Paul, Jesus' Divinity, and 1st century Jewish monotheism

[lovemuffin]

I don't think there's an exact and certain answer on the relative dating, but I think it's generally believed that the epistles were written before the canonical gospels as we know them. It's reasonable to think there were earlier writings containing sayings of Jesus (the so-called "Q" for example) that may have existed prior to Paul's letters, or around the same time, but it's conjecture. But I think the 7 Pauline epistles about which there is mostly consensus as to authorship are prior to ~60 C.E, and the four canonical gospels anywhere from ~10 to 40 years later.

 

[Kolibri]

I don't understand your question. I always thought the Gospels were enscripturated before the Epistles, but I could be mistaken. The Apostles got enlisted, Paul got drafted. No matter how you slice the time pie, the Bible has to be taken as a whole, especially the harmony between the Gospels and the Epistles, as it relates to Paul, Jesus' Divinity, and 1st century Jewish monotheism.

While there are people out there that will argue for later dates, the outline of when these books and letters were released from mostly internal evidence is as follows.

Matthew c. 41 C.E./A.D.
Mark c. 60-65
Luke c. 56-58
John c. 98
Acts c. 61
Romans c. 56
1 Corinthians c. 55
2 Corinthians c. 55
Galatians c. 50-52
Ephesians c. 60-61
Philippians c. 60-61
Colossians c. 60-61
1 Thessalonians c. 50
2 Thessalonians c. 51
1 Timothy c. 61-64
2 Timothy c. 65
Titus c. 61-64
Philemon c. 60-61
Hebrews c. 61
James b. 62
1 Peter c. 62-64
2 Peter c. 64
1 John c. 98
2 John c. 98
3 John c. 98
Jude c. 65
Revelation c. 96

b., meaning "before" and c., meaning "circa," or "about."

 

[CMike]

In order to address the argument, You're going to probably have to deal with the quotations of the Hebrew scriptural texts and that element of the argument, rather than just asserting what the meaning of a verse is, since the meaning of the verse is what is in question.

Based on what the G-D of the Jews told the Jews there is only him and him alone who is divine.


O Lord... there is no god like You in heaven above or on Earth below... (1 Kings, 8:23; 2 Chronicles, 6:14)

Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, "Lord, there is no one like You to help the powerless against the mighty..."(2 Chronicles, 14:11)

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)

There is no one like You, O Lord, and there is no god but You, as we have heard with our own ears. (1 Chronicles, 17:20; 2 Samuel, 7:22)

There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides You; there is no strength like our God. (1 Samuel, 2:2)

His wisdom is profound, His power is vast. Who has resisted Him and come out unscathed. (Job, 9:4)

For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:10)

Praise Him for His acts of power; praise Him for His surpassing greatness. (Psalms, 150:2)

You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the Earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship You. (Nehemiah, 9:6)

They will say of Me, "In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength."... (Isaiah, 45:24)

You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides Him there is no other. (Deuteronomy, 4:35)

... Is there any god besides Me? No, there is no other strong one; I know not one. (Isaiah, 44:8)

This is what the Lord says—I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no god. (Isaiah, 44:6)

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last—I am He." (Isaiah, 41:4)

O Lord, are You not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One… (Habakkuk 1:12)

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere Him. (Ecclesiastes, 3:14)

 

[Unification]

Based on what the G-D of the Jews told the Jews there is only him and him alone who is divine.


O Lord... there is no god like You in heaven above or on Earth below... (1 Kings, 8:23; 2 Chronicles, 6:14)

Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, "Lord, there is no one like You to help the powerless against the mighty..."(2 Chronicles, 14:11)

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)

There is no one like You, O Lord, and there is no god but You, as we have heard with our own ears. (1 Chronicles, 17:20; 2 Samuel, 7:22)

There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides You; there is no strength like our God. (1 Samuel, 2:2)

His wisdom is profound, His power is vast. Who has resisted Him and come out unscathed. (Job, 9:4)

For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:10)

Praise Him for His acts of power; praise Him for His surpassing greatness. (Psalms, 150:2)

You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the Earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship You. (Nehemiah, 9:6)

They will say of Me, "In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength."... (Isaiah, 45:24)

You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides Him there is no other. (Deuteronomy, 4:35)

... Is there any god besides Me? No, there is no other strong one; I know not one. (Isaiah, 44:8)

This is what the Lord says—I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no god. (Isaiah, 44:6)

Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last—I am He." (Isaiah, 41:4)

O Lord, are You not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One… (Habakkuk 1:12)

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere Him. (Ecclesiastes, 3:14)

Truly there is one God, as scripture and you've said. How do people access and find God?

 

[CMike]

Truly there is one God, as scripture and you've said. How do people access and find God?

Start talking to him and doing what he wants you to do.

 

[outhouse]

1) Bauckham is writing partly in a context where there is a longstanding view of Christology that sees the early Jewish Christians with a "low" Christology and that it was the later greek tradition that divinized Jesus.

I think he is semi correct here. Aramaic Jews may not have held any divinity what so ever, while Hellenist might.

Jews needs to be broken down if you want to understand context though. Big difference between Aramaic Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism.

Hellenistic Judaism in itself was even divided between those holding mosaic laws closer then others. Example would be authors of Matthew VS authors of Mark which were more gentile explaining laws to gentiles.

So I see two issues here. One is context and definition of different types of Judaism. And the other is context and types of divinity.

Remember the Emperor held divinity as a mortal man, and called son of god before Jesus was born. It was the followers of this first son of god, the Hellenist, that labeled Jesus son of god and divine, to compete for proselytes with the Emperor.

So to address Bauckham, yes Aramaic Jews may not have had any divinity at all. And yes absolutely Hellenist developed the divinity after death and martyrdom which evolved for hundreds of years, before being labeled equal or part of the same substance as god.

After Jesus died, there was quite the diversity between what the early followers though. Some all man, some thought he was all spirit, and every angle in between. Definition of his divinity were all over the board.

 

[outhouse]

it is true in my opinion that modern Christians have often forgotten

This movement started in Aramaic Apocalyptic Judaism and the world was coming to an end rather quickly. Which could have been metaphor for Jesus starting a riot in the temple that he knew would kill all the Aramaic Jews, as going against Romans was suicide. But it may have been better then the village lives they led. And maybe he thought divine intervention would help him. Either was he was martyred for taking on the corrupt temple by himself despite failing, he was viewed as hero for his selfless sacrifice.

When the movement progressed in Hellenism after death, they started making circular verses that no one would know when, because the early verse following Apocalyptic Judaism were not playing out as intended. So now we have contradictory verse on that topic.

Its a shame this Aramaic Judaism is lost to most modern Christians

 

[outhouse]

3) Paul is by far the most extensive N.T. author, and besides that his writing addresses the kind of "eschatological monotheism" more directly than the gospels.

And remember, Paul was probably more devoted then most, he really raised the rhetorical bar so to speak, and his work needs to be viewed through that lens.

Paul wanted nothing more then to be a real apostle, despite having hunted down the early Hellenistic leaders in the diaspora.

Food for thought, if this was an Aramaic Movement after death, Paul would have hunted in Galilee.

 

[Kolibri]

And remember, Paul was probably more devoted then most, he really raised the rhetorical bar so to speak, and his work needs to be viewed through that lens.

Paul wanted nothing more then to be a real apostle, despite having hunted down the early Hellenistic leaders in the diaspora.

Food for thought, if this was an Aramaic Movement after death, Paul would have hunted in Galilee.

One could argue that Paul was a real apostle, though not one of the 12 foundations stones of New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:14) Even Jesus was a real apostle, having been "sent forth" legitimately. (Hebrews 3:1)

 

[outhouse]

One could argue that Paul was a real apostle

One could argue he was a Hellenistic apostle who never knew or met or heard a single word from the real man.

though not one of the 12 foundations stones of New Jerusalem

12 is probably mythological. The gospels deal with for the most part his inner circle. Which were portrayed as cowards that denied him and probably fled to Galilee.

The Jerusalem sect, was not 12 members, and to me, they were Hellenist who followed Judaism closer then all the others because of heir geographic location in Israel.


Jesus inner circle, his real followers, not literary followers, were probably Aramaic illiterate peasants. If they were really part of the Jerusalem sect, we might expect writing from his closest followers. But there is nothing from his real followers at all.

Had they had a scribe tell their story, we would see the Aramaic transliterations. We don't have any of that as we should if dictated from a real follower.

Not only that, every bit of writing we have, is from the Diaspora only, and all in Koine Greek. Not the native language of his followers.

 

[Kolibri]

One could argue he was a Hellenistic apostle who never knew or met or heard a single word from the real man.



12 is probably mythological. The gospels deal with for the most part his inner circle. Which were portrayed as cowards that denied him and probably fled to Galilee.

The Jerusalem sect, was not 12 members, and to me, they were Hellenist who followed Judaism closer then all the others because of heir geographic location in Israel.


Jesus inner circle, his real followers, not literary followers, were probably Aramaic illiterate peasants. If they were really part of the Jerusalem sect, we might expect writing from his closest followers. But there is nothing from his real followers at all.

Had they had a scribe tell their story, we would see the Aramaic transliterations. We don't have any of that as we should if dictated from a real follower.

Not only that, every bit of writing we have, is from the Diaspora only, and all in Koine Greek. Not the native language of his followers.

His closest by all reports was John, the writer of the gospel bearing his name, the 3 letters bearing his name and Revelation.
Peter also wrote 2 letters, and is considered a source for Mark.
James and Jude were Jesus' half brothers. I think that qualifies as an inner circle though they did not believe he was the Christ till after his resurrection.
Matthew was a tax collector. Certainly he was not illiterate. While the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in Greek, it may be that Matthew wrote his first in Hebrew and translated it himself to Greek.

We can not suppose that by being 'uneducated and ordinary' that they were 'illiterate'. All we can know from that is that they did not have degrees in the Rabbinic schools. (Acts 4:13)

 

[outhouse]

We can not suppose that by being 'uneducated and ordinary' that they were 'illiterate'

Yes we can, these were poor uneducated villagers. Illiteracy rates were 97% at best.

His closest by all reports was John, the writer of the gospel bearing his name, the 3 letters bearing his name and Revelation.

No, the consensus is all the authors less Paul are unknown Hellenist

Peter also wrote 2 letters, and is considered a source for Mark.

Unknown author

Matthew was a tax collector. Certainly he was not illiterate

He was not the author of any NT book.

While the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in Greek, it may be that Matthew wrote his first in Hebrew and translated it himself to Greek.

False, it was written in Koine with no Hebrew transliterations, your just wrong here.

You have an apologetic position that does not stand up to what is being taught in every credible university out there.

 

[Kolibri]

No, the consensus is all the authors less Paul are unknown Hellenist

can't fight the 'consensus' of those deemed 'credible' as by definition any other position is not credible.

 

[outhouse]

can't fight the 'consensus' of those deemed 'credible' as by definition any other position is not credible.

It is the difference between having a real education and what is being taught by educated people.

And those with no education fighting for personal faith they know little about.


People go to universities to learn these topics well, you could go to church for a thousand years and not learn what a university teaches in a week.


My statements were for the OP as he has a grasp on credible work here. They are not directed at you. I will never be able to teach you, nor will you learn outside faith and what we call mythology. So please just let the OP answer me back.

He wants to know about cultural and social anthropology. This is outside your grasp.

 

[lovemuffin]

Based on what the G-D of the Jews told the Jews there is only him and him alone who is divine.

In a way similar to what I said to kolibri, this is properly one of the premises of the argument. The argument depends on the idea that for the jews "there is only him and him alone who is divine." The question is about what "him" means in the light of Paul's usage of the hebrew texts about God. As Bauckham argues, it's a question about what the identity of God means in the 2nd temple period. The argument is that if that identity is primarily revealed and understood by Paul in a creational, eschatological, and cultic way, and if then Paul applies those same categories to Jesus, it means that Paul is including Jesus in that identity, since it is those very things that constitute the identity to begin with, and it's not possible for Paul, beliving that God alone is divine, to attribute those same categories (creation, the eschatological fulfillment of Israel, and worship) to a non-divine being. Without the premise that God alone is identified by those things, it wouldn't make sense to suggest the inclusion of Jesus.

To be clear, in case it's not, I understand that from a Jewish point of view the Christian scriptures are irrelevant, and beyond that I understand that judaism has no reason to view "identity" in this way, but the argument is mostly intended for Christians given that it deals with Paul, and the impetus from a Christian POV for considering it is precisely the apparent problematic of making sense of Paul's Christology.

 

[outhouse]

I understand that from a Jewish point of view the Christian scriptures are irrelevant, and beyond that I understand that judaism has no reason to view "identity" in this way

Ah but my point. Hellenistic Judaism did, and they used their Hellenistic definitions plural to do just that.

 

[lovemuffin]

Ah but my point. Hellenistic Judaism did, and they used their Hellenistic definitions plural to do just that.

Right. I meant modern judaism. I should have clarified. I'm not really as familiar with what you are calling aramaic judaism in this time period, which is one reason I haven't commented on your posts. I need to learn more I guess.

 

[lovemuffin]

So obviously the part of the argument that is difficult is the idea that more than one person could be included in the identity of God, especially from a Hellenistic Jewish perspective. I think that part is so difficult that the argument is being misunderstood because the assumption that this is impossible is so strong.

However, there is evidence that jews in the couple centuries prior to Paul sometimes wrote about God in this kind of way. Specifically in the wisdom literature that was created at this time, and its personification of "wisdom". Consider the Wisdom of Solomon, composed by hellenistic jews somewhere in the 2nd or 1st centure B.C.E

"For wisdom is a kindly spirit and will not free a blasphemer from the guilt of his words; because God is witness of his inmost feelings, and a true observer of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue. (Wis 1:6)

Wisdom is radiant and unfading, and she is easily discerned by those who love her, and is found by those who seek her. She hastens to make herself known to those who desire her. He who rises early to seek her will have no difficulty, for he will find her sitting at his gates. To fix one's thought on her is perfect understanding, and he who is vigilant on her account will soon be free from care, because she goes about seeking those worthy of her, and she graciously appears to them in their paths, and meets them in every thought.

The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction, and concern for instruction is love of her, and love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, and immortality brings one near to God; so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom. (Wis 6:12-20)
​

Or the Wisdom of Sirach, in the same period:

"All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity -- who can count them? The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom -- who can search them out? Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity. The root of wisdom -- to whom has it been revealed? Her clever devices -- who knows them? There is One who is wise, greatly to be feared, sitting upon his throne. The Lord himself created wisdom; he saw her and apportioned her, he poured her out upon all his works. She dwells with all flesh according to his gift, and he supplied her to those who love him. (Sir 1:1-8)

Wisdom exalts her sons and gives help to those who seek her. Whoever loves her loves life, and those who seek her early will be filled with joy. Whoever holds her fast will obtain glory, and the Lord will bless the place she enters. Those who serve her will minister to the Holy One; the Lord loves those who love her. He who obeys her will judge the nations, and whoever gives heed to her will dwell secure. If he has faith in her he will obtain her; and his descendants will remain in possession of her. For at first she will walk with him on tortuous paths, she will bring fear and cowardice upon him, and will torment him by her discipline until she trusts him, and she will test him with her ordinances. Then she will come straight back to him and gladden him, and will reveal her secrets to him. If he goes astray she will forsake him, and hand him over to his ruin. (Sir 4:11-19)
​

These are not "canonical" texts either in Christianity (deutero-canonical-ish in catholicism and orthodoxy) or in Judaism, but they do illustrate very well the way some hellenistic jews in this time period could speak about God, and the comparison to the way Paul talks about Jesus is clear, I think. It doesn't seem to make sense to entirely separate this character of "Wisdom" from God, given that she is explicitly an agent of God's justice, grants perfect understanding, that the laws (which must be the laws of Moses) are "her" laws which grant immortality, and etc.

Obviously there is a difference between the personification of an attribute like wisdom in a literary sense and an actual person, but even so I think the usage, and the similar usage of the "Spirit of the Lord" demonstrates that there isn't this automatic inability for jews of the period to reflect on the nature of the one God in a similar way.

​

 

[outhouse]

I'm not really as familiar with what you are calling aramaic judaism in this time period,

Don't feel to bad, there is little out there on these people or Zealots.

 

[outhouse]

Consider the Wisdom of Solomon, composed by hellenistic jews somewhere in the 2nd or 1st centure B.C.E

We cannot date all of it, with so much certainty. It is a collection, compiled and redacted over many many centuries.

Some going back to early Israelite cultures.