(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

There 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:

• 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.

Comments

[ex-rosabel-b372.livejournal.com]

Fascinating thoughts -- I'm quite curious about Paul and never thought of him in quite that light. You made some really good points that make a lot of sense, and I'm interested to think about this some more and read Paul's writings in light of these considerations.

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).

The first and best-known project of Westar Institute is the Jesus Seminar. Launched in 1985, the Seminar was organized to discover and report a scholarly consensus on the historical authenticity of the sayings and events attributed to Jesus in the gospels. Recently, the Fellows of the Seminar have begun to develop and analyze the various profiles of the historical Jesus that emerge from current research.


Other Westar Seminars are also at work. The Paul Seminar is considering the authenticity and integrity of the Pauline letters. The Canon Seminar is debating which early Christian works, canonical or non-canonical, should be included in a new New Testament. An Acts Seminar, which began deliberations in 1999, will evaluate and report on the historical authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles, in much the same way as the Jesus Seminar reviewed the sayings and events in the gospels.

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.

[akaspeedo.livejournal.com]

Try Faith and Fratricide by Rosemary Radford Ruether

Paul=Antichrist?

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

You've done really good scholarly work here, in my opinion. Is yahvah on your "friends' list"?--Because he should be, if he isn't already. I'm going to look and see, and then link to this if he's not. Your approach to Paul is calm, rational and scholarly. Mine is that of all the artists and writers who've always responded negatively to him--Nietzsche, Katzanzakis, Blake, etc.--who instinctively loathe him--and in my case, I guess, it's increased by my sexual proclivity. However, I really DO believe, in my heart of hearts that he DESTROYED Jesus's doctrine. You say you believe it wasn't deliberate, and I can assent that this horrible, watered-down legalistic and Gnostic faith that he manufactured and substituted in the place of the magnificent Jewish mystic spirituality of Yeshua Ben Nazroti was infinitely more palatable to pagan mystery-cultists all over the Roman World, and so was able to propogate itself, win world domination, and last as long as it has, only because Paul knew the audience he was preaching to so well. My Jewish friend Scott yahvah thinks that the "Christian" sect is ACTUALLY "the Antichrist" at work in the world, spreading false doctrine and a denial of Yeshua's "Messiahhood" among the Jews, but he absolves Paul of blame for creating the "Christian" monstrosity. I don't.
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.