Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: Bob MacDonald's:

> 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.

You refer to your knowing about the "actions" and "motive" of James and
Peter (Cephas) from their "writing about the love of God," but what writing
from James, and what writing from Peter are you referring to here? The two
"Peter" letters in the New Testament are generally considered to be
forgeries from c. 80-115 CE for "1 Peter," and 90-150 CE for "2 Peter,"  but
fundamentalists naturally believe otherwise and you seem here to be assuming
that the fundamentalists are right; I do not. The "James" letter is also
widely doubted as to its authenticity, and thus a shaky evidentiary base
upon which to discuss James's views and opinions. But yet you claim to know
about the "writing" from both of these individuals.

It is because we do not possess such evidence as you refer to, regarding the
statements, views, and opinions, of either of these men, that I do not base
my opinions of these matters on such "evidence."

Likewise, I would never criticize those men's views on the basis of such
"evidence," and I do not do so, and your implication here that I have done
so is therefore false.

Neither would I praise their views on such "evidence," and for the very same
reason.

As my previous postings have, I think, made clear, I instead employ a
legal/forensic analysis of the seven most reliably authentic and earliest NT
documents, from Paul, in order to formulate my hypotheses, and I employ the
later and shakier NT documents only to test those hypotheses.

> 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.

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way, but I have done the best I know
how to do to clarify these things within the brief scope the present forum
permits.

> 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?

Galatians 2:11 right after the Jerusalem council meeting has Peter in
Antioch, presumably only shortly after Paul's own arrival back in Antioch,
and Peter then in Antioch saying something that Paul very importantly omits
telling us, but which Paul is obviously extremely opposed to. In order to
figure out what this ruckus was about, the first thing that a scientific
investigator will look at, to find trustworthy evidence on that matter, is
Paul's assertions in this argument, since Paul does tell his Galatian
readers here what he had said to Peter, even though Paul does not inform his
readers what Peter had said in reply. (Paul here presumably does not know
what his Galatian readers might or might not have previously heard
concerning this conflict communicated to them by or from Peter, James, and
other opponents of Paul, concerning this argument, and therefore Paul gives
the Galatians *only* his side of that argument; he is smart enough a
tactician, carrying out his own dictum stated in Romans 3:4, to avoid doing
his opponents' work for his opponents by informing his readers what his
enemies' replies had been--after all, Paul doesn't even know for sure that
his Galatian readers had any idea of what Peter had said in reply in the
course of this dispute.) Paul quotes himself against Peter in Gal. 2:14-21,
which lets us know, to a very high degree of confidence, that the decision
that James had initially arrived at in the council meeting, permitting Paul
to continue accepting his uncircumcised "converts" as being authentic
converts and members of God's People despite the circumcision-commandment
Genesis 17:14, "No uncircumcised man will be one of my people," which God
had said (in Genesis 17:13) would be *eternally* binding upon all of God's
People, had now been reversed by James, who had, evidently, after further
consideration, decided that he did, after all, have to enforce God's
commandment by requiring all of Paul's men to become circumcised in accord
with Genesis 17:13-14. Paul in 2:14-21 is clearly arguing against James's
reversal. Gal. 2:12 makes even clearer that James has reversed his decision
and is commanding Paul to circumcise all of his men, and it also makes clear
that Peter was on James's side in this matter, no longer a supporter of
Paul.

> 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.

You are accepting Paul's truthfulness unquestioningly and with a naive
attitude, even despite what Paul himself had said in Romans 3:4&7 about
truthfulness being unnecessary. I would suggest a more skeptical attitude.
But yet let us build our reconstruction of these events very tightly upon
Paul's account, which I believe that you have not done here. Reading this
passage tightly then:

Peter had, evidently, after his initial run-in with Paul in 2:11,
backpedaled and calmed sufficiently to join in a meal with Paul and his
uncircumcised men, even though such ceremonial dining-together was in direct
violation of the principle against doing so that is given in the commandment
Exodus 12:48. Perhaps this wouldn't have been so serious a matter for Peter
if he hadn't come to Antioch precisely in order to break the disappointing
news to Paul that James had changed his mind about circumcision and was
requiring Paul to have all his men circumcised. But inasmuch as that is why
Peter had come, and inasmuch as the backup team of other agents from James
were now entering the room even though Peter, evidently, had not been
informed that James had sent a backup and was surprised at their arrival,
Peter was, obviously, now in an extremely embarrassing position: hardly had
Peter managed to quiet and calm his own dispute with Paul, but now he was
being discovered by his boss's men, that is by James's men, in this
extremely compromised position, not only having failed to lay down the law
(Genesis 17:14) to Paul as James had instructed and sent him to do, but
having failed to fulfill the law (Exodus 12:48) himself. In order to
understand here why Paul was so outraged against Peter and thinking him to
be cowardly, a scientific investigator would again consider the context that
Paul provides in Galatians: especially, here, Gal. 1:18, which indicates
that Peter had been Paul's own personal mentor. This claim is confirmed by
the account given in Acts of Peter's having been Paul's predecessor as the
evangelist to the Gentiles, and having even (in Acts 11:2) done exactly as
Paul noiw was doing in that capacity: he accepted uncircumcised men as
"converts." Further confirmation is provided in Acts 15:7-11, saying that at
the council-meeting in Jerusalem dealing with this issue of circumcision,
Peter had himself risen in support of Paul's practises in this regard. So,
with that as background, it is, indeed, very believable that Paul would now,
in the confrontation recounted in Gal. 2:11-21, have felt betrayed by his
mentor. But please do note that, in this reconstruction, I am skeptical of
Acts, even more than I am of Galatians, and that I am skeptical of it in a
different way, because of reasons I have elsewhere indicated in this forum.

Given this background, one can, I believe, with a high degree of confidence,
reconstruct the other side of the argument here--the side, that is, of
Peter. He would probably have said to Paul, something like: "That was then,
Paul, and this is now. I am a follower of Jesus, the mashiach, and, as such,
I obey the man he appointed to lead us after his passing, who is his brother
James. But furthermore, we are all Jews, the people of God, and this means
that we must all follow God's commandments. I was wrong to accept
uncircumcised men when I was preaching to the Gentiles, and you must not do
so now. James is not only our leader; he is correct. That is why he sent me.
He knows that I have supported you in the past. He did not want this bad
news to be broken upon you by someone who has not understood your position
and supported it vigorously in the past, as I have done. He very wisely
chose me to tell you these things because James knows that I understand both
sides. Therefore, it is now my sad duty to inform you that the side that you
and I have pursued in this important matter was and is wrong. James really
is right, Paul. God said, 'No uncircumcised man will be one of my people,'
and God made clear that this covenant of his would be eternal. You therefore
must tell all of your men: Be circumcised or else you will not be one of us.
There is no choice; God left us no choice. We all must obey."

> 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.

Your implication that I "dismiss written evidence" is false. To the
contrary, I take written evidence extremely seriously--seriously enough to
apply to it the same standards of skepticism and rigorous analysis that a
court does for the kinds of documents that a court analyzes. This does not
mean to worship the written word; it does mean to respect the written word
enough to treat it in an intellectually serious, scientifically responsible,
way.

> - 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.

Again, the implication here is false: I do no such thing. A court will
always "postulate emotions and motives in the protagonists," because a court
is tasked, just as any scientific historian is, to reconstruct a sequence of
events and personal motives behind them, in order to explain truthfully who
did what, and why, and how. Otherwise, there will be no conviction, and
there will also be no truthful history.

Perhaps you have never even so much as doubted the truthfulness of the NT's
explicit assertions that Peter was Jesus's favorite disciple, and that Jesus
chose Peter to lead the disciples after his death, even though the implicit
accounts given in the earliest literature, and especially in Galatians 2:12,
present James as the group's leader. I am not citing any late references for
this, such as Epiphanius, as Eisenman does, but only the earliest writings
that were the closest to the events they recount, and this is especially
Paul (though I do think that Gospel of Thomas 12 might have originated
contemporaneously with Paul, and, of course, that line does explicitly state
that Jesus chose James to lead the group).

Your reconstructions, Bob, not only place higher evidentiary value on
canonical than on noncanonical texts irrespective of any such legal/forensic
considerations concerning the given text's authenticity and likely date of
origin, but they place too high a credence upon the resulting "historical"
orthodoxy that has thereby been produced by the canonizers (such as
Irenaeus), who were so late that they were not witnesses to any of these
things.

The New Testament was not merely "written" by whomever wrote its various
parts and lines, but it was "assembled" long afterwards by people who had in
mind considerations very different than those of a scientifically inclined
historian. Those considerations will not be honored by a scientifically
inclined historian. Instead, a scientifically inclined historian will try to
reconstruct the origin of Christianity by employing an extension of
legal-forensic methodology to deal with the ancient types of documentary
evidence that survive concerning these events. A scientific historian will
recognize the evidence-tampering that has taken place, but legal-forensic
investigators routinely have to deal with and overcome tampered evidence,
including tampered documents. In the Enron case, most of this "tampering"
has probably consisted simply of document-destruction. However, other and
more sophisticated types of tampering with the evidence might also have
occurred, even there. There was lots of time and opportunity for Paul's
followers to tamper with Christian documents before those documents were
accepted as canonical. In my reconstructions, I consider Galatians and a few
others totally clean; I see no evidence to the contrary. But even clean
documents may contain lies. A legal/forensic investigator is systematically
skeptical of everything.

> 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.

Your comments, here and elsewhere, suggest to me that in your implicit
ordering of priorities, God precedes truth, truth does not precede God. For
a scientist (and your reference to yourself as a "scholar" is to a different
category than scientist), truth is the paramount consideration, even above
God. A scientist does not accept such an epistemology as that of John 1:1,
in which God and Truth are the same. Instead, to a scientist, truth (not
Truth) precedes God (and Truth does not exist; but truth does exist because
otherwise science itself could not possibly exist).

Therefore, as one whose first priority is truth, I respectfully disagree.

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net