(no subject)
May. 26th, 2004 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThere should be a "Paul Seminar," like the Jesus Seminar but focused on Paul. I haven't been very successful in finding sources that focus a lot of attention on who he was, what he believed, and what it was that he was trying to teach. I've seen little focus on which sources Paul drew from and what his influences were -- and too little focus on who redacted his writings and why, and on who wrote in his name pseudepigraphically. I think such an examination would be very fruitful.
I keep getting pulled into Paul's writings, because he wrote some of the most interesting passages in the New Testament, and because many of his peculiar idiosyncracies come through. Paul also appears to have struggled considerably over the idea of divine justice versus divine mercy.
My views on Paul have changed a bit in the past few months. Much of this has come from pulling on strings and exploring what appear to be significant shifts in Paul's views over the course of his life, reflected in his writings -- but very difficult to discern because of the way these writings have been edited and redacted.
Here is where I stand on Paul at the moment. I am convinced that before the epiphany that made him a Christian, Paul was either a member of the same Jewish sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, or a sect very much like it. I will follow many scholars in calling them the Essenes. The Essenes had a number of beliefs that clearly influenced Paul's writings:
Paul's epiphany did not change these beliefs -- in other words, Paul continued to think that these beliefs describe the Lord's plan to judge the earth and humankind. But Paul, after his epiphany, came to believe that God's resurrection of Jesus signaled a new covenant of mercy. This new covenant offered a way to avoid destruction for those who were not among the chosen elite -- that is, it represents literally a victory over death. There are overtones to Paul's argument that echo the Gnostic argument that Christ brings salvation from the fate established for humankind by the archons (the "powers and principalities").
His writings also show evolution on his beliefs regarding the Law of Moses. Perhaps he felt he had to find a way to reconcile the idea of mercy he believed was represented by Christ, with the justice and wrath he found represented in the older writings and beliefs. He settled on the idea that the transfer of divine will to written code went horribly awry, and became, instead of an instrument of salvation that fostered spiritual growth, an instrument of discord. Thus the message of Christ represented for him a call to "renew" the spiritual law, in accord with innate understanding that each of us already possesses, and use this to replace the old written law.
Paul was clearly disturbed with the implications of this and couldn't bring himself to fully embrace antinomianism -- so Paul follows his arguments by teaching that while all things may be "lawful," not all things are expedient -- and so he searches about for ways to rationalize, without invoking divine law, restrictions for his readers on sexual and dietary matters. For example, while he argues in I Cor. 8 that Christians cannot consider meat sacrificed to idols as "defiled" for reasons of divine law, they should refrain from eating it because it disturbs their fellow Christians who are "weak." Likewise, in I Cor. 6-7, he advocates celibacy not on the grounds of divine law, but using the argument that the body is a temple and that sex, particularly "unnatural" sex, defiles that temple.
Paul also writes of Christians as being members of the body of Christ, and seems to have believed this in an almost literal way.
I keep getting pulled into Paul's writings, because he wrote some of the most interesting passages in the New Testament, and because many of his peculiar idiosyncracies come through. Paul also appears to have struggled considerably over the idea of divine justice versus divine mercy.
My views on Paul have changed a bit in the past few months. Much of this has come from pulling on strings and exploring what appear to be significant shifts in Paul's views over the course of his life, reflected in his writings -- but very difficult to discern because of the way these writings have been edited and redacted.
Here is where I stand on Paul at the moment. I am convinced that before the epiphany that made him a Christian, Paul was either a member of the same Jewish sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, or a sect very much like it. I will follow many scholars in calling them the Essenes. The Essenes had a number of beliefs that clearly influenced Paul's writings:
- Belief in the resurrection of the righteous at the coming of the messiah;
- Belief in the impurity of flesh and earthly desires;
- Belief in achieving personal purity by way of abstinence from meat, wine, and sex;
- Belief that the Lord chose, before creating the world, a spiritual elite. This includes the patriarchs Abraham and Moses. In times of wrath and destruction, the elite are granted salvation (such as Noah and Lot).
- Belief that a great apocalyptic war between good and evil was about to be waged.
- Belief that "sinners" face divine wrath resulting in torment and destruction.
Paul's epiphany did not change these beliefs -- in other words, Paul continued to think that these beliefs describe the Lord's plan to judge the earth and humankind. But Paul, after his epiphany, came to believe that God's resurrection of Jesus signaled a new covenant of mercy. This new covenant offered a way to avoid destruction for those who were not among the chosen elite -- that is, it represents literally a victory over death. There are overtones to Paul's argument that echo the Gnostic argument that Christ brings salvation from the fate established for humankind by the archons (the "powers and principalities").
His writings also show evolution on his beliefs regarding the Law of Moses. Perhaps he felt he had to find a way to reconcile the idea of mercy he believed was represented by Christ, with the justice and wrath he found represented in the older writings and beliefs. He settled on the idea that the transfer of divine will to written code went horribly awry, and became, instead of an instrument of salvation that fostered spiritual growth, an instrument of discord. Thus the message of Christ represented for him a call to "renew" the spiritual law, in accord with innate understanding that each of us already possesses, and use this to replace the old written law.
Paul was clearly disturbed with the implications of this and couldn't bring himself to fully embrace antinomianism -- so Paul follows his arguments by teaching that while all things may be "lawful," not all things are expedient -- and so he searches about for ways to rationalize, without invoking divine law, restrictions for his readers on sexual and dietary matters. For example, while he argues in I Cor. 8 that Christians cannot consider meat sacrificed to idols as "defiled" for reasons of divine law, they should refrain from eating it because it disturbs their fellow Christians who are "weak." Likewise, in I Cor. 6-7, he advocates celibacy not on the grounds of divine law, but using the argument that the body is a temple and that sex, particularly "unnatural" sex, defiles that temple.
Paul also writes of Christians as being members of the body of Christ, and seems to have believed this in an almost literal way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 11:26 am (UTC)I too am very conflicted about Paul, but I keep finding myself drawn to the stuff he's written, like my subconscious is determined to solve the puzzle. I think that slowly I'm piecing things together.
Do you believe that the flesh is separate from the spirit, or that spirit is encased in flesh and wants to get out, or that flesh is somehow corrupt and worse than spirit, or any of these things?
No. I used to, though. I consider myself a "reformed Platonist." Now I think of spirit as something akin to the vital force, an energy or current that flows through all living things.
I do not believe in the "soul."
I believe that the brain creates a conscious state that depends somewhat on the illusion of dissociation, making it sometimes seem that there is a distinction between body and mind.
I do not believe in "spiritual defilement" or "spiritual purity."
I am in every sense a spiritual monist.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 11:49 am (UTC)The word "too" was a typo. My apologies. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 01:03 am (UTC)I think Biblical Christianity does this, it has a definitely partite view of humanity but doesn't turn the dichotomy into a "matter is bad, spirit is good" morality. Rather we end up with "matter is mortal and will be resurrected, spirit/soul is eternal"
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 06:11 am (UTC)It's not clear that Jesus bore the same mistrust of physical pleasure. But even so, it's clear from reading a lot of the early Christian literature (I'm referring not to Gnostic works but to orthodox texts like "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" and "The Passion of Felicity and Perpetua") that sex was hated so much that even femininity was seen with mistrust.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 06:15 am (UTC)There's also his use of "sarx" which, in Christian thinking, doubles for both flesh and sinful nature. The Christian theology that the life is tainted with sin is not Platonic.
I'm not sure, either, that your representation of 1Cor7 is nearly accurate. Paul postively encourages sex within marriage. Hardly a marginal acceptability.
As for your last paragrpah, I'm sorry but I just don't see it. It simply doesn't bear any relation to the scripture that I read every day.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 12:01 pm (UTC)I think the overall tone of Paul's comments in I Cor. 15 and elsewhere display a strongly negative view of flesh. For example, in I Cor. 15:42-47 he draws a strong distinction:
I think the fact that Paul uses the same word for "flesh" and "sin" is itself an indication of Paul's attitude towards flesh.
And then there's this (NRSV):
[I Corinthians 7:5] Do not deprive one another except perhaps for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control.
[6] This I say by way of concession, not of command.
[7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind, and another a different kind.
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.
[9] But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
In the above, Paul encourages the reader to be celibate during periods of heavy prayer -- as if to say that even sex within the context of a marriage will somehow detract from one's dedication to God. He makes it clear also that he would much rather see Christians be celibate, but makes "a concession" in understanding that not all of them have the ability to remain celibate. Later he writes,
[I Corinthians 7:27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.
[29] I mean, brothers [and sisters], the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none...
[31] ...For the present form of this world is passing away.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 10:11 am (UTC)From what I've read recently on the Jesus Seminar, Paul is their next focus. And in fact, just now I went to the Westard Institute website and found them mention the Paul Seminar on this page (http://www.westarinstitute.org/Westar/westar.html).
But I can't find much on who is involved in the Paul Seminar or any of their current research.
At this site (http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/JSvoting.html) I found a single line that says "Voting data for the Paul Seminar is yet to be published in Forum."
And here (http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/seminarStrikes.htm) is what looks to be a conservative Christian news article touching on the subject of the Paul Seminar.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 11:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 10:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 11:35 am (UTC)Paul=Antichrist?
Date: 2004-05-26 11:33 am (UTC)Meanwhile, the MOST fun reading on this subject is Nietzsche, Jeremy Bentham (Jesus Without Paul) and the rather theologically technical work by Martin Buber, Two Kinds of Faith. Nietzsche is the funniest, and the most withering, but Buber will give you the most to think about.
By the way, I'd NEVER think of deleting you from my "friends' list." You are the most brilliant, the most scholarly person on these subjects that I know. Scott is the second-most scholarly, but he cannot get beyond his defensiveness regarding Judaism. I love Judaism, too, but I'm absolutely convinced that the Judaism of Christ's time had become decadent on account of all the Hellenic gnosticism that had crept into it.
Re: Paul=Antichrist?
Date: 2004-05-26 12:07 pm (UTC)(For some reason I just thought of Joe Versus the Volcano. "I'm not arguing that with you!")
I agree with you that Paul erred by taking the legalistic path in making his arguments. It obscured his meaning and sullied the clarity of his message. I like best the passages where he speaks from the heart, like when he is talking about love, or thankfulness.
Jesus did not allow his argument to be similarly weighed down. He could argue scripture, but his exegesis is clear and simple and always compassionate, not legalistic, not bogged down by concerns about who is "saved" and who is not. I'm reminded for example of Matthew 12 or John 10.
Let me propose that the "contaminating culprit" that you sense is dualism, not Hellenism. Dualism is a doctrine that can crop up in any mystical tradition at any time, and it always leads to discord, mistrust of women and sexual minorities, and religious legalism. If I am right, then the biggest problem comes not so much from Hellenistic philosophy (which was moderately dualistic) but the influence of Zoroastrian religion (which was strongly dualistic) on Judaism.
Re: Paul=Antichrist?
Date: 2004-05-26 01:02 pm (UTC)What clarity? The man was a confused, conflicted individual (and that is the nicest way that I will phrase that). Why I may like your interpretation of his writings better than the ones which hold sway in popular Christianity today, you are doing the same thing that other camp is doing...picking and choosing according to your own personal feelings about what he must have really meant.
I think Paul's writings became prominent and survived in part because of the conflicting views. There was something there for everyone (even if later it that something was supposed to be a singular faith). That and his writings also fit the political climate at the time during which Chrisitianity became widespread due to the fact that the ersatz ruler of half the known world adopted it and not because of any inherent rightness of its, or the Pauline, message.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 12:05 pm (UTC)