It was the sheerest of sheer coincidences, and I cite it as such only to introduce my present subject. It happened in early May of 2011 as Marianne and Marcus Borg along, with Sarah and myself, were leading our annual pilgrimage In the Footsteps of Paul across western Turkey.
On Saturday the seventh we visited Antioch in Pisidia -- you will recall that Paul was there in Acts 13:14-52 -- and our group had lunch in nearby Yalvaç. Since the local museum was not on our itinerary, Sarah and I gulped some soup and left the group to visit it for ourselves.
In the garden we found what looked like the funeral stele of a laborer whose Greek name was clearly: PHILEMON.
Next day, Sunday the eighth, our group was walking through the northern cemetery of Hierapolis, with its ancient mounds, broken sarcophagi and shattered house-tombs tossed one upon another as if by some irreverent giant (earthquake?). Amid those multiple inscriptions in wall-to-wall Greek, one name suddenly jumped out at us:
ONESIMUS.
To its right was an etrog, a lemon-like fruit usually associated with the Jewish Feast of Booths and therefore symbolizing a Jewish presence.
How, then, do you read a letter by the Apostle Paul to another Philemon about another Onesimus? Remember, first of all, that Paul's missives are closed letters to specific recipients -- not open epistles like, say, our "Letters to the Editor." In other words, reading them is reading somebody else's mail. If we do not understand them, Paul and his recipients did, and so the problem is mine and yours, not his and theirs.
The only way, therefore, to understand such a not-intended-for-you letter is to imagine its narrative -- that is, to expand over, under, around and through its given content until textual letter has finally morphed into contextual story. What, then, is the story behind Paul's Letter to Philemom with its one chapter of 25 verses?
Paul is in a governor's jail, chained to a soldier in the barracks, probably at Ephesus, capital of Rome's Asia Minor province. (From there, by the way, he also wrote a Letter to the Philippians.) He mentions his imprisonments four times and his advanced age once (1,9,10,13). That is not to whine -- something Paul never learned to do -- but is simply part of the powerful rhetorical persuasion unleashed by Paul on Philemon in this letter. But persuasion to do what?
Onesimus was a slave under threat of serious or maybe even fatal punishment from his master Philemon. Following an option allowed by Roman Law, he fled for intercession to Paul as his master's most important friend. But when Paul converted Onesimus to Christianity, a problem arose immediately. Could a Christian master own a Christian slave since "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" so that "there is no longer slave or free ... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28). How could Christians, as Christians, be equal and unequal at the same time?
Paul, therefore, writes this letter and sends it back to Philemon by Onesimus, calling him "my own very heart," and proclaiming him "no longer a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother -- especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (16). Imagine Onesimus knocking on Philemon's door to announce that he had good news and bad news for his master: good that he was back, bad that he was free.
But why such a long letter to say, in effect, "Dear Philemon, Free Onesimus. Yours, Paul"? Because Paul is trying -- paradoxically -- to command Philemon to free Onesimus freely since, as he says, "I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced" (14). Poor Philemon is on what we might see as a yo-yo of emotional manipulation but which advanced Greco-Roman education would have seen as a small masterpiece of very successful rhetorical persuasion created by a relentless oscillation of Good-Cop and Bad-Cop verses.
As just one example, compare these two verses at either end of the letter. Good-Cop Paul: "Though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love -- and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (8-9). Bad-Cop Paul: "Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (21).
Did Philemon free Onesimus? Oh yes, because otherwise it would not have been necessary for those later post-, pseudo- and anti-pauline letters -- seen in an earlier blog -- to deradicalize Paul back into a compassionate conservatism acceptable to Roman cultural normalcy. To repeat, once again: Constantine, here we come.
In Search of the Historical Paul--Apostle saint epistles Saul Richard ...
Highlights: The Quest for the Historical Paul - Christianity Today ...
All they had to do was proclaim allegiance to jesus and they could be free? Nice loophole for them. Too bad slaves were uneducated.
Further, I mistrust anything by Paul. With the large numbers of Pauline forgeries, it's difficult to take any of it seriously. Also, the confusion with the figure of Appolonius of Tyana makes Paul's very existence a question.
Source for that?
I want to make a simple clarification to dissipate any misunderstanding. When I speak of a birth certificate for Jesus or any other Biblical character, I mean it as a Hyperbole (figure of speech) to emphasize the lack of historical source(s), other than the NT.
If need be to be more lengthy and specific; there are no documents emanating from a Roman (Pontius Pilate), Greek, or Jewish (Caifas) Magistrate, a Roman or Greek historian, etc. that mentions a Jesus the Christ. There are no other verifiable, objective, sources, mentioning a JC or a SAUL (aka PAUL) in all of history. A letter signed Paul can be confused with another Paul.
Therefore, analyzing texts they may or may not have written (or have said) may be a pleasant philosophical exercise, but we cannot take this too seriously; unless of course, once again, there is corroboration.
This notion that we have detailed Roman records of everything that went on the Empire is a myth. Roman officials recorded many things, but almost all of their written records are long gone.
I'm not sure whether Jesus existed or not. But if he did I see no reason why any official Roman record of his existence, if there ever was one to begin with, should have survived
The HuffPo ran an article on this ossurary - check it out for yourselves.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/ancient-israeli-ossuary-genuine...
I hope that I have not unintentionally caused you any dismay. When I address a specific comment or a specific person, if you notice in my other comments, I start with 'Dear (name of person)' or date of post. My comment concerning the existence of a Jesus was a generic remark and not intended for you in particular. Sometimes the shuffle after 'pending comment' creates confusion. I apologize for any grief.
Cheers
Doherty's theories are not taken seriously.You will not find it quoted in by scholars in the field, or in University libraries. I am a historian in a British university and we use Copac to search across pretty much every academic library in the country, and a search on Doherty's book reveals no University has his books. As for Price, but he is on the extreme fringes (and with neglible presence in academic libraries and books), he does not have a teaching position at a University, nor does he publish in any of the recognized series in the field. So quoting him does not indicate represent an acceptance of Doherty's research in academia. We have a process of peer-review and a society that generally defers to the results of scholarship. Those who don't and depend on internet myths or self-published books by amateurs such as creationists, climate-change deniers, and general conspiracy theorists are rightly put on the fringes. I see little difference in this case. As for Paul not knowing or quoting from Jesus that is a rather old, stale trope that has been rebuffed by the likes of Bruce, Dunn, Wehman, Barnett etc...
Also, the Jesus Seminar never (despite what you suggested) voted on whether Jesus existed. Someone actually offered them money to do so, and they refused.
My mistake; I've since found the Jesus Seminar votes on statements by Jesus and events. Your points about peer review and academia are well taken. I'm an engineer, and well read on climate science, so you know where I'm coming from there; but of course science is a different ballgame from history.
I can and have read Paul's letters myself, although I can't read the original Greek. I can can see for myself that he doesn't seem to know about the stories or sayings in the gospels. Bart Ehrman--of course everyone knows him and his credentials--makes the same point, and he's not fringe. It's my understanding he usually represents a consensus view, so I don't know why you call it a "stale trope", unless of course you have theological motivations.
Now stretching that into a theory of a non existent Jesus is of course not ever provable, but it like all historical judgements can't ever be anything but provisional. But then so is an actual living historical Jesus. Thanks for inspiring me to read more.
I have heard Hector Avalos and Robert Price quote him (Price numerous times). And no, Bob Price is not "on the extreme fringes" just because you disagree with his conclusions. How about Joseph Hoffmann?
" ... we use Copac to search across pretty much every academic library in the country, and a search on Doherty's book reveals no University has his books."
This is the result I get when I search Copac for 'The Jesus puzzle' - http://copac.ac.uk/search?rn=2&au=Earl+Doherty&sort-order=ti%2C-date
And, here's the result for the 'King James Bible' - http://copac.ac.uk/search?rn=1&ti=king+james+bible - hmmmm, that's not listed in any University libraries either?
And, "As for Paul not knowing or quoting from Jesus that is a rather old, stale trope that has been rebuffed by the likes of Bruce, Dunn, Wehman, Barnett etc... "
Rebuffed? Maybe so, but certainly not refuted. If you can point to where this is wrong, please do.
is mural dedicated to “Paul.”
This man is believed to be the gun,
Jesus came down, to face one to one.
Paul the wise Owl, Paul the Foxy smart,
is all to all answers, astrological like chart.
Whether indirectly subtle and other times not,
Paul, the most quoted oracle, is this world’s despot.
All of Paul’s ideas come off the church’s wall,
with Paul’s self-snobbery surpassing them all.
Paul tells you are God’s special, yet makes it belief
Paul’s opinions be your answer to life’s each grief.
A) As the misogynist rantings of the killer of the followers of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus.
B) See A - above.
For possibly another discussion thread, there are also gospels and letters not in the current canon of scripture that change the angle of the light used to view them.
Saul repented - but you probably missed that - or ignored it.
St Luke and St Paul were in prison together. ST Luke was a gentle. St Paul in his letters says only Luke is here with me. Even St Timothy leaves St Paul. ST Luke was also known as a slave for in those times St Luke was known as physician and they were slaves and where St Luke his name comes from his slave Master. Why all the letters? St Paul is in prison? A question St Paul is asking Philemom to free Onesimus as a slave, but St Paul has not asking Philemon to free St Paul himself out of prison? Interesting. St Paul is in Prison why many letters, and why ST Paul does not go directly to Philemon? Amazing how St Paul letters are not destroyed?
The only books he claims are outright fakes are 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus. These are not nearly as significant as they are small books that mostly deal with practical orders to ministers to rebuke false teachers and preach the gospel.
If he really wanted to "shake things up" he should have claimed that Romans was a forgery. Most Evangelical theology comes directly from there.
Paul clearly puts responsibility on us to preform the faith ...'faith with out works is dead', and similar calls all show that Accepting Christ is much more than mere ideological or intellectualism; it is living that which Christ himself upheld.
The Beauty of Christ, is that even in our most sincere effort, none would succeed, for all have fallen short. But in our belief and acceptance of the true sacrifice, the fulfillment by Christ of the requirements of God; In Christ we can cover those area's where we do not make the mark, by His Marks.
Great point. Why don't you get right on that. Go. Go now. go and search for Jesus' birth certificate, and come back when you've got something interesting and/or informative to contribute to the discussion. I'm sure we're all looking forward to it.
Or perhaps because you have very little to say about your ostensible subject.
"Remember, first of all, that Paul's missives are closed letters to specific recipients -- not open epistles like, say, our 'Letters to the Editor.'"
How do you know Paul didn't have a wider audience in mind when he wrote his letters?
"The only way, therefore, to understand such a not-intended-for-you letter is to imagine its narrative -- that is, to expand over, under, around and through its given content until textual letter has finally morphed into contextual story."
Imaginative expansion. I imagine that must be easier than trying to actually prove things.
Jesus said: Why do you call me Lord Lord, and you do not obey the Laws? Jesus, read all his sayings, preaches to enter the Kingdom obey the commandments, repent sin no more. Jesus preaches about God, St Paul preaches about Jesus. Jesus said. Do not think I have come to change 1 Tittle of the Laws of Moses, but to add a new one, Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Commandments were greatly important to Jesus which he himself fully obeyed, to enter the Kingdom, with Jesus was not the cross was it? But with St Paul teaches the opposite the way to enter the kingdom is the cross,not what Jesus taught at all. Interesting. Jesus said I Am the Way the Light and the Truth. Follow me, we too will suffer persecution for God all who believe, but obey the commandments if one wants to enter the Kingdom.