Posted: Jul 24, 2013 1:32 am
by spin
RealityRules wrote:
spin wrote:Paul

Working from Galatians I have attempted to read the text as literally as possible in an effort to understand what it says, rather than what later interpreters have said it says. The result is that Paul argues against prior Jesus believers, indicating that his Jesus knowledge instead comes from revelation (which doesn't require any supernatural event given todays understandings of psychology). He points to people in Jerusalem who show no knowledge of the gospel Jesus and who advocate torah observance, which Paul's Jesus has abrogated. Paul's writings have been heavily reworked, as can be seen with the attacks on his personality and insertion of later established church oriented notions and interests, so his writings cannot be read slavishly as many christian interpreters tend to do.

"Paul's writings have been heavily reworked, as can be seen with the attacks on his personality and insertion of later established church oriented notions and interests, so his writings cannot be read slavishly as many christian interpreters tend to do" ..
.. yet you have read them slavishly!, and go on to do so ....

Nice try, but you aren't dealing with what you are attacking. I specifically start with a narrative and see its implications, implications that don't accord with the usual interpretations, when taken literally. That requires a further study.

RealityRules wrote:
spin wrote:Pauline language

Paul was writing in a literary context that was essentially pre-christian, so his terms and notions are not the settled notions of an established religion. On the christian chronology Paul was writing 20 years or less after the reputed time of Jesus. There is no time assuming Paul was not the initiator of christian rhetoric for dedicated terminology to have developed. When he uses terms they must be seen as based on earlier ones, such as his use of "assembly" (usually translated as the christian "church") or a constructed phrase like "in christ". There is just no christian literary precedents for Paul's language, so it can only come from what non-christian vocabulary that existed prior to his writing. That means we need to read him freshly, without christianizing his writings, if we hope to understand what he is talking about, though this is complicated by later reworkings. I'm fond of the title of an article by J.C. O'Neill, "Paul Wrote Some of All, but Not All of Any".

"On the christian chronology Paul was writing 20 years or less after the reputed time of Jesus" ... yet there are plenty of arguments that is not true!!

I am well aware of them, but they are not the issue in the particular analysis. And if you persist, it is obvious when Paul attacks the leaders of what would become the normative understanding of religious organization, that he is not the product of later normative church thought. He is neither trinitarian nor even binitarian, so he is obviously not toeing later church ideas. The Pauline letters show no knowledge of the developed Jesus tradition, when we see the lonely Lucan last supper as a post-Marcan implant (1 Cor 11:23-27). All point to an early phase of Jesus tradition development. We can see signs of later insertions such as the Peter material in Gal 2:7b-8 which talks of two gospels one to the circumcised and one to the gentiles, a notion abhorrent to Paul's one true gospel attitude. Again an insertion to bring church order into Paul, making him subservient to the "pope of Rome". Another such addition is the amusing resurrection witnesses of 1 Cor 15:3-11 which renders useless the conditionals in the passage that follow it. This passage is normatizing in nature by defending the conventional church history and denigrating Paul. These insertions are at the cost of Paul in favor of church tradition. The evidence is clear to me of an early Paul adapted to later christianity.