Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: More Re: [XTalk] Violence

Expand Messages
  • Steve Black
    ... I think we argue at cross purposes, as I am working from a different starting point from you. I believe in the more conventional understanding that the
    Message 1 of 104 , Aug 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >You may recall that I consider parts of the Pauline epistles to be the
      >thoughts and teachings of one or more later editors. I find it significant
      >(to me, at least) that *all* of these anti-Judaic passages are in strata I
      >assign to editors. These editors I would attribute to a wing of the Jesus
      >movement that consisted of Gentiles or converted Gentiles who had come to
      >reject the movement’s Jewish religious perspective and created its own. Paul
      >’s movement, as represented by the base strata in the Pauline epistles, had
      >no relationship to any form of the Jesus movement, but represented a group
      >that sought close association between Jews (or the Jewish religion) and
      >Gentiles, so naturally they would exhibit a positive attitude towards
      >Judaism.

      I think we argue at cross purposes, as I am working from a different
      starting point from you. I believe in the more conventional
      understanding that the authentic Pauline letters ARE authentic. I do
      not find any good reason to think otherwise, and build my thoughts
      around this. I have a few problems with the type of approach you are
      suggesting. It is beyond doubt that what you say *could* be. There is
      little reason to believe that there could not be later additions to
      these texts. The problem I have is that this theory is not provable
      or dis-provable. I also have trouble seeing how this type of theory
      will not deteriorate into a vicious hermeneutic circle. None of this
      *proves* it wrong - and that is the whole problem - nothing could!
      More problematic is that I simply see no reason to make these claims.
      These letters stand fine without these elaborate theories. They are
      coherent as they are. This of course is not going to change your
      mind. I have seen this type of approach become an easy out. Elliott,
      in my thinking, does this when he suggest that Rom 13 is a later
      interpretation because it doesn't fit the picture of Paul that he is
      creating. Hmm - to me it is better to reconsider the picture. This is
      not to say that he might not be correct. There are no controls!
      That's a real problem!!
      >
      >>>I am not sure that "Anti-Judaism" is even the correct terminology. I see
      >early Christianity as itself a form of Judaism, so perhaps something like
      >"Anti-Other-Judaism" would be more accurate.<<
      >
      >If it was an inter-Jewish phenomenon, wouldn’t we expect there to be
      >qualifiers when the passages speak harshly of other Jews? “Those Sadducees,”
      >“those members of the Circumcision party” (which does occur in Gal 2, but
      >which I do not relegate to the Gentile Christian editor, but rather to a
      >later proto-orthodox editor at the time the NT was published, as we have it
      >now, in the 2nd century, and again this is based on Trobisch’s work).

      The context which the letters seem to suggest is that Paul, a Jew, is
      writing to Gentiles. He was in his own understanding, after all, the
      "Apostle to the Gentiles". I see no reason to see why the words "the
      Jews" would not be completely sufficient for this context. I see no
      reason to think that Paul's intended audience would have had any
      clear notion as to what the difference between a Sadducee and a
      Pharisee was.


      --
      Steve Black
      Vancouver School of Theology
      Vancouver, BC
      ---

      Once in a while you can get shown the light
      in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

      -Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
    • Thomas G. Barnes
      I know this is off topic, however, during the past few days I noticed the discussion going on about the use of copyrighhted material. Anyway, my question is
      Message 104 of 104 , Nov 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I know this is off topic, however, during the past few days I noticed the
        discussion going on about the use of copyrighhted material. Anyway, my
        question is this, how do I properly cite a web page I used information from
        in an academic paper. I am a student and an interested historical Jesus
        individual. I realize this is off topic so please send reply to me off the
        list.

        Thomas G. Barnes
        Philadelphia, PA
        Temple University
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.