Thanks John, really interesting post. Is there a scholarly consensus that James was actually Jesus’ brother as opposed to cousin? As I understand it the Catholic faith favours the latter translation in order to defend their Marian doctrines.
Thank you, I don't know any scholars who think that James was Jesus' cousin – presumably some Catholics do, but I'm not aware of it as a mainstream critical view. The big question is whether they were full or half-brothers. Both are on the table, but it may well be that James was Jesus' half-brother – the family in Mark is very large, so unless we are to think that all of those children were Mary's, we might think that Joseph had them in another marriage. (That is an aspect of the 'Catholic' view which I find plausible.)
What strikes me in Paul’s list is the silence on Mary. In 1 Corinthians 15 he names Cephas, the Twelve, James, the apostles, and then himself. Yet all four gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was the first witness. And not just of the empty tomb — she was there at the crucifixion, at the burial, and at the resurrection. No one else in the record is present at all three.
If Paul is our earliest source, the absence of Mary says as much as his inclusions. Either her testimony was discounted in the public square, or the tradition was already being reshaped around male authority. But Jesus had already said of Mary, “she has chosen the better part, and it will not be taken away from her.” In that light, her witness stands as the patronage of an enduring contemplative lineage, and the fruit of that tree still ripens in every generation that dares to listen.
Excellent - great post. I am looking forward to the follow up too.
How Paul got his material is the most intriguing and here are the three passages on it that I am aware of:
ESV
A] Gal 1v11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
B] 1Cor11v23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”......
C] 1Cor15v3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ………... 11 Whether then it was I or they (< ‘the apostles’), so we preach and so you believed.
When these three passages by Paul are put together it raises some questions. (A) is clear that the receiving is not from humans but from Jesus (in his divine post ascension state), while (B) on first take looks to be the same, but is odd in context as you say, and (C) in context seems to be from humans - the apostles.
Is the 1Cor15 material really not the gospel, because Paul got the gospel from Jesus not men (A)?
In the context of A & C, where the origin is specified fairly clearly, B should fit in the ‘from Jesus’ category. But the content is really strange for that interpretation, as you say. So why did Paul specify ‘I received from the Lord’?
Hi John, thank you so much for another very interesting post. There are a few points where I see things differently, but since some of those have already been raised in other comments (and you’ve responded to them), I’ll focus here just on Jesus’s miracles.
You wrote: “I find it highly improbable that Paul did not know anything about Jesus's miracle-working ministry, even if he does not cite specific examples.”
I would actually push back on this.
Point 1: In Paul’s letters, it’s clear that what enables Jesus’s followers to perform charismata (miracles) is their reception of the Spirit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:7–10, Paul says: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good… to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.”
Point 2: For Paul, Jesus himself only receives the Spirit at his resurrection. In Romans 1:4, Paul writes that Jesus was “appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” And even if we take the Philippians hymn (Philippians 2:6–7), Paul describes Jesus as one who “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” This suggests that (even if pre-existent) he relinquished special power and only (re)gained the Pneuma of God at the resurrection. That would imply Paul did not think Jesus performed charismata during his earthly life.
Point 3: Mark, who I think was familiar with Paul’s letters (among other reasons, because of their shared understanding of the Stoic physics concept of pneuma), depicts Jesus receiving the Spirit at his baptism (Mark 1:10: “And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.”). This corresponds to the moment when believers in the Pauline ekklesia also received the Pneuma (as Mark was aware of). If Jesus’s followers could perform healings, prophecies, tongues, etc because of the Spirit, then so could Jesus after his own baptism. That’s why, in Mark’s narrative, Jesus begins performing miracles only after John baptizes him. There’s no suggestion of such activity earlier in his life. This is why (among other reasons) the gospels (following Mark) are full of miracles whereas Paul doesn’t show any sign of being aware of these.
1. None of those "earthly" statements are found in Marcion's version of Paul's letters (reconstructions by various authors) ie Seed of David according to the flesh, Born of a woman, or Brother of the Lord. Marcion's Apostolos may be an earlier version of the Pauline Corpus.
Most of 1Cor15 is absent while still retaining some creedal allusions in Marcion's collection.
2. These "Commands" from the Lord could well be Paul talking directly to the Risen Christ himself eg
Gal1:11 Now[t] I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[u] that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.[v] 12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source;[w] instead I received it[x] by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
And 2 Cor 12:8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But[j] he said to me, “My grace is enough[k] for you, for my[l] power is made perfect[m] in weakness.”
Also, the "divorce" command does not correlate with Jesus' command in the gospels that allows for divorce in the context of adultery.
I think the bigger question is- Who is the Lord to Paul? It may just be Yahweh, the son of the Most High! If you think this is unbelievable, check out the following:
In the Dead Sea Scrolls (within secon temple Judaism), Duet 32:8 as the Diety ABOVE the Sons of God in (4QDeutj/4Q37) “Benei Elohim” or “Angelon Theo” in the Greek LXX.
(vs the Masoretic text). So El Elyon, the Most High God, divides the nations/ makes boundaries according to his sons (gods).
In the next verse Yahweh’s portion/ allotment is Israel.
8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the children of Israel God[1].
Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q44 Deuteronomyq
9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people.
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
10 He found him in a desert land,
in the waste howling wilderness.
He surrounded him.
He cared for him.
He kept him as the apple of his eye.
[..]
37 He Yahweh will say, “Where are their gods,
the rock in which they took refuge;
38 which ate the fat of their sacrifices,
and drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise up and help you!
Let them be your protection.
39 “See now that I myself am he.
There is no god with me.
Yahweh is Israel's god, and there is no other god with him (consistent with the Sh'ma).
Also:
Capes delineates instances where Paul applies Old Testament quotations/allusions that contain the tetragrammaton to Jesus of Nazereth as the referent (Rom 10:13 (Joel 2:32), Rom 14:11 (Isa 45:23), 1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9;23-24) 1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13) 1 Cor 10:26 (Ps 24:1) 2 Cor 10:17 (Jer 9:23-23), 2 Cor 3:16 (Exod 34:34), Phil 2:10-11 (Isa 45:23) 1 Thess 3:13 (Zech 14:5) effectively combining the unique divine identity of the Hebrew God יהוה, with Jesus as κύριος (Lord) and xριστός (Christ). This application by Paul is adamantly rigorous, especially when we consider Phil. 2:9-11, where Paul explicitly declares that Jesus possesses the divine name, which Gieschen demonstrates, is frequently attested and conceptualised across Second Temple Jewish literature (Son of Man in the Parables of 1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Philo of Alexandria etc.) and early New Testament traditions (aside from Paul, GJohn, Hebrews, Revelation Acts of the Apostles, GMatthew, Ascension of Isaiah etc.) as a constitutive and integral part of YHWH's unique identity as the God of Israel. (Gieschen, The Divine Name as a Characteristic of Divine Identity, p. 61-84).
And as Margaret Barker has pointed out- Paul never calls Jesus "the Lord's son". He is always called The Lord: the word for YHWH in the Septuagint.
It is likely that Deuteronomistic (or other) redactors fused these "2 powers in heaven" giving us the notion of one supreme being in the OT.
Also, Mark starts his gospel off with "Prepare the way for the Lord" whilst referencing Isaiah 40:3 "Prepare the Way for Yahweh"?
Could this be the reason why there are so many allusions that Yahweh incarnate is Jesus in Mark?
Continuing from- Could this be the reason why there are so many allusions that Yahweh incarnate is Jesus in Mark?
The Son of Man (Yawheh) is being given authority to rule the nations in Daniel 7 by the Ancient of Days (El Elyon). It is Yahweh in ancient Canaanite myth who "rides the clouds of Heaven" and defeats chaos dragons arising from the sea (also in Daniel 7) . Paul also alludes to the Lord coming on the clouds in 1Thess4.
He forgives since -
“I alone am the one who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
“Some were sick through their sinful ways and because of their iniquities endured affliction; Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress; he sent out his word and healed them and delivered them from destruction.”
And here is the Kicker-“While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
In the above statement, Mark questions how the scribes believe that the Messiah is a descendant of David when David calls Yahweh his LORD. This illustrates that Mark (and likely his stream of Judaism/ Yahwism) had a distinct messianic belief that was different from the mainstream, wherein Yahweh himself would be incarnate as the Messiah!
But did Yahweh ever claim that he is, or would be King/ Messiah over the nations?
“Thus says the Lord: I will return to Zion and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts shall be called the holy mountain. Thus says the Lord of hosts: I will save my people from the east country and from the west country, and I will bring them to live in Jerusalem. They shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness.” the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, ‘Come, let us go to entreat the favor of the Lord and to seek the Lord of hosts; I myself am going.’ Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from nations of every language shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’ ””
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. Then the Lord will appear over them, and his arrow will go forth like lightning; the Lord God will sound the trumpet and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south. On that day, the Lord their God will save them, for they are the flock of his people, for like the jewels of a crown, they shall shine on his land.”
“On that day, his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the mount shall withdraw northward and the other half southward. And you shall flee by the valley of the Lord’s mountain, for the valley between the mountains shall reach to Azal, and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come and all the holy ones with him. And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one. Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them.”
Finally, is there room to postulate whether Yahweh was seen to be a Suffering/atoning saviour God (popular in the ANE)? Yes!
Zech 12:10, 13:1
“I will pour out on the kingship[n] of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn.
“In that day, there will be a fountain opened up for the dynasty[a] of David and the people of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and impurity.
Sorry for the looong post:
But what we could be dealing with is a myth created by a form of Yahwism that gave birth to Christianity. It is only reasonable to believe that with one form of Yahwism becoming weak (with the Temple's destruction), another form of Yahwism has the opportunity to try and be relevant.
And the icing on the cake is Philo (also well withing second temple Judaism)-
On Dreams (De Somniis 1.215-216)
“For the Logos is the bond of everything, holding al things together and binding all the parts and preventing them from dissolved and separated… And even if there be not as yet anyone worthy to be called a son of God, let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born logos, the eldest of his angels as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the Authority, and the Name of God, and the Logos, and the Man after his image, and He that sees Israel”
On Dreams 1.229-230
“For nothing Mortal can be madden the likeness of the Most high, but only after the pattern of the second God who is his Logos
Above Philo Links many Christian beliefs to “ He that sees Israel” whom he deems as “ the Second God”, the firstborn of the Most high.
Hi PJK! Thanks for your engagement. There is a lot here, so I may have to confine myself to a few broad points and clarifying questions.
1. On Marcion: it may be true that those elements are not present – some are incongruous with Marcion's theology! – but I am in company with those mainstream Pauline scholars and text critics who believe that these elements are not textually disputed. So I do not find their absence in Marcion disturbing.
2. I think here we might disagree on a few points – for example whether the Son of Man is YHWH incarnate and how Mark applies YHWH language to Jesus. Yet your overall point seems to be that Paul may have been discoursing with the Risen Christ. Yet if that is the case, I am curious as to why he uses the rabbinic-sounding language of receiving/passing on tradition, why he distinguishes between this Risen Christ and his own Spirit-inspired revelations, and to why he passes on the kind of content he does (e.g. a revelation about what happened 'on the night he was betrayed' seems to me to be more plausibly a tradition deriving from the historical Jesus than a spiritual revelation. What do you make of these arguments which I raised in the piece?
Without sounding like a “know it all”, my humble view is:
1. Incongruous elements in Marcion’s Apostolos and Eungelion are precisely why many scholars think Marcion is very much “passing on” what he has collected (albeit with some handling) rather than gross manipulation of scripture (like he is accused of by his critics). In other words he appears to be more “honest” then what we make him out to be.
2. Paul uses rabbinic language because he may have been a rabbi. Here I think modern scholars anachronistically conflate mature Rabbinic Judaism with Second temple Judaism which actually allows diverse philosophical beliefs that may have allowed Gnostic and platonic elements like we see in Paul and Philo. Eg Paul believes in a demiurge (God of this world) and demonic rulers and powers who rule this aeon. He exhibits dualism (light vs dark/ flesh vs spirits/ belief in a pneumatic body etc. Philo believes in a transcendental god (I think Paul does too- and calls him “God” or “the God”) with intermediaries and emanations representing him. Paul believes that being in Christ is a step toward becoming divine. All of this however, is part of the diversity of second temple Judaism (which of course allows for rabbinic principles too).
3. I believe “betrayed” (παρεδίδετο)is not a good translation- I think given up or handed over (as an atonement). I think this stream of Judaism (as Zechariah 12) suggests, at some stage Yahweh would be pierced (Dakaru דָּקָ֑רוּ as scholars suggest is a mortal wound) for atoning for sins of mankind. The Eucharist alludes to taking part in a ritualistic belief that celebrates this (has nothing to do with Passover) and may even suggest some sort of mystery cult like behaviour.
4. I do agree that Daniel 7’s Son of Man can be interpreted in many ways- and even will accept that the author/ compiler may not have intended it to signify Yahweh (other possibilities include the Messiah/ The Collective phrase for the Holy ones etc.
However Mark (and Paul like I have shown) certainly conveys that Jesus is the pre-existent son of Man and Yahweh and Messiah. Again-
As the son of Man:
Mark 2:10 – “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”
Mark 8:31 – “The Son of Man must suffer many things, be rejected… and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
Mark 9:9 – “[Jesus] charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.”
Here “Son of Man” clearly refers to his own resurrection.
Mark 9:12 – “Elijah does come first… and how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?”
Mark 9:31 – “The Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:33 – “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered… they will mock him, spit on him, flog him, and kill him. After three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 14:21 – “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”
Mark 14:41 – “It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”
As Yahweh:
Mark in his opening few verses, also refers to Jesus as Yahweh with (by declaring “prepare the way for Yahweh” - Isaiah 40:3; “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight,’ Mark 1:3 NRSVUE. https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.1.3.NRSVUE
He forgives since -
“I alone am the one who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
“Some were sick through their sinful ways and because of their iniquities endured affliction; Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress; he sent out his word and healed them and delivered them from destruction.”
“While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
Thanks John, really interesting post. Is there a scholarly consensus that James was actually Jesus’ brother as opposed to cousin? As I understand it the Catholic faith favours the latter translation in order to defend their Marian doctrines.
Thank you, I don't know any scholars who think that James was Jesus' cousin – presumably some Catholics do, but I'm not aware of it as a mainstream critical view. The big question is whether they were full or half-brothers. Both are on the table, but it may well be that James was Jesus' half-brother – the family in Mark is very large, so unless we are to think that all of those children were Mary's, we might think that Joseph had them in another marriage. (That is an aspect of the 'Catholic' view which I find plausible.)
Thanks so much for the response.
What strikes me in Paul’s list is the silence on Mary. In 1 Corinthians 15 he names Cephas, the Twelve, James, the apostles, and then himself. Yet all four gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was the first witness. And not just of the empty tomb — she was there at the crucifixion, at the burial, and at the resurrection. No one else in the record is present at all three.
If Paul is our earliest source, the absence of Mary says as much as his inclusions. Either her testimony was discounted in the public square, or the tradition was already being reshaped around male authority. But Jesus had already said of Mary, “she has chosen the better part, and it will not be taken away from her.” In that light, her witness stands as the patronage of an enduring contemplative lineage, and the fruit of that tree still ripens in every generation that dares to listen.
Excellent - great post. I am looking forward to the follow up too.
How Paul got his material is the most intriguing and here are the three passages on it that I am aware of:
ESV
A] Gal 1v11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
B] 1Cor11v23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”......
C] 1Cor15v3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ………... 11 Whether then it was I or they (< ‘the apostles’), so we preach and so you believed.
When these three passages by Paul are put together it raises some questions. (A) is clear that the receiving is not from humans but from Jesus (in his divine post ascension state), while (B) on first take looks to be the same, but is odd in context as you say, and (C) in context seems to be from humans - the apostles.
Is the 1Cor15 material really not the gospel, because Paul got the gospel from Jesus not men (A)?
In the context of A & C, where the origin is specified fairly clearly, B should fit in the ‘from Jesus’ category. But the content is really strange for that interpretation, as you say. So why did Paul specify ‘I received from the Lord’?
Do we learn more when we read it in Greek?
I'd be keen to hear from you on this.
Hi John, thank you so much for another very interesting post. There are a few points where I see things differently, but since some of those have already been raised in other comments (and you’ve responded to them), I’ll focus here just on Jesus’s miracles.
You wrote: “I find it highly improbable that Paul did not know anything about Jesus's miracle-working ministry, even if he does not cite specific examples.”
I would actually push back on this.
Point 1: In Paul’s letters, it’s clear that what enables Jesus’s followers to perform charismata (miracles) is their reception of the Spirit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:7–10, Paul says: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good… to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.”
Point 2: For Paul, Jesus himself only receives the Spirit at his resurrection. In Romans 1:4, Paul writes that Jesus was “appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” And even if we take the Philippians hymn (Philippians 2:6–7), Paul describes Jesus as one who “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” This suggests that (even if pre-existent) he relinquished special power and only (re)gained the Pneuma of God at the resurrection. That would imply Paul did not think Jesus performed charismata during his earthly life.
Point 3: Mark, who I think was familiar with Paul’s letters (among other reasons, because of their shared understanding of the Stoic physics concept of pneuma), depicts Jesus receiving the Spirit at his baptism (Mark 1:10: “And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.”). This corresponds to the moment when believers in the Pauline ekklesia also received the Pneuma (as Mark was aware of). If Jesus’s followers could perform healings, prophecies, tongues, etc because of the Spirit, then so could Jesus after his own baptism. That’s why, in Mark’s narrative, Jesus begins performing miracles only after John baptizes him. There’s no suggestion of such activity earlier in his life. This is why (among other reasons) the gospels (following Mark) are full of miracles whereas Paul doesn’t show any sign of being aware of these.
Great Post! But some pushback-
1. None of those "earthly" statements are found in Marcion's version of Paul's letters (reconstructions by various authors) ie Seed of David according to the flesh, Born of a woman, or Brother of the Lord. Marcion's Apostolos may be an earlier version of the Pauline Corpus.
Most of 1Cor15 is absent while still retaining some creedal allusions in Marcion's collection.
2. These "Commands" from the Lord could well be Paul talking directly to the Risen Christ himself eg
Gal1:11 Now[t] I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[u] that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.[v] 12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source;[w] instead I received it[x] by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
And 2 Cor 12:8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But[j] he said to me, “My grace is enough[k] for you, for my[l] power is made perfect[m] in weakness.”
Also, the "divorce" command does not correlate with Jesus' command in the gospels that allows for divorce in the context of adultery.
I think the bigger question is- Who is the Lord to Paul? It may just be Yahweh, the son of the Most High! If you think this is unbelievable, check out the following:
In the Dead Sea Scrolls (within secon temple Judaism), Duet 32:8 as the Diety ABOVE the Sons of God in (4QDeutj/4Q37) “Benei Elohim” or “Angelon Theo” in the Greek LXX.
(vs the Masoretic text). So El Elyon, the Most High God, divides the nations/ makes boundaries according to his sons (gods).
In the next verse Yahweh’s portion/ allotment is Israel.
8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the children of Israel God[1].
Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q44 Deuteronomyq
9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people.
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
10 He found him in a desert land,
in the waste howling wilderness.
He surrounded him.
He cared for him.
He kept him as the apple of his eye.
[..]
37 He Yahweh will say, “Where are their gods,
the rock in which they took refuge;
38 which ate the fat of their sacrifices,
and drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise up and help you!
Let them be your protection.
39 “See now that I myself am he.
There is no god with me.
Yahweh is Israel's god, and there is no other god with him (consistent with the Sh'ma).
Also:
Capes delineates instances where Paul applies Old Testament quotations/allusions that contain the tetragrammaton to Jesus of Nazereth as the referent (Rom 10:13 (Joel 2:32), Rom 14:11 (Isa 45:23), 1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9;23-24) 1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13) 1 Cor 10:26 (Ps 24:1) 2 Cor 10:17 (Jer 9:23-23), 2 Cor 3:16 (Exod 34:34), Phil 2:10-11 (Isa 45:23) 1 Thess 3:13 (Zech 14:5) effectively combining the unique divine identity of the Hebrew God יהוה, with Jesus as κύριος (Lord) and xριστός (Christ). This application by Paul is adamantly rigorous, especially when we consider Phil. 2:9-11, where Paul explicitly declares that Jesus possesses the divine name, which Gieschen demonstrates, is frequently attested and conceptualised across Second Temple Jewish literature (Son of Man in the Parables of 1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Philo of Alexandria etc.) and early New Testament traditions (aside from Paul, GJohn, Hebrews, Revelation Acts of the Apostles, GMatthew, Ascension of Isaiah etc.) as a constitutive and integral part of YHWH's unique identity as the God of Israel. (Gieschen, The Divine Name as a Characteristic of Divine Identity, p. 61-84).
And as Margaret Barker has pointed out- Paul never calls Jesus "the Lord's son". He is always called The Lord: the word for YHWH in the Septuagint.
It is likely that Deuteronomistic (or other) redactors fused these "2 powers in heaven" giving us the notion of one supreme being in the OT.
Also, Mark starts his gospel off with "Prepare the way for the Lord" whilst referencing Isaiah 40:3 "Prepare the Way for Yahweh"?
Could this be the reason why there are so many allusions that Yahweh incarnate is Jesus in Mark?
Continuing from- Could this be the reason why there are so many allusions that Yahweh incarnate is Jesus in Mark?
The Son of Man (Yawheh) is being given authority to rule the nations in Daniel 7 by the Ancient of Days (El Elyon). It is Yahweh in ancient Canaanite myth who "rides the clouds of Heaven" and defeats chaos dragons arising from the sea (also in Daniel 7) . Paul also alludes to the Lord coming on the clouds in 1Thess4.
He forgives since -
“I alone am the one who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
Isaiah 43:25 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/isa.43.25.NRSVUE
He heals the sick and those who cry out to him:
“Some were sick through their sinful ways and because of their iniquities endured affliction; Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress; he sent out his word and healed them and delivered them from destruction.”
Psalms 107:17, 19-20 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.107.17-20.NRSVUE
He is Lord of the Sabbath:
“But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God..”
Exodus 20:10 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/exo.20.10.NRSVUE
He is able to walk on the sea:
“Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters,”
Isaiah 43:16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/isa.43.16.NRSVUE
Able to calm the storm/ Storm God motif:
“he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.”
Psalms 107:29 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.107.29.NRSVUE
And here is the Kicker-“While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
Mark 12:35-37 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.12.35-37.NRSVUE
Look at Psalm 110:
“The LORD says to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Psalms 110:1 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.110.1.NRSVUE
In the above statement, Mark questions how the scribes believe that the Messiah is a descendant of David when David calls Yahweh his LORD. This illustrates that Mark (and likely his stream of Judaism/ Yahwism) had a distinct messianic belief that was different from the mainstream, wherein Yahweh himself would be incarnate as the Messiah!
But did Yahweh ever claim that he is, or would be King/ Messiah over the nations?
“Thus says the Lord: I will return to Zion and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts shall be called the holy mountain. Thus says the Lord of hosts: I will save my people from the east country and from the west country, and I will bring them to live in Jerusalem. They shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness.” the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, ‘Come, let us go to entreat the favor of the Lord and to seek the Lord of hosts; I myself am going.’ Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from nations of every language shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’ ””
Zechariah 8:3, 7-8, 21-23 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.8.3-23.NRSVUE
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. Then the Lord will appear over them, and his arrow will go forth like lightning; the Lord God will sound the trumpet and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south. On that day, the Lord their God will save them, for they are the flock of his people, for like the jewels of a crown, they shall shine on his land.”
Zechariah 9:9-10, 14, 16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.9.9-16.NRSVUE
“On that day, his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the mount shall withdraw northward and the other half southward. And you shall flee by the valley of the Lord’s mountain, for the valley between the mountains shall reach to Azal, and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come and all the holy ones with him. And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one. Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them.”
Zechariah 14:4-5, 9, 16-17 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.14.4-17.NRSVUE
Finally, is there room to postulate whether Yahweh was seen to be a Suffering/atoning saviour God (popular in the ANE)? Yes!
Zech 12:10, 13:1
“I will pour out on the kingship[n] of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn.
“In that day, there will be a fountain opened up for the dynasty[a] of David and the people of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and impurity.
Sorry for the looong post:
But what we could be dealing with is a myth created by a form of Yahwism that gave birth to Christianity. It is only reasonable to believe that with one form of Yahwism becoming weak (with the Temple's destruction), another form of Yahwism has the opportunity to try and be relevant.
And the icing on the cake is Philo (also well withing second temple Judaism)-
On Dreams (De Somniis 1.215-216)
“For the Logos is the bond of everything, holding al things together and binding all the parts and preventing them from dissolved and separated… And even if there be not as yet anyone worthy to be called a son of God, let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born logos, the eldest of his angels as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the Authority, and the Name of God, and the Logos, and the Man after his image, and He that sees Israel”
On Dreams 1.229-230
“For nothing Mortal can be madden the likeness of the Most high, but only after the pattern of the second God who is his Logos
Above Philo Links many Christian beliefs to “ He that sees Israel” whom he deems as “ the Second God”, the firstborn of the Most high.
Hi PJK! Thanks for your engagement. There is a lot here, so I may have to confine myself to a few broad points and clarifying questions.
1. On Marcion: it may be true that those elements are not present – some are incongruous with Marcion's theology! – but I am in company with those mainstream Pauline scholars and text critics who believe that these elements are not textually disputed. So I do not find their absence in Marcion disturbing.
2. I think here we might disagree on a few points – for example whether the Son of Man is YHWH incarnate and how Mark applies YHWH language to Jesus. Yet your overall point seems to be that Paul may have been discoursing with the Risen Christ. Yet if that is the case, I am curious as to why he uses the rabbinic-sounding language of receiving/passing on tradition, why he distinguishes between this Risen Christ and his own Spirit-inspired revelations, and to why he passes on the kind of content he does (e.g. a revelation about what happened 'on the night he was betrayed' seems to me to be more plausibly a tradition deriving from the historical Jesus than a spiritual revelation. What do you make of these arguments which I raised in the piece?
Thanks!
Without sounding like a “know it all”, my humble view is:
1. Incongruous elements in Marcion’s Apostolos and Eungelion are precisely why many scholars think Marcion is very much “passing on” what he has collected (albeit with some handling) rather than gross manipulation of scripture (like he is accused of by his critics). In other words he appears to be more “honest” then what we make him out to be.
2. Paul uses rabbinic language because he may have been a rabbi. Here I think modern scholars anachronistically conflate mature Rabbinic Judaism with Second temple Judaism which actually allows diverse philosophical beliefs that may have allowed Gnostic and platonic elements like we see in Paul and Philo. Eg Paul believes in a demiurge (God of this world) and demonic rulers and powers who rule this aeon. He exhibits dualism (light vs dark/ flesh vs spirits/ belief in a pneumatic body etc. Philo believes in a transcendental god (I think Paul does too- and calls him “God” or “the God”) with intermediaries and emanations representing him. Paul believes that being in Christ is a step toward becoming divine. All of this however, is part of the diversity of second temple Judaism (which of course allows for rabbinic principles too).
3. I believe “betrayed” (παρεδίδετο)is not a good translation- I think given up or handed over (as an atonement). I think this stream of Judaism (as Zechariah 12) suggests, at some stage Yahweh would be pierced (Dakaru דָּקָ֑רוּ as scholars suggest is a mortal wound) for atoning for sins of mankind. The Eucharist alludes to taking part in a ritualistic belief that celebrates this (has nothing to do with Passover) and may even suggest some sort of mystery cult like behaviour.
4. I do agree that Daniel 7’s Son of Man can be interpreted in many ways- and even will accept that the author/ compiler may not have intended it to signify Yahweh (other possibilities include the Messiah/ The Collective phrase for the Holy ones etc.
However Mark (and Paul like I have shown) certainly conveys that Jesus is the pre-existent son of Man and Yahweh and Messiah. Again-
As the son of Man:
Mark 2:10 – “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”
Mark 8:31 – “The Son of Man must suffer many things, be rejected… and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
Mark 9:9 – “[Jesus] charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.”
Here “Son of Man” clearly refers to his own resurrection.
Mark 9:12 – “Elijah does come first… and how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?”
Mark 9:31 – “The Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:33 – “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered… they will mock him, spit on him, flog him, and kill him. After three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 14:21 – “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”
Mark 14:41 – “It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”
As Yahweh:
Mark in his opening few verses, also refers to Jesus as Yahweh with (by declaring “prepare the way for Yahweh” - Isaiah 40:3; “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight,’ Mark 1:3 NRSVUE. https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.1.3.NRSVUE
He forgives since -
“I alone am the one who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
Isaiah 43:25 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/isa.43.25.NRSVUE
He heals the sick and those who cry out to him:
“Some were sick through their sinful ways and because of their iniquities endured affliction; Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress; he sent out his word and healed them and delivered them from destruction.”
Psalms 107:17, 19-20 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.107.17-20.NRSVUE
He is Lord of the Sabbath:
“But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God..”
Exodus 20:10 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/exo.20.10.NRSVUE
He is able to walk on the sea:
“Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters,”
Isaiah 43:16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/isa.43.16.NRSVUE
Able to calm the storm/ Storm God motif:
“he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.”
Psalms 107:29 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.107.29.NRSVUE
And Yahweh AND Messiah:
“While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
Mark 12:35-37 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.12.35-37.NRSVUE
Look at Psalm 110:
“The LORD says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Psalms 110:1 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.110.1.NRSVUE