Corpus-Paul

[Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>]

>>What do you think? This is how I reconstruct Christianity's start. I would
like to know the reactions to this reconstruction from other participants.

Eric

I think differently from you. Your posts were posted. There was no need to
post them twice.

I think that if the characters of the men Paul, James, and Cephas and their
actions are as you describe, then they had no motive for writing about the
love of God and they wouldn't have bothered.

I could ask you for your evidence, but you have written much and the focus
is dispersed for my reading. I am no longer expecting focus from you. This
prejudices me against your posts so that I cannot any longer read them with
anticipated pleasure.

You say concerning Peter
>>James right afterwards (2:11-12) changed his mind and sent first Peter,
and then (to arrive in Antioch later the same day) other "agents from
James," all telling Paul that his uncircumcised Gentile male "converts" ...
had to become circumcised

This is so confused. Where is the evidence that James sent Peter; or that
Peter had this message? Peter withdrew for fear of the circumcision party -
so he obviously was not participating in this message. The point is that he
couldn't stick with his convictions - not that he changed his mind about
them.

I don't want to address the rest of the post. It is hard work and confusing
for me to try. But there it is - my reaction.

There is a serious question in the discussion but I hope for better focussed
theories.
- Theories that require us to dismiss written evidence (and that is not all
we have but it is our signpost) hardly do justice to the evidence.
- Theories that postulate emotions and motives in the protagonists that are
incompatible with the content of their message also hardly do justice to the
evidence - such as it is.
- Theories that imply that certain things (revelations, 'chitty-chats' with
the Lord, theophanies) simply do not happen - likewise do little justice to
the evidence we have concerning religion. We all know deceit when we see it.
These are not cunningly devised fables.

If one insists on the invisibility of God, then one must do some justice to
the psychological and historical realities at least. If one has faith (and
this is not incompatible with the prior sentence), have it to yourself as
you must as a scholar, but be faithful to your toolset and have respect for
the love that is evident from these writings along with all the other flesh
and bone that embodies it. If one's presupposition is that all these stories
reflect only self-deception, then it becomes even more important to
postulate motives that make a consistent character, extracting those hints
in the text that illustrate the error of the apostle's ways and explaining
why so many of his contemporaries loved him. Usually, the scholar that
attempts this has an even harder time escaping from the interpretive
assumption that he labours under.

How can we come to know what we have refused to consider? Can we begin with
something other than our ignorance imposed on the texts? I suppose we have
to start somewhere.

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
   the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca