Kid-A, Ok yes I've been a bit snarky in this thread as I have an aggressive dispostion but I apologise for this, and I agree that such an attitude is unchristian. I accept that counsel, thank you.
However, I certainly have engaged in meaningful debate on the subject, something you don't seem prepared to do. Why don't you offer something meaningful to the discussion instead of just hurling hostile abuse at me. Calling me a 'prick' is just childish and pathetic and far exceeds any insults I may have made on this thread. That makes you more obnoxious than you accuse me of, and a hypocrite.
I make no apologies for posting this kind of subject material on this forum. This board is headed 'bible research and study articles'; obviously that means more than just constantly trashing the bible. There are many ex-JW's who are struggling with their Christian faith after leaving the organisation. Like Ray Franz states so eloquently in the latter chapters of In Search of Christian Freedom, the real challenge is not to let the massive dissillusionment of the JW experience completely destroy our faith, but to adapt, find a balance, and move on as a Christian without the shackles of the organisation. Many, many persons on this forum have done that and would no doubt find this kind of bible research faith-strengthening. I must admit I find it amazing and disturbing just how much bible and God-bashing occurs on this website; it seems the agenda of many is not so much to denounce the JW organisation (and I am just as ready to denounce the org as anyone) so much as savagely tearing down JW's faith in God and the Bible. I think its only fair that someone provides a bit of balance to all the anti-Christian diatribes on this forum, so that those JW's who would like to continue on the Christian path apart from the organisation can find very good reason to do just that.
Latest Gospel scholarship supports the reliability of the oral tradition!
by yaddayadda 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
yaddayadda
-
hamsterbait
Yadda -
Your claim that Jesus must have done far more than utter a few wise sayings to influence so many finds a parallel in Buddhism.
Gautama's birth was prophesied in advance - a dream told his mother of his divine conception.
Buddha also walked on water raised the dead and had such a profound influence there are hundreds of millions following his teachings or variants thereof today.
Buddha also did the "cut that prostitute's baby in two" thing ascribed to Solomon. Such wisdom!
All these events have reliable oral traditions to prove they must be true.
HB
-
yaddayadda
Terry: “To accept the theology of Paul you have to accept that his superficial "meeting" with Jesus trumps Apostolic one-on-one facetime. There is actually very little of Jesus per se in Paul's writing, and yet, he is explicting like crazy the "meaning" of Jesus in terms of Jewish Theology.”
Terry, please explain exactly how Paul’s theology trumps apostolic one-on-one face-time. Exactly what new things did Paul invent? On the contrary, Paul received and in turn passed on to others the traditions he had himself received.
Bauckham (2006, p 265 onwards) specifically comments on this as follows: “Paul certainly included “kerygmatic summaries” of the gospel story and message in what he communicated to his churches, for which the best evidence is 1 Corinthians 15: 1-8. It is clear that the traditions Paul envisages require an authorized tradent to teach them, such as he considered himself to be. In one case where Paul speaks of traditions, he makes clear that his authority for transmitting at least some of them to his churches was not his apostolic status as such, but the fact that he himself had received them from competent authorities (1 Cor 15:3). He thus places himself in a chain of transmission.
Also, “from whom did Paul receive traditions? In 1 Cor 15: 3, where Paul claims to have received the tradition (including the list of resurrection appearances) that he rehearses in verses 3-7, some scholars have held that the source of this tradition must have been the “Hellenistic” church in Damascus rather than the Jerusalem apostles. This view is designed to maintain the idea of a separation between “Hellenistic Jewish” Christianity, to which Paul is supposed to have belonged, and the Palestinian Jewish Christianity of the Jerusalem church. But such a separation is hardly compatible with the role Paul gives to the Jerusalem apostles precisely here in 1 Cor 16: 5,7. Moreover, when Paul claims his own apostleship despite its anomalous character (v v. 9-11), he asserts the unanimity between himself and the other apostles on the key matters he has just rehearsed (v.11). This unanimity existed because he had received the tradition in questions from the Jerusalem apostles.”
Three years after his conversion, Paul also visited Jerusalem and spent two weeks with Peter (Gal 1:18). This was to become thoroughly informed of the Jesus traditions as formulated by the twelve. Yes, Paul claimed to have apostolic authority and to preach on the strength of his personal revelation by Christ, but he lacked detail about the words and deeds of Jesus, and he may have come to see the need for this during his perioe of mission in Nabatea (Arabia: v.17). As James Dunn puts it, “we must allow that his early encounters with those in the new movement before him had a fairly substantive level of ‘information content’, to supplement or correct the picture he had gained as a persecutor.”
Allusions to Jesus traditions in Paul’s writings are in fact quite numerous. 1 Cor 11: 23 -32 is the most noteworthy example, where Paul states he “received from the Lord what I handed on to you.” Paul is not meaning he received this tradition by immediate revelation from the resurrected Jesus; rather he knew it as a unit of Jesus tradition, perhaps already part of a passion narrative. He cites it in a form that is close to the Lukan version (Luke 22:19-20) and that diverges generally in the same way as Luke’s from the version in Mark and Matthew (Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26: 26-28). Paul’s version is verbally so close to Luke’s that, since literary dependence in either direction is very unlikely, Paul must be dependent either on a written text or, more likely, an oral text that has been quite closely memorized. Paul thus provides perhaps the earliest evidence of narratives about Jesus transmitted in a way that involved, while not wholly verbatim reproduction, certainly a considerable degree of precise memorization.
Frankiespeakin: “Surely a God that demands beleif for salvation would provide more substancial proof than a ancient document, if he were a god of love and reasonableness, and people everlasting welfare are hanging in the balance of beleif in said miracles.”
I agree. It is difficult to believe in reputed miracles from many hundreds of years ago. I don’t blame the skeptics at all. A Christian would say that the ‘substantial proof’ you feel God should furnish will be provided when Christ returns in a miraculous display, which is the hope of Christians. However, the difference is that Christians simply feel there is enough evidence to have faith in the meantime. They have faith in something invisible that can’t be explicitly seen or demonstrated; but so do evolutionists. Christians do not demand that God repeat miracles for them personally year after year for them to believe, just like evolutionists believe that all life came about by random chance but without being able to reproduce it in a laboratory or pointing to cut-and-dry examples. Everything is a matter of faith to some degree. One could say that belief in all ancient history is a matter of faith. -
yaddayadda
Hamsterbait, the reputed miracles of Buddha were very late additions to the accounts about him. They evolved over a number of generations, ie, over a much longer span of time than between Jesus and the writing of the gospels. Hence, they are folklore. For example, one of the first biographies of Buddha was the 28-chapter Buddhacharitra (Acts, or Deeds of Buddha) by the Sanskrit poet, Ashvaghosha -- 1st century CE, some 500 years after the death of the Buddha.
Most alleged similarities between Buddha and Christ are easily refuted, or very weak. You can be better informed on the subject by reading this article http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/buddha02.html (Yes, an 'apologist' website).
Same goes for any alleged borrowing by Christianity from Hinduism. -
veradico
I'll try to give you the sort of meaningful debate you desire. I don't think that those of us who are sceptical are Bible-bashing, anti-Christians. Often, we have more interest in and more of a willingness to learn all the details of the tradition than those bound by dogma. You began this thread by claiming "traditional form criticism is now obsolete." This just seemed silly to me. All the various forms of criticism approach the Bible from different perspectives and help to reveal different aspects of the texts. To study oral tradition is merely to study the first step in complex process that resulted in the NT texts. Form criticism is founded on the fact that texts are produced in a social context, by real authors with disticinct motivations, from a variety of sources--some oral, some already written. I questioned your claim that "ancient oral storytelling" is an "area of study that has not been adequately treated." That's why I pointed you towards Homeric studies. There are some great books and articles following on Milman Perry's and Albert Lord's influential studies of the South Slavic oral epic tradition and its application to the oral tradition behind Homer. I'm sure you are going to point out the difference in time that the Homeric tradition had to develop in compared to the gospel tradition, but that would be a defensive response. I'm not attacking. These studies are useful, not because they undermine the reliability of oral traditional material as objective history, but because they help us to better understand how people in these cultures viewed their oral traditions. As you point out, the variability permitted within the tradition could only be exercized in a given performance within certain bounds determined by the community. One of the questions becomes, How would a specific author as part of a specific community use the variability allowed him? This is precisely why it's important to look into the social context of the community (Is it made up of Jews or pagans? What are its relations with the larger communities surrounding it?), its motives, its literary background, etc. When the oral tradition (as well as literary sources) are converted by an author into a fixed literary text, redactional criticism becomes quite useful and valid. The author will choose to convey his message in a particular literary genre. Thus, one must look at how the author fits into the characteristics typical of that genre during his general time period. That's why I mentioned the biography of Apollonius of Tyana. In talking about how the impact of Jesus would have been interpreted (For, after all, the man only lived for a few years; then those who would claim him as their leader were free, without his guidance, to interpret his life and message however they wanted. I know you'll say Jesus' apostles were there to put a check on things, but, is it not a theme of Mark that Jesus was almost universally misunderstood? :-)) I could have also mentioned characters like Honi the "circle-drawer" or Hanina ben Dosa. Jesus himself admits that some of the followers ("sons") of the Pharisees could cast out demons (Matthew 12:27). (Note the anachronistic conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Stuff like this shows how the flexibility of the oral tradition is being used to make things relevant to the Christian community after the power and prominence of the Pharisees had grown.) The world Jesus lived in was full of Jewish prophets performing miracles. The gospels simply say that Jesus was better at it than the rest, and, to do so, they draw heavily on the OT stories. Furthermore, I can hardly begin to outline here the complex changes that could occur in the oral tradition as it was translated from its Semitic language and cultural context into the languages and social contexts of pagan Rome. You criticize Leolaia for for looking for intertextual relationships, and you attempt to place strict limits on which works can be consulted when looking for such intertextual relationships. For example, you say that the Mishnah and the Gnostic gospels can't be consulted because they were written down long after the canonical gospels. However, this does not mean that ancient material cannot be extracted from them, particularly in a world filled by people with the astounding oral memories you speak of! You say: "The hundreds of earliest disciples who knew Jesus were all Jews, and the Jewish mindset was against this kind of wholesale mythologizing and deifying of humans. This is one of the reasons why it is so remarkable that Christianity got a foothold in early first century Jewish Society; it is why many scholars find it incredulous [sic] to believe that Jesus was simply some kind of wise teacher – he must have done much more than just utter a few wise sayings to have such a profound impact on so many Jews." It's not hard at all to understand how this could have developed. Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic prophet speaking to lowly people who wanted a Savior. His major prophecy, the destruction of the temple, happened to occur. Then he died, but others continued to lead the communities associated with his name. Within the community of the Beloved Disciple, we can see the way a group of Jewish Christians slowly became alienated from the Jewish community as a whole (cf. John 9:22) and developed an elevated Christology which explained the Jews' rejection of Jesus and his followers as a rejection of God Himself. Think of Russell. One of his prophecies happened to occur (sort of) in 1914. Then he died. Other leaders adapted his message and organized his movement along more authoritarian lines, and, to a large extent, the way they developed was influenced by their feelings of alienation from the world around them. I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to respond to your claim that "Paul received and in turn passed on to others the traditions he had himself received." Additionally, the subject lies outside of the scope of this thread. While I'm sympathetic to Ray Franz's desire to help people preserve their faith in Christ and the Bible after they leave the Organization, I think faith must only be given where it is deserved. And there is nothing wrong with people who have been burned once choosing to be cautious and critical before they have anything to do with religion again. I would prefer that people would trust their own experience and rational abilities, rather than turning from one authoritarian system of belief to another. To accept the tradition of a church or the text of a book wholesale strikes me as a dangerous gamble. The holy books of the world and the doctrines of the various faiths that produced them depend, very often, on authority, not reason, and speak of events that do not correspond to experience of most of us. There is much of value in these books, much wisdom, compassion, cleverness, and humor. But we can still have spiritual lives without them. And I say this as a devoted student of them, not as a Bible-basher.
-
Terry
Terry, please explain exactly how Paul’s theology trumps apostolic one-on-one face-time. Exactly what new things did Paul invent? On the contrary, Paul received and in turn passed on to others the traditions he had himself received.
Christian theology invariably turns to Paul for explication.
The Apostles to whom the Gospels are attributed are more concerned about the Christology of the person of Jesus and the particulars of his interactions with his contemporaries. None exemplify an above average comprehension of any theology divergent from the existing Judaism.
Jesus, to the attributed gospel writers, is a Rabbi who explains the law and the prophets in terms of behavior. Jesus alludes to his role as one who reveals the Kingdom of God in a way which is contingent upon fulfilling the Jewish Law by embodying its core function in perfecting human behavior in the sight of God.
Paul, on the other hand, is little concerned about the particulars of quoting Jesus or his apostles. Paul introduces themes which hybridize Judaism onto somethint entirely Platonic and pagan which involves a transformation of first, Judaism and secondly, the world at large.
Paul is a mystic. His "source" of revelation is mysterious. He equates himself with Jesus and becomes, for all practical purposes, Jesus' alter ego. Paul demands that the followers of Jesus imitate Paul himself and view him as their exemplar! Paul is duplicitous in attempting to "be all things to all people" to the extent he downplays his own religious innovations when face to face with the Jerusalem elders (who don't think much of his style or substance).
Paul was a loose canon who had more influence on what "Christianty" was to become than either Jesus or the Apostles.
You've only to open any book on contemporary theology today to butt heads with Paul's view on this and that FIRST and Jesus' view second.
source of exerpts: Wikipedia
. The undisputed Pauline epistles contain the earliest systematic account of Christian doctrine, and provide information on the life of the infant Church.
His letters are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live. What he does not tell his correspondents (or the modern reader) is much about the life and teachings of Jesus; his most explicit references are to the Last Supper ( 1 Cor 11:17-34 ) and the crucifixion and resurrection ( 1 Cor 15 ). His specific references to Jesus' teaching are likewise sparse, raising the question, still disputed, as to how consistent his account of the faith is with that of the four canonical Gospels, Acts, and the Epistle of James.
Paul's influence on Christian thinking has, arguably, been more significant than any other single New Testament author. His influence on the main strands of Christian thought have been massive, from St. Augustine of Hippo to the controversies between Gottschalk and Hincmar of Reims, between Thomism and Molinism, Martin Luther, Calvin and the Arminians, Jansenism and the Jesuit theologians and even to the German church of the twentieth century through the writings of the scholar Karl Barth, whose commentary on the Letter to the Romans had a political as well theological impact.
In trying to reconstruct the events of Paul's life, it is necessary to compare Acts and the letters. Different views are held as to the reliability of the former, whose usefulness is strongly disputed by scholars such as Hans Conzelmann. Even allowing for omissions in St. Paul's own account, which is found particularly in Galatians, it is difficult to reconcile his account with that in Acts (as is shown below), or to ascertain exactly when the letters were written. Acts makes no reference to his letter writing and it never quotes any of his letters.
He describes in Galatians, how three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem, where he met James, and stayed with Simon Peter for fifteen days ( Gal 1:13–24 ). According to Acts, he apparently attempted to join the disciples and was accepted only owing to the intercession of Barnabas – they were all understandably afraid of him as one who had been a persecutor of the Church ( Acts 9:26-27 ). Again, according to Acts, he got into trouble for disputing with "Hellenists" (Greek speaking Jews and Gentile "God-fearers") and so he was sent back to Tarsus.
We do not know exactly what happened in the fourteen years that elapsed before he went again to Jerusalem. At the end of this time, Barnabas went to find Saul and brought him back to Antioch ( Acts 11:26 ). As he had been the object of suspicion by the Christians at Jerusalem, it is impossible to deduce how he might have been received when he returned to Tarsus and if he stayed without incident.
Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter (accusing him of Judaizing, also called the "Incident at Antioch"[5] over his reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians in Antioch. Paul later wrote: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong" and said to the apostle: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal. 2:11–14). Paul also mentioned that even Barnabas sided with Peter. Acts does not record this event, saying only that "some time later", Paul decided to leave Antioch (usually considered the beginning of his "Second Missionary Journey", (Acts15:36–18:22) with the object of visiting the believers in the towns where he and Barnabas had preached earlier, but this time without Barnabas. At this point the Galatians witness ceases.
Paul travelled to Corinth, where he settled for three years and where he may have written 1 Thessalonians, possibly the earliest of his surviving letters. At Corinth, ( 18:12–17 ), the "Jews united" and charged Paul with "persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law"; the proconsul Gallio then judged that it was a minor matter not worth his attention and dismissed the charges.
Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was a law-abiding Jew by taking a Nazirite vow (21:26). However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law ( Gal 2:14 ). Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:
"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required ( 1 Cor 9:20 ). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy ( Acts 16:1–3 ), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ( 21:26 sqq.)".
In any case, about a week after Paul had taken his vow at the temple, some Jews from "Asia" (Asia Minor or modern Turkey, Paul's homeland) spotted him in Jerusalem and stirred up the crowd shouting: "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." ( 21:28 ). The crowd was about to kill Paul but the Roman guard rescued him
As already stated, little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul's letters.
St. Paul writes of a mystical union with Christ through baptism: "we who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death" (Rom. 6:4). He writes also of our being "in Christ Jesus" and alternately, of "Christ in you, the hope of glory". Thus, the objection that one person cannot be punished on behalf of another is met with the idea of the identification of the Christian with Christ through baptism.
But others, ancient and modern, Protestant and Catholic, have sought to elaborate from his writing objective theories of the Atonement on which they have, however, disagreed. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was the major source of the division of western Christianity known as the Protestant Reformation which took place in the sixteenth century. Justification by faith was set against salvation by works of the law in this case, the acquiring of indulgences from the Church and even such good works as the corporal works of mercy. The result of the dispute, which undermined the system of endowed prayers and the doctrine of purgatory, contributed to the creation of Protestant churches in Western Europe, set against the Roman Catholic Church. Solifidianism (sola fides = faith alone), the name often given to these views, is associated with the works of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his followers. With this view went the notion of Christ's substitutionary atonement for human sin.
-
yaddayadda
Veradico, thanks for your post. (A bit of tech help: To preserve the paragraph formatting all you have to do is untick the little box on the left 'Check here to use HTML formatting' and tick the right box 'Automatic Cr/Lf' before posting replies.)
Your raise some interesting points and I will respond to them soon.
Terry, you said "Paul, on the other hand, is little concerned about the particulars of quoting Jesus or his apostles. Paul introduces themes which hybridize Judaism onto something entirely Platonic and pagan which involves a transformation of first, Judaism and secondly, the world at large."
Firstly, you havn't addressed the clear evidence presented in my earlier reply to you which shows how Paul was in fact most concerned with correct transmission of the traditions and to preserve unanimity with the apostolic tradition. Secondly, there is no basis at all to your statement that Paul 'hybridised Judaism into something entirely Platonic and Pagan'. Paul was a zealous Pharisee before his conversion, more zealous for the Jewish tradition than most of his Jewish colleagues - this obvious fact alone flatly contradicts any suggestion that suddenly Paul started absorbing wholesale 'platonic' and 'pagan' themes simply because of his revelatory experience on the road to Damascus.
If Paul is alleged to have introduced platonic and pagan themes, then all the other apostles and many hundreds of other first-hand disciples of Jesus must be accused of exactly the same thing because it is the synoptic and Johannine gospels that are full of miraculous deeds, not Paul's writings. Paul's letters are notably absent of this kind of material, so if anyone is going to be accused of paganism it has to be the other apostles rather than Paul's writings. Now how likely is this given that all the apostles and Jesus followers were Jews, who were strictly monotheistic, at pains to avoid contamination through contact with pagan, and there is an almost complete lack of evidence of syncretism in early first century Jewish palestine.
The obvious reason for the lack of allusions to Jesus' miracles and sayings in Paul's writings is because the apostolic oral tradition was already well established and circulating in the Christian communities. Paul realises it is unnecessary for him to repeat these first-hand biographic reports about Jesus that are already circulating and well known; rather, he is concerned in his letters to expound upon, not replace, the good news in the specific context of congregational teaching. Paul was not an original follower of Jesus and therefore not a firsthand eyewitness, so he knows it is superflous to repeat all the traditions already formulated by the apostles who personally knew Jesus and followed him during his ministry. In fact, Paul's disinclination to regurgitate the material found in the gospels itself indicates how highly only original eyewitness testimony was regarded in ancient times - the original apostles had that eyewitness status, not Paul, so they are respected by Paul as the ones with the authority to corroborate the traditions about what Jesus actually said and did.
Paul was certainly the main force for helping the congregations move away from adherence to the law code, but the occasional spat with Jerusalem based elders is hardly sufficient to indicate some kind of wide divergence of theology on his part and the other apostles. This theory has been overblown. A cursory reading of Acts shows that this new teaching was hardly unique to Paul(Acts chps 10, 11, 15) and there is nothing to show that Paul and the others irreconcialably parted ways at this point. Paul, with his legendary zealousness, intrepidness and literary/scholarly background, naturally assumes the role of being the main enforcer of an already well established teaching, a teaching that some of the elders in Jerusalem struggled to deal with because of how deeply ingrained the Mosaic traditions were and their tendency to suffer from fear of man.
It goes without saying the folly of relying on Wikipaedia as a source of reputable scholarship. Anyway, this thread is dealing with the reliability of the oral tradition, not Pauline theology per se. Suffice to say that the summary on Wikipaedia that you've pasted is taken from quite critical streams of thought and is only showing one side of the coin. It is not balanced, failing to bring in some of the most recent scholarship on Pauline theology. -
Terry
Paul was a zealous Pharisee before his conversion, more zealous for the Jewish tradition than most of his Jewish colleagues - this obvious fact alone flatly contradicts any suggestion that suddenly Paul started absorbing wholesale 'platonic' and 'pagan' themes simply because of his revelatory experience on the road to Damascus.
In all liklihood Paul was NOT a Pharisee
In Paul's writings he changed the meaning of Jesus life and ministry radically. Jesus never once declared himself to be a Divine figure or claimed his death would atone for the sins of mankind. Jesus saw himself as King of Israel in a world of International Peace in which the Roman Empire was no more. Jesus manner of teaching was that of a Pharisee.
If you compare the earliest Gospel of Mark with later Gospels (over time) you can see how the anti-Pharisee prejudice crept into the same incidents and colored these lawyers as feckless opponents and maligned them. In Mark the Pharisees admire and compliment Jesus, but, in later version of the synoptic Gospels they are laying in wait to trick him and sell him out.
Jesus' future scenario contained the Jews as the people of God, restored to independence in their Holy Land, and acting as a nation of priests for the whole world in the Kingdom of God. Paul changed this scenario radically. The identity of Jews was expunged and redefined in terms which included Gentiles renamed "spiritual Jews". Further, the Gospels painted Jews as enemies of Jesus and God's kingdom!
Under Paul, the term "Messiah" became a Divine Title and not the actual time-honored designation of Jewish Royalty.
Judaism opposed God-kings. Judaism loathed human sacrifice for any reason. Those were Pagan ideas. Paul instituted Jesus as a God-king and represented his death as a human sacrifice.
In fact, the Pharisees were not opposed to the early Nazarenes such as John and Jesus, but, regarded them with sympathy.
In the Peter incident before the Sanhedrin when Peter and his fellow evangelists were ordered not to preach about Jesus (We must obey God rather than men) it is the Pharisee, Gamaliel, who defends Peter and warns the Sanhedrin not to be found "fighters against God".
It was the Saducees who opposed the Nazarenes and the followers of Jesus, not the Pharisees. Later prejudices against the Pharisees caused the retelling of certain confrontation stories as having Pharisees trying to trick Jesus and having oppositional hidden motives.
Gamaliel and the other lawyer/Pharisees recognized that movements such as Jesus represented were directed against Rome and NOT the Jewish religion. In fact, Jesus ministry represented a perfect fit with prophesied developments for Judiasm vis a vis the world at large. Josephus, the historian, confirms that Judaism was not targeted by these Messianic movements; only Rome.
Contrast the leniency and fairness of the Pharisee Gamaliel with the actions of Paul when he was Saul. Saul the fake-Pharisee was persecuting Christians and approving of their stoning to death!!
In the Sanhedrin incident it was with a majority vote the Apostles were released after mild discipline which caused their rejoicing. The Saducee contingent would be outvoted by Gamaliel and the Pharisee wing (which had the majority at that time.)
Further, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus appear as great friends of Jesus and both were Pharisee. The Pharisees were rabid lawyers who protected and preserved the very letter of the law. If Jesus and his apostles were viewed as blasphemers, self-idoloters and opponents of the Torah (and advocated the tearing down of the temple) these Pharisees whould never have taken pains to see that the apostles were treated fairly or that Jesus was given a decent burial.
Saul is on the opposite end of the spectrum in treating Christians brutally. He is NO Pharisee.
-
yaddayadda
Terry, I don't disagree with some of the things you say, particularly about the relationship of the Pharisees to Jesus and the early Christians. Some of them did secretly believe in Jesus and later converted, and Jesus never explicitly attacked their teachings, rather he was concerned to slam their gross hypocrisy. There are, however, many points you make that are easily refuted by simply referring to a few scriptures, for example, Mark 10:2 and 12:13 gives the lie to your claim that it is only in the later gospels that the Pharisees are portrayed as trying to trick Jesus. But all this is a separate issue from that intended for discussion by this thread. You're very welcome to start a new thread on this area if you like.
I will only add that your claim that Paul was likely not a Pharisee is at complete odds with the scriptural evidence, as follows:
Paul notes his affiliation with the Pharisees in several places. In Acts 22:3, He states that he was a Jew brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, a leading Pharisee (Acts 5:33-39). In Acts 23:6, Paul states, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was "concerning the law, a Pharisee."
Regarding Paul's statement about blamelessness in relation to the law in Phil 3:6, the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters says:
"As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression 'as to the Law a Pharisee' refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law. (p. 504, "Jew, Paul the") -
Terry
There are, however, many points you make that are easily refuted by simply referring to a few scriptures, for example, Mark 10:2 and 12:13 gives the lie to your claim that it is only in the later gospels that the Pharisees are portrayed as trying to trick Jesus. But all this is a separate issue from that intended for discussion by this thread. You're very welcome to start a new thread on this area if you like.
Of course you and I are probably coming at this from separate position vis a vis the Bible.
There were prejudicial, theological, political and personal pressures on the oral traditions which found their way into the written record as it evolved. Yes, evolved.
Take the example of how Jews themselves as a people and religion transform over time from Mark's gospel. They ultimately become the worst nemesis to Jesus imaginable. Judaism becomes culpable for practically everything bad that happens and the Romans get off scot free as tools and henchmen!
I don't view the scriptures as anything more than political/personal/theological screeds at worst. At best, the core of "truth" is polluted by an agenda and filtered through the apologia necessary at a particular time and place.
So, having said that, I certainly could start a new thread that examined in detail all the "tampering" with historical accuracy in the statements in each Gospel. There is a thread of malfeasance which can be demonstrated.
However, I won't. Why? It is never worth the effort. These sorts of discussions merely become academic sideshows and they take up alot of time I'd rather use on my personal life.
You really have to have a strong desire to commit to proving these subtle issues and I confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the gruntwork involved.
Suffice to say, I believe Jesus was probably a Pharisee and Paul was not. I think Judas is merely a trope to embody the Bad Jew as betrayer. Paul was probably a very peculiar sort of personality and an unpleasant human to be around. I think he was not nearly as intellectual as he is given credit for being. His "logic" just doesn't make sense and there are some writings of this period by certain sects who reference Paul's life who say he couldn't cut the mustard as a Jewish theologian. This may have triggered some sort of hubris in him that motivated his destruction of Judaism and paved the way for the invention of what became Christianity.
Yes, Paul is the inventor of Christianity. His muddled mindset is all over it.