Paul's Authority

Great Debates
21

That early on, it’s hard to really give a good answer, however, later persecutions of Christians were overwhelmingly local affairs. Families and communities were upset because members were suddenly withdrawing themselves from society and their duties to take part a religion that actively discouraged participation in what they had previously been doing. This caused a lot of tension in the social order, not to mention when certain rituals that Christians would not participate in were seen as essential to the prosperity of the area. Even today, in some places, conversions can be tremendous sources of conflict and lead to violence, disowning of family members, etc. This local dynamic in the first few centuries of the Common Era tends to get more attention these days among religious scholars than the traditional top-down view of the Roman government oppressing people, but it’s not really my area of expertise.

What we can draw from this later history, however, is that to the extent the nascent Jesus movement was persecuted in the early years, it most likely came from the same very localized, social irritation. Similar in kind to the anger one faces in a tightly knit community when one goes against consensus. The Romans were only able to enforce so much day-to-day authority after all. I guess we could compare Paul’s situation to, say, a local tough guy in Iran who is very zealous and often goes out to at the very least make life a royal pain for Christians/Baha’i/whatever he finds, with some small claims to authority but mostly relying on the local social dynamics to get away with his stuff.

22

Because it can be demonstrated that the story was fabricated from passages in the Septuagint, and Matthew and Mark both make mistakes which clearly show it.
Mark’s version took his story from Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

Now here is Mark’s version:

Mark 11:1-11
As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olive, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt there which no one has ever ridden… Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.’” They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” They answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

I’ve redded three mistakes here. First, Mark gets the order of Bethpage and Bethany wrong as they are approached from Jericho. A small thing, you might say. Agreed, but it hurts Mark’s credibility right off the bat. The next two mistakes are more significant, though.

In the second line I colored. Jesus tells the disciples they will find a colt that no one has ever ridden. This shows that Mark was a ware of a phrase which occurs in the Greek LXX translation of Zechariah, but not in the Hebrew. That phrase is polon neon - “new” (i.e. “unridden”) colt. Mark has Jesus do something to fulfill the Greek translation of the Bible that Mark had, but not a version that Jesus would have been familiar with or chosen over the Hebrew.

The third part I colored is very familiar, but I don’t think most people know that it’s a lingistic mistake by Mark. He takes that passage almost word for word from Psalms 118:25-26:

Hosanna, O Lord…
Blessed be he who enters in the name of the Lord.

Praise him in the highest!

Mark renders it thusly:
Hosanna!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna in the highest!

Mark accidentally says “Hosanna in the highest,” at the end instead of “praise him in the highest,” which is what the Psalm says. The problem with this is that the word “Hosanna” in Hebrew means “Save us,” “help” “I pray.” It’s a cry for help, not a word of praise. “Hosanna in the highest” would be gibberish in either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, and no crowd in Jerusalem would have said it.
Matthew made an even dumber mistake. He (ridiculously) misunderstood Zechariah to be saying that Jesus rode on two animals at once (…riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass…), and crafted his narrative accordingly:

Mt 21:1-7

As they approached Jerusalem…Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet:
Say to the daughter of Zion, “See your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them

That pretty much cinches it. Matthew and Mark are both working from Zechariah, not history.

23

Yes, Paul the Apostle possessed an epistle so truly colossal it made the girls whistle!
(Credit to Handelsman, of “Freaky Fables,” from the old Punch magazine.)

24

Yes, Asimov commented on that in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. Hebrew poetry often works by parallelism, saying the same thing two different ways – “I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.”* (Lamech has only killed one man.) “I am neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son.” (To be a son of x is to be x.)
*Or, “I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.” Better translation to modern English, but it doesn’t have the same poetry.

25

Neither of you has anything to say now?

26

Of course the inclusion of a single misused word in a scene does not prove that the entire scene is fictional, especially when the scene in question involved a large number of people shouting. In such a circumstance it would be impossible to record what everyone says and any attempt would necessarily be imperfect.

27

You’re seriously contending that Mark was recording some witness’s misunderstanding of what the crowd was saying, and that this misunderstanding just happens to coincidentally look like a word for word copy from Psalms with the wrong word word copied at the end?

Why does Mark have Jesus fulfilling the Septuaguint version of Zecharaiah instead of the Hebrew?

Did Jesus ride on two animals or one? Was Matthew writing his own eyewitness testimony (as is the tradition) and Jesus really was riding two animals at once? If so, then why did Mark and Luke get it wrong?

28

This is the business we’ve chosen.

And, well, also this: the tendency others at this board have identified in you, to stake out some minor hill and die on it (and in my case, try to pick a fight with someone who wasn’t even disagreeing with you) is really sad to see. It seriously diminishes the respect you once had from me in this one area (Bible interpretation).

Y’know, since you ask…

29

I am not contending any such thing, but merely pointing out that when you have a large crowd shouting you wouldn’t expect anyone in ancient times to record what they said. Mark took a passage from Psalm 118 with one word rendered incorrectly. It’s a big leap from there to saying that the entire triumphal entry is demonstrably a fabrication.

Concering the location of Bethany and Bethpage, I was under the impression that the exact location of Bethpage in Christ’s time (see p. 58 in the link below), the church at the supposed location dating from long after, but given that Mark doesn’t even really assert an order for arriving at the two I don’t see much significance. Concering the use of the phrase “unbroken colt” I would have to see a cite backing up the claim that that phrase is only in the LXX and not in the Hebrew Bible. Even if it was, however, there were precedents in scripture for attaching special and sacred importance to unbroken aniamls. (see p. 60 below) The question of Matthew does not relate to the authenticity of Mark’s account, assuming Mark came first. The entire episode can be defended at length, as in this thesis.

30

So you admit that Mark copied from Psalms, he wasn’t recording anything said by witnesses.

This is lame. In the grammar of Greek makes it clear they came first into Bethpage, then Bethany. I know it’s pointless to try to argue about that with you, but it’s far from Mark’s worst geographical mistake.

Here you go. The Septuagint version is underneath the Hebrew.

Not relevant since Jesus was suppoosedly fulfilling the specific prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, which doesn’t have that qualification in the Hebrew.

I never said it did. I said it shows that Matthew was working from Zechariah. For whatever reason. He probably thought he was correcting a mistake (as Matthew sometimes corrects Mark’s geographical mistakes). Matthew does, however, copy Mark’s “Hosanna” mistake, showing that Matthew didn’t know Hebrew any better than Mark did.

I would prefer that you do the defending by yourself rather than linking to an apologist pdf.

31

The location argument is as lame as responding to someone who says “I drove from Wisconsin to Minneapolis and St. Paul” by pointing out that they actually drove to St. Paul and Minneapolis. On the donkey issue, Mark does not specifically references the prophecy from Zecharia. If there’s other precedent for why Jesus would choose an unbroken colt, then there’s no reason to assume that Mark made it up. Look, you know a great deal about the Bible, the relevant languages, and textual criticism, and everybody is duly impressed by you, but you’d be a lot more impressive if you stuck to actual, verifiable facts rather than making sweeping statements that you can’t defend. If you’d just limited yourself to analyzing certain words or phrases within this passage, you’d be in fine shape. But instead you said this:

which you can’t defend, and now you’re flailing around. Well have fun.

32

Nice try, but Bethpage and Bethany are not Twin Cities or a conventionally paired set like that.

What other precedent is there?

I made a comment about something that is fairly commonly acknowledged in Biblical scholarship, and I backed it up with full quotes and cites.

You didn’t answer my question about whether Jesus rode on two animals or one.

33

:rolleyes: Jesus wasn’t killed for religious reasons but for insulting Roman hegemony. Pilate’s role in the affair was whitewashed by the evengelists.

34

The pdf you linked to earlier is full of cites to authors questioning the authenticity of Jesus’s triumphant entry into Jeruselm. Its silly to pretend that its some crazy indefensible idea of DtC’s.

35

You think I don’t know this stuff? I was playing along with a fundy.

36

This is one case where Diogenes has clearly explained his reasoning and backed up what he initially claimed. You’re free to disagree with him, ITR Champion, but it’s not fair to say he’s flailing and unable to defend his statement.

37

Either that or the story changed in the various retellings, possibly adding and changing things. Like a game of telephone. Different people describing the same events make such mistakes. It may very well be that this didn’t happen and that it is myth and embellished myth, but that is not as certain as you say. See Roshomon.

38

How would the story changing explain how the wording seems to be so clearly lifted from the Septuagint?

39

To put my initial claim another way, even if there was some kind original historical basis for the story, the Gospel versions are still lifted from the LXX, not from anecdotal or oral history.

40

Or at least portions of it. Heaven forbid that one religious tradition has roots in another. What is interesting is how it happened and what new twists there are. Do you get as worked up when this sort of thing is done with Arthurian legends?

There is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes