How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @Opusdei

  I see this as a possible indicator of pseudonymous redaction. Since the heretic Marcion of Sinope was the first to assemble and introduce the idea of a Christian canon into Christianity, and since his ideas were mainly Gnostic, I wonder if Marcion or his disciples did not have a hand in editing Paul into the works that have come down to us today.

  Marcion's canon was essential Paul's epistles, and Marcion claimed that Paul championed Gnostocism. The verses you point out sound very Gnostic and incompatible with a Jew who learned at the foot of Gamiliel. Did the Catholic Church manage to capture each and every interpolation Marcion may have included into Pauline texts by the time it re shaped the NT to include 27 books? Me thinks not.

  This is but my own theory on the matter, but the texts you offer do read contradictory to other statements where "knowledge" is not placed above Paul's main arguments regarding the superiority of grace and faith.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Caleb:

  Well, if Marcion did it, so Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian were deceived by him, because they quoted some of those verses in their apologetic works. Of course, no one knows what happened. But it seems to me that some letters of Paul were already accepted in "orthodox" Christian circles at the end of the first century. For instance, Polycarp knew the letter of Philippians and he lived in the same generation of Marcion. Indeed, as you noted, Paul or whoever who corrupted his text shows gnostic principles. ...Whatever, at the second half of the second century these letters took their final form, so, many ones were deceived. When I started to admit that there were contradictions in the NT I was shocked.
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @John Aquila

  I do know that Jewish women could read in synagogues of the Second Temple era, and there are some indicators that some had to act as prayer leaders and even in a capacity similar to rabbis. Lydia of Thyatira seems to have been a convert to Judaism that acted in such a capacity according to Acts 16.

  While I know that Chrisitans often use the verse you mention to claim that Paul was following some Jewish practice of not allowing women to teach, that restriction only came into Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple and did not last very long. Judaism has generally remained quite egalitarian throughout most of its history (not that we didn't have our dark times however). Today only Orthodox Jews carry such restrictions.

  But pagans were not this way. They treated women quite differently in society. Paul must be referring to his rules that he was establishing as an apostle to the Gentiles, much like the head covering rule, for churches he was establishing. Outside of this I cannot say what else Paul had in mind because it doesn't reflect Jewish practices.
• 

  John Aquila

  Thanks Caleb!
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @Opusdei

  in line with you last comments, the answer is a definitive "yes" from Catholic Church scholars, at least in reference to texts that are clearly redactions.

  Convservative Catholics in the United States hate and have disowned the official Catholic translation of the Bible for use in America, the NABRE, because it contains in its footnotes philology citing texts like these as likely interpolations to the text. This, as you can imagine, has altered some doctrinal issues (likely for the better), and while the majority of Catholics are satisfied, conservatives in the Church call the work heretical.

  This smaller group of Catholics in the U.S. has been very vocal and even resurrected the older text of the RSV Catholic edition as an alternative. But as you can imagine the USCCB will have none of it, not even including the RSV Catholic edition as an approved translation on its website.

  The NABRE is the work of some 100 scholars from several denominations, has been in production since 1946 and will be officially completed by 2025 (the current 2011 edition is an ad-hoc "holdover" version). It is really outstanding and has been praised even by Jews and referred to as the cause of Bible-envy by one popular Protestant reviewer.

  To see it rejected by its own people by such a vocal group is actually disheartening for me, and I'm not even Catholic! It appears to me that regardless of the scholarship and critical approaches involved and the beautiful and accurate results that can be obtained, some people are determined to remain in the dark and want to pull others down into the dark with them.
• 

  Lieu

  Caleb,

  I understand fine, IMHO. Seems throughout Israelite history, the prevailing thought process is what caused some serious problems for the people. No peace. But that's for its own thread.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @lieu

  Forgive me if I offended you. I meant to point out that your references to what it meant to be Torah obedient left out Halachic interpretation, but I assume I went further than that in your opinion? Sorry if I did.

  I'm a Jew and I don't think any of us Jews have a full understanding of our own Jewish concepts, IMHO. It's far more than what we can obtain from merely reading Scripture, that's for sure....so at times to hear a non-Jew who has never learned about Halacha or kashrut, mitzvot, Talmud, or Midrash and presumes that everything that needs to be known can be understood by a non-Jew by simply reading a Gentile translation of the Old Testament...well that can set off a few bells in the Jewish head.

  But you are correct. I cannot judge what your entire knowledge of Judaism is by merely one post of yours. For all I know you are my rabbi on the other end.

  If you are I will be a little late to Shabbat service tonight.
• 

  kaik

  I would also add regarding long hair.. Paul was a Roman citizen and as such influenced by customs normal in the Roman Empire. He lived during the reign of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, where behavior, fashions and standards were dictated by imperial court. What was fashionable in the court, entire empire followed. The long hair fashion was disapproved by Caligula, who was bald by age 25 and had very big handicap from it. He did not allowed men with long hair around him or hoovering over him due balding.

  When I read Paul with view that it was written by Roman person who acted on it when it was profitable and suitable, I cannot shake negative feeling on him. Additionally, it is rather ridiculous when Paul demanded a justice from the hand of Emperor Nero.
  
• 

  Lieu

  No worries Caleb. I'm not offended. I don't mind being right, wrong, or in between.

  Kaik:

  Paul, et al. He may have been a Roman citizen but Rome was new in the region as far as Empires go. Greek was still the "international" language as well as its customs. So the 1st Century Christians were living in a heavily Hellenistic Greek society, not a Roman one, not yet.[ One reason the NT is written in Greek and not Latin. Also recall all the references to the Hebrew speaking Jews & Greek speaking Jews, etc.]

  So whenever I read something he's saying. I keep in mind he's speaking to people heavily influenced by Hellenistic mindsets and practiced.

  Women? Well women are at times at the level of worship & their advice is greatly sought after. Some hold an enormous amount of wealth. Open forums where someone speaks can get quite rowdy with everyone yelling out questions and such.

  Actually, scholars debate whether Paul even wrote Timothy. Paul's writings have too many say hello to a female & thank her for her work. Plus Jesus behaved in a different manner towards women.

  Sexual issues? Well, he's talking to people who live in the land of the orgy. A social norm. Pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

  Debating teachings? Greeks were famous for mindless debating & debating just for the sake of debating (no purpose).
• 

  kaik

  Rome was already leading power during the Republic. Levant was under control of Roman empire for 100 years at the time of Jesus. While Greeks was the most dominant language in Roman empire through its history, it was never language of the majority. There was 18-20 millions of Greek speakers in Roman Empire while the Empire in the peak had 80 million people. Rome as city dominated the empire and the Roman emperors dictated the fashion. When empress changed her hairstyle, so did every free women from Britain to Judea. Picture of the emperors were all over the empire as official documents had to be signed under "Imperial" presence. Caligula was big admirer of Egyptian pharaoh lifestyle (maybe reason why he was sexually active with his sister) and wanted to move his court to Alexandria. Either way during his reign, men kept their hair short or shaved, because he was balding. It was his big handicap and he was ashamed of it.

  Paul was a Roman citizen, therefore, he followed legislative proceedings and benefits of the Roman world, which included Roman citizenship. This was Latin benefit, and had nothing to do with Greeks. Greeks were regularly enslaved and sold as a cattle on slave markets all over the Roman empire. Paul would have not much to gain from being Greek speaking in the position of the Imperial court where he appealed.
  

  "Sexual issues? Well, he's talking to people who live in the land of the orgy"

  People are too much affected by viewing the movie Caligula and gossip courts stories, and subsequent Christian ascetics, but generally, Roman society was very conservative. Even on the matter of sex subject. While sex was available, so did prostitution, same-sex relationships, free attitude, we cannot talk about sex as open in Roman time in our post 1960's sexual revolution. Romans would not even kiss in public as it was not recommended since the time of Augustus. Commodus was ridiculed for kissing his favorite boy-toy in public, and Severus criticized for showing affection to his wife Julia Domna.

  Either way, it is not possible to separate Paul from Roman citizenship. He was born with it and it was still very rare in his lifetime for non-Latin subjects. Emperor Caracalla expanded in 212, but in 50AD we can estimate about 7 million of Roman citizens in the empire, most of them in Italy.