5; and as KHFA in 1 Cor 1:12 &
15:5). However, W-H and the GNT (NA26 at least) have one or another
form of KHFA/KHFAS/KEFAN *except* at Gal 2:7,8 (which use PETROS and
PETRW respectively), and these verses are regularly (although not
universally) regarded as a bona-fide interpolation. Otherwise, the
only other place we find a form of "Peter" is in the Gospels and Acts
(except KHFAS in John 1:42).

As a result, I have questioned the equation of these names to a single
person. So I ask myself: If Paul's Cephas is not the same as the Peter
of the Gospels/Acts, then what of his associates for which the Gospels
also have similarly named persons? James (IAKWBOS & variants) and John
(IWANHS & variants) are not exactly unusual names. Could we, though,
have two groups of three similarly named individuals? I think so,
especially since Peter/Cephas can be eliminated. Two different sets of
two are much more likely to occur by chance.

The early patristic traditions about James make him into a priestly
figure wearing linen and performing the duties of the high priest on
the Day of Atonement (I am thinking of Hegesippus, as paraphrased by
Eusebius, History of the Church 2:23). Outside the NT, "apostle" is
similar to the (admittedly later) titles of those commissioned to
collect offerings dedicated to the Temple or to charity, and these
would be turned over to priests. Since I doubt that the Romans would
look approvingly at the transfer, between provinces, of large sums by
private individuals (and I believe that confiscation of such sums
occurred at least once early in the period of Roman rule), this kind
of activity would likely have been organized and sanctioned by
authorities. These authorities would most naturally be one or more
priests or groups of priests associated with the Temple or the chief
priestly aristocracy.

It is not, then, too historically wild to postulate a confusion on the
part of Hegesippus between one James, brother of Jesus (known to him,
say, from the one of the Gospels, e.g., Mk 6:3 or Mt 13:55, or one of
the sources the authors of these Gospels used), and one James, a chief
priest (further confused with a High Priest) who commissioned apostles
(like Paul, I would suggest...arguably, of course <g>) to collect
offerings.

If the redactor also shared this James/James (false) equation, it is
not too great a leap to see him equate Cephas into Peter (due to
similarity in meaning of the names), and then equate the two Johns on
arbitrary grounds. Consequently, I do not think Gal 1:18 represents a
meeting between representatives of the two movements, but unrelated
events that were associated by synthesis.

What was the nature of Paul's movement then? I did not try to think of
this until it became clear (at least to me <G>) what parts of the
epistles I thought were interpolations. When removed, the remainder is
almost exclusively concerned with the relationship between faithful
Gentiles and Jews. Considering the names and positions of individuals
mentioned in the epistles, I am inclined to see his constituency as
urbanites: low to mid level individuals of the retainer class (such as
freed slaves, tradespersons), merchants, etc.

I have made attempts to find some evidence of Christ language used to
represent the concept of "messiah", such as might be the case if Paul
were involved with messianism like I think the Jesus movement was. But
I could not find anything that did not seem to be a part of the Christ
language that saw Jesus as a supernatural savior figure.

While there are mentions in the uninterpolated material of the "day"
(of God's wrath) in Rom 2:5,16; 1 Cor 1:8a; 3:13; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14
(possibly); Eph 4:30 (mentioning a ransom); 6:13; 2 Thes 1:10. While I
think these references are warnings, or assurances, that faithful
Gentiles have separated themselves from those Gentile practices that
will eventually bring down God's wrath in some future day of
reckoning, I do not think it was central to his message. His
constituency was interested in Judaism's ethical side.

The interpolator(s, as there could be several), when he mentions the
"day" (of Christ's judgement), e.g., Phil 1:6,10; 2:16; 1 Thes 5:2,4;
2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 1:12,18; 4:8, is thinking of an apocalyptic end, and
I think this is an indication of the kind of messianism out of which
the reformed Jesus movement sprung.

>>where is [it] inicated [that "the members of which were later
courted by members of a radically reformed version of Jesus' original
movement"]? Why did they do so? How/why did Paul
respond? How/why did his communities respond?<<

I am perplexed by the Gospels, which show a simultaneous
semi-familiarity with, and contempt for, Judaism, and I think that
this is best explained by them being written by Gentiles who were at
one time proselytes or full converts to Judaism. Obviously, if they
were converts, they no longer considered themselves Jews, as they saw
the Christ as a vehicle for salvation that superceded the sacrificial
and legal system of Jews. The only event close to the traditional
period of Jesus' life that could account for such a radical reversal
of thinking is the war with Rome, 66-74 CE.

Birger Pearson has proposed origins for "Jewish (Sethian) Gnosticism"
that provides the closest analogy to what I see as having occurred to
the Jesus movement (outlined in _Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian
Christianity_, Fortress, 1990, pp. 10ff, 124ff). The major difference
is that the "Jewish" Gnostics were Jews intimately familiar with their
ancestral literature, in Hebrew, and apocalyptic literature in
Aramaic.

Since the authors of the Gospels had relatively inaccurate knowledge
of Judaism and its practices, and relied on the LXX for their
understanding of the Jewish scriptures, I am inclined to think that
this reformed Jesus movement primarily consisted of Gentiles who had
once been close to messianic Judaism (i.e., the Jesus movement, which
was likely one of many messianic groups) as converts.

I'd look to the more disaffected classes in society as the kind of
individuals who comprised the (former) Gentile element of this
movement. These were probably influenced by the kind of propaganda
that the Sibylline oracles represent: A new age is prophesied, and you
can get on board with those who will carry it out (the Jews) or be
crushed by it. These either welcomed this change in world order (and
the accompanying economic/social circumstances) eagerly, or feared it
so much that they felt safer associated with the Jews who they
expected to carry it out.

But the war and its aftermath, the destruction of the sacrificial
system and dashing of any hope of a new world empire toppling the
Romans any time soon, disaffected many of these Gentile converts and
proselytes. This may have been exacerbated by resentment towards some
Jews (not necessarily part of the Jewish core of the Jesus movement,
if they survived the war in any numbers) who may have then tried to
keep them at arms length as troublemakers who helped bring this
disaster down on them.

Those of these who were part of the Jesus movement ended up redefining
themselves in a manner similar to that undertaken by the Jewish
Gnostics, incorporating similar but not identical middle Platonic
savior myths, and the Christ theology was born. Approximate date,
probably within 10 years of the war's end (ca. 80-85 CE).

>>Please explain, I do not follow you here [when you say "the Pauline
epistles here served the purpose of recruitment literature, seeking to
draw to the new version of the Jesus movement those Gentiles who
revered Paul's message, but created in their present form some time
after the period of Paul himself."]<<

Part of the redefinition process for these members of a revised Jesus
movement would appear to be disassociation from their messianic (and
hence, in Roman eyes, seditious) roots. In time. the gospels are
published to present Jesus as a misunderstood wisdom teacher, and Acts
is written to try to place Christian "origins" firmly in a
"historical" framework, likely due to any lack of mention of it in
Josephus' War or Antiquities.

In this process, it is natural to want to attract a more sophisticated
element to itself, and the urbanites that would have been attracted to
Paul's message seemed like good targets. These likely also had to deal
with a certain amount of rejection by some natural born Jews, and may
have felt like rudderless boats with the destruction of the
sacrificial system.

80-85 CE is some 20 years after Paul's time, and Paul is at this point
likely a fond memory. If his epistles circulated, it wasn't
extensively. Someone managed to get their hands on a collection,
perhaps in one of those trunks like the one Paul left a Troas, or
perhaps available on the book market, and revised them to make Paul a
"Christian". This was made available as recruitment propaganda (term
used in its neutral sense).

>>What concepts was the Pauline literature developing? Why? How? Was
he aware of the Jesus movement, and what do you suppose he thought
about it?<<

See above.

>>I am not so sure that [treating the Christ theology as intrusive] is
taboo in terms of historical critical studies; perhaps rather no basis
for doing so has occurred to those engaged in the enterprise and it is
your place to provide some initial catalyst for investigation?<<

Yes. In college (1977) I was exposed to Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions_ (U of Ch. Press, 2nd edition, 1970), and I
suppose it did make its impression on me. I have to be realistic, in
that it is unlikely I will single handedly overturn deeply entrenched
paradigms, and I will be ecstatic if I merely get the ball rolling in
some small way.

>>I think that the manuscript discussion of your other post reveals at
least one of the historical problems with your proposal, and will
require your finding a substantial anomaly that your view explains
better than the prevailing ones.<<

Don't be shy, let me know what you think is weak. This is exactly the
kind of critical feedback I need. Thanks!

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
(Anxious to find out how many typos I'll find *after* I send this
post!)






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page