- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
The following discussion of Paul, I took from A Rabbi's Impressions of the Oberammergau Passion Play (1901) by Joseph Krauskopf, it gives an interesting look at Paul. What does everyone else think?
“We look for an authentic biography of him, and to our surprise and disappointment we find none. Contemporaneous literature knows nothing of him. The first attempt at a biography is contained in the “Acts of the Apostles,” one of the New Testament books, immediately following the gospels. The historical value of this book is exceedingly untrustworthy. Its date is probably half or probably as much as a century after the death of Paul. Its author is an unknown partisan whose language, style, and spirit, lead to the conjecture that he was probably a Gentile, a Roman, one who lived far away from Judea, who had an imperfect knowledge of the character, religion, and political condition of the Jews…the “Acts of the Apostles” in which the life and deeds of Paul are supposed to be sketched. It is evident, that if truth we want, and not legend, we must look elsewhere, and, fortunately for us, we have not far to go to find what we need. There have been preserved, in the New Testament, a number of Epistles, which Paul addressed to different cities, where he had organized Christian congregations, or where he desired to do so, and these Epistles, fragmentary though they be, are of priceless value. In them the occurrences are, with but the slightest exception, natural and real. They afford us not only an intelligent insight into the rise and growth of the new religion, but they also enable us to disentangle, in the “Acts of the Apostles,” the historical from the mythical, and together they furnish an outline to a fairly satisfactory biography of Paul…
What the immediate cause may have been that led to his connection with the Nazarenes.cannot now be discerned. Contact with the pious Nazarenes and their pure life may have fascinated a temperament like his. Their affectionate devotion to their martyred Master, their hourly expectation of His Second Advent, may have afforded abundant fuel for the Philonic-Gnostic flame that burned within. The Master, of whom this faithful band spoke so enthusiastically, and with such affection, the Master, who manifested such divine wisdom, could be none other than the incarnation of the Divine Reason, the “Logos,” of which the Jewish philosopher Philo had taught and written, and from which it was but a step to the “Guide to God,” the “Substitute for God,” the “Image of God,” the “Second God,” the “Intercessor,” the “Son of God.” Here was the Grecian poetry translated into Hebrew prose. The allegorical concepts of Athens and Alexandria and Tarsus had turned into flesh and blood in Jerusalem…It was a bold thought and bolder yet was his resolve. That moment in which Paul, the Jew, resolved to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles” was one of the most eventful in the history of civilization. What the prophets of Israel had long dreamed and hoped took living form in that moment. What millions of Jews had professed for centuries, this one man proposed to execute single-handed. He would open the way for the realization of the prophets dream of a federation of all people into a brotherhood, under the Fatherhood of God, and under the sway of universal peace and good-will. He would spread his new theology to the ends of the vast Roman empire, and preach it, till it received the homage of every tongue and knee. In that moment the Nazarenes ceased to be a sect, and Judaism a tribal religion. In that moment a cosmopolitan religion was born. In that moment the ethical teachings of Judaism crossed the border of their birthplace, under the spiritual leadership of Jesus, the Jew, in the guise of a mystical Christ. In that moment a spiritual alliance was formed between Jew and Gentile that has endured to this day. That moment opened a new epoch in the world's history…
If the Gentile world was to accept his new theology, he had to present it to them in an acceptable form. Jewish ceremonies, rites and observances he unfalteringly cast aside. He swept away every barrier between Jew and Gentile. Where the fate of his world-conquering theology was concerned, the authority, with which centuries of observance had vested these rites and ceremonies, could have no weight. Had not the prophets taught that God looks to deed, not to form, and that a pure heart and devout mind are more acceptable than sacrifice? Seeing that the prophets were with him, what had he to fear in resolving to inaugurate what the prophets of Israel had advocated before him?
He met with strong opposition from Jew and Gentile, and also from a source from which, perhaps, he had least expected it, from those very Nazarenes for whom he had forsaken his former sect, and on whose support he had perhaps counted most. They understood neither him nor his doctrine; neither did he seem to understand them. They knew not what he meant by a “Son of God,” by an “Intercessor,” by a “Mediator,” by a “Second God,” and by some of his other novel doctrines. They had been in personal contact with Jesus, had listened to his teachings, knew his aim, knew him to have been human, they had heard him proclaim as the first commandment the great Jewish monotheistic doctrine: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One,” and they could not recognize their Master in this novel attire of a Grecian Christ. They knew not what Paul meant by titling himself the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” to preach Christ to the heathen nations. Their Master had come of the Jews, and had labored among the Jews, and for the Jews only. Jesus himself had declared: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and he himself had bid his disciples: “Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They were horrified at Paul's doing away with the ceremonials and rites of the Law. Had not their own Master declared that he had not come to abrogate the Law or the prophets, and that whosoever would break even one of the least commandments, and should teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven? Their Master had opposed the ceremonial excesses, narrow interpretations, unreasonable deductions, but not the Mosaic Laws. They themselves had remained scrupulously faithful to every detail of The Law; Peter had even found it necessary publicly to defend himself against a suspicion of having violated some of the forms and rites. They worshipped and sacrificed in the Temple as before, and observed all the ceremonies and rites and festivals as Jesus himself had done. And who was he, they asked, who arrogated to himself the right of abrogating the Law of Moses? Who appointed him to the Apostleship? Who dared rise and speak in the name of Jesus, and as his messenger and interpreter, while those still lived, who had walked and talked and counselled with him?
The feud between them and Paul grew bitter. He was publicly censured by them at a conference in Jerusalem. Peter broke with him. Barnabas deserted him. James sent missionaries to follow upon his track, and to undo his errors. The charges and countercharges between them reveal little of the forgiving and peaceful spirit which their Master had taught. They, who were not yet fully converted themselves, were quarreling about the mode of converting others. Paul castigated them in very severe language. He insisted upon his right to the apostleship, and to the rightfulness of his work among the Gentiles. His was one of those spirits that thrives best under opposition. His work prospered best when to the “thorn in the flesh” that worried him within, there was added the thorn from without.
He turned his back upon the Nazarene community, and forth he went among the Gentiles, and pursued his mission with a zeal, with a heroism, with a self-sacrifice, that is as amazing as it is eventful in the history of Christianity. When he suddenly disappears from the scenes of history, after ab
out thirty years of missionary labor, Christianity had taken root in Asia and in Europe. In the very strongholds of Paganism…
It is much to be regretted that a compromise between the Nazarenes and Paul could not have been effected, that the former could not have been persuaded to surrender their fondness for ceremonialism, and their spirit of exclusiveness, and the latter, his mythical and mystical Christology. Had they but compromised their differences, they might have labored together, and in unison, and converted, not only Gentiles, but also the Jews. They would, in time, have given up hoping for the Second Advent of their Master. They would have concentrated their attention upon the pure ethical precepts which he had taught, would have recognized in them the pure Judaism of old, and their pure life, aided by Paul's zeal, would have cemented the different Jewish sects into a close brotherhood, and prevented the breach which Paul's Christology introduced. Such a compromise would not have interfered with Paul's success among the Gentiles. It was not as much his mystical and mythical Grecian Christ that conquered the Gentiles, as it was the preaching of the pure-hearted and noble-minded Judaic Jesus. It was not so much the Gnostic theosophy, as it was the ethics of Judaism, that found a ready echo in Gentile hearts, especially in those days of corruption, of tyrannous rule by madmen and monsters like Caligula and Nero, under whom the Roman empire groaned, and at which time many, even of the most cultured classes, had sought refuge in Judaism, despite its rigorous and forbidding initiation ceremonialism. If Judaism could attract converts, even with an uninviting ceremonialism, how much more, and how much easier, could it have won Gentile followers with such ceremonialism removed, and with a man like Paul to preach the ethics of Moses and of the Prophets and Rabbis, and to illustrate the possibilities of such ethics by holding up to the world the noble life of the Galilean Rabbi.”Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 16 2008,07:12) Hi cato,
Was he a member of the synagogue of satan?
Acts is much more reliable than this fellow.
Nick,
I thought it an interesting take on the Apostle from a Jewish Rabbi, I don't know whether or not I accept all his views, but they were well thought out and offered a unique perspective. Go ahead and disagree but lets not jump to the jingoistic refrain of “synagogue of satan”. It is uncalled for, unless you think that anyone who questions in anyway what you see as holy scripture is a servant of the devil.Hey Nick,
Acts is more reliable? – Sure? It is written by a man we know absolutely nothing about… what was he like, did he live a Godly life, if he did, how do we know – there is no mention of him by Peter James or John, and we have no character reference to him other than he was supposedly a Pauline protégée: What of his life, his conversion, and his worldview etc etc – did he have a personal relationship with YHWH, did he really know “word for word” the exact speech of Peter on the Day of Pentecost, or the truth of Peter's Vision (Funnily enough Peter never mentions having a Vision in any of his writings) or did he just conjure up these long speeches in Luke and Acts, and then portray events in a way he wished? Were his writings ever presented to any of the Apostles for verification – if not, how then can we prove beyond doubt that this was “inspired” scripture?
All scripture is God inspired, sure, but what Scripture is being spoken about here. OT or NT or Both – the NT was written nor put together and the OT was the only source of Apostolic Biblical doctrine in that time… so I guess the OT was the Inspired scripture spoken of!!!
So what do we do when Luke's account of Paul in Acts does not agree with Paul's own account in Galatians? Who are we supposed to believe?
Nick, who do you say the Synagogue of Satan is? Pray tell. In Daniel 7, 8 & 9 who are the “Saints” who will receive the kingdom? Also in Isaiah 49:23 who are the ones that the Kings and Queens of the earth will nurse and to whom they will bow down to, and then look at your quote from Revalation 3:9.
What is odd about this is that it seem like the same group of people are written about in all these accounts… mmm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
