This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peter also opposed the practice of circumcision in the first century. His name has been added to that of Paul.
Basic information on the nature of circumcision and the dominant Hellinistic culture is necessary for full understanding. Truthbomber
You have done a good condensation and a removal of irrelevant material that was inserted in the article by others. Truthbomber
Jayjg: If the statement about the Noahide laws is to stay, we need a citation to support the statement. Christian Knight 00:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please verify this information: "However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping." Where do you find that the council retained this in the bible? I think that it is preety clear that this was not the case in 1 Corinthinans 8 where paul does not lay down a legal law but a law of love that is accorodance with the law of the spriti that frees man from all laws pertaining to meriting righteousness. In this situation the Judaizers are telling the chrisitians at Corinth that they cannot eat meat sacrificed to idols. Pauls pint is most clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 10:25-27 "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake." If Paul were establishing this as a rule of Holiness then he would tell them to besure that nothing was taken that was polutted by idols but he is not. He clearly states that all is the Lords. In verses 28-30 he institutes a rule of love saying, "But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? He makes clear three things:
Therefore, I think this sentence needs to be verified.
Sources
See John Gill on Acts 15:21. He Provides the reasoning that if the Gentiles are hearing that they are free they may go to the Jews and disturb the synagouge worship which shows that the letter [Acts 15:23-29] is writtn to Gentiles not Jews.
It may be more correct/neutral to say that Paul opposed the Judaizers. Peter and James may have mediated in the dispute and not specifically belonged to either group. The conclusion of the council is a determination by James (showing his authority), not a vote or consensus or appeal to other authority such as the Jerusalem Priest or Prefect or Roman Emperor.
My suggestion is that the second sentence be modified as such:
The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those derogatively called Judaizers, who believed gentiles must observe the rules of Judaism, specifically circumcision, and those, such as Paul of Tarsus, the self proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles", who believed there was no such necessity for gentiles.
It most certainly is not. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it. In the Incident at Antioch Paul publicly accuses Peter of Judaizing. Check the cites at Judaize
The Greek is Ioudaizo (to live like a Jew) and it occurs twice in the Greek Bible:
It occurs once in the Septuagint, in Esther 8:16-17 written around 200bce in Susa, Persia:
It occurs once in the New Testament, in Paul's Letter to the Galatians 2:14 (part of the "Incident at Antioch") written around the year 50:
"Council of Jerusalem" is an anachronism applied to Acts chapter 15.
According to the Greek (NA27) of Acts 15: Some people from Judea were teaching that if you aren't circumcised then you can't be saved. Paul and Barnabas argued with them and they arranged for Paul and Barnabas to see the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about it. In Jerusalem, with the church and apostles and elders, some of the Pharisee party told them that Gentiles have to be circumcised because they have to proclaim and keep the Law of Moses. Peter asked "Why are you trying to put the yoke around their necks since neither we or our fathers were able to bear it?" Paul and Barnabas recounted the "signs and wonders" God had worked among the Gentiles through them. Then James made his statement: he quoted from the Prophets and then he said his judgement was not to bother the Gentiles. But they should write to them about avoiding the pollution of idolatrous sacrifices and unchastity and meat of strangled animals and blood since the Law of Moses was proclaimed from city to city since time immemorial and was read every Sabbath. Then the apostles and elders decided to send Judas Barabbas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to spread word of James' judgement. In writing, James, with unanimous accord, had decided not to burden them with anything more than to stay clear of sacrifices to idols, blood, strangled meat and unchastity.
Jayjg claims: The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those, such as James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity. The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping.
Where do you find: "cleavage", between James and Paul, James believed the church must observe Judaism, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement?
These are all your POV, not facts of evidence. They do not exist in Acts 15.
Please read this first before you take any more actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
As a side note on your claim that Paul rejected Judaism: Acts 16 has Paul personally circumcise Timothy even though his father was Greek because his mother was Jewish. Rather unusual act for someone who has rejected Judaism (more proper Law of Moses) as you claim.
Marcionism is the first to reject the Law of Moses.
Anonymous editor, please sign your posts by following them with ~~~~.
Jayjg, cleavage is not a good word to use. "Dispute" perhaps, although I personally lean in favor of "machaloqeth"... Tomer TALK 06:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Paul's conflict with James starts at Acts 21:17
Sentence 1: "The council was convened as the result of the disagreement within the early Christian community between those, such as the followers of James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism1, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity"
The council was convened to resolve the dispute between Paul and those who taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation, see Acts 15. James, more or less, ruled in Paul's favor by declaring that Christians should not bother Gentiles turning to God about circumcision but instead should teach what in later Judaism is called the Noahide Laws, see Acts 15. James and Paul were both Torah observant Jews, James is obvious, for Paul see Acts 16 and 21. Thus the claim that Paul believed there was no necessity to observe the Law of Moses is false. Paul simply believed that it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised. "Traditional Judaism" has no meaning in the time period of the first century and second temple Judaism. The reference to Galations 2:12 is irrelevant as it is not about the Council of Jerusalem and it documents a dispute between Paul and Peter not Paul and James.
Sentence 2: "The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement."
That is not what the council resolved, see Acts 15. "Possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement" is a complete speculation. The reference to Acts 15:19 does not say that, again we have a problem with sticking to the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
* if only a few statements seem inaccurate: o insert dubious – discuss after the relevant sentence or paragraph. o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
* if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
o paste
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2008) |
in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
Someone left a request for a 3rd opinion... so, what's the problem? If there's two folk here at logger heads, could you each briefly outline your view of the issue? Please don't start replying to each other - just let your original statements make your points. Dan100 00:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
First, can I ask people to sign their comments (you can do this by typing ~~~~)? I can't tell who is saying what.
Second, the 'summary' above is rather long and rambling - it's rather mis-named :-). So - thanks to Wetman for putting his position - now I'd like to hear from the person who disagrees with his proposal. Dan100 11:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Acts and Paul's letters present two differing views of the events between Paul and the Jerusalem Church; relying only on Acts would be misleading. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it worth summarizing the position of this book on the Council of Jerusalem for this article? If yes, would someone who has read the book do it?
I'm not sure how to insert this matter into this dispute, but these points are relevent:
1. Both Acts 15 & Galatians 2 describe the same meeting. This has been accepted by NT scholars. Allow me to quote from Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (where by "Gal" he means the Epistle to the Galatians:
(As I type Brown's words, I feel does a nice & succinct job of explaining the issues for these 2 sources.) Also, this is not Brown's unique opinion on the matter -- as he indicates with the words "Scholars tend to prefer" -- but is shared by a number of different experts; for example, the notes in my copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible to this section of Acts refers to Galatians 2.
2. The two accounts are very different. The author of Acts limits his account to explaining what the members gathered agreed to -- that all Christians should observe several specific points of Mosaic Law (listed at 15:23-9). Paul says only that he was given the authority to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who were to be treated as the equal of the Jewish Christians.
I could speculate here on why they are so different (although Brown, in the passage I quoted above, offers a better analysis than I could), but I feel it's more important to acknowledge that if the sources disagree over what was discussed & agreed to at this Council, then it should be no surprise that a number of editors would hotly disagree over what happened. May I suggest that the two accounts are both offered, followed by some research over what various authorities have said about this issue?
3. This council assumed great influence over early Christianity. Because it was the first synod of Christianity, over the next few centuries (IIRC, until AD 400) a number of writings appeared which claimed to be the decisions of that council; one example would be the Apostolic Constitutions. AFAIK, no authority seriously believes their claims; they instead read these works as evidence that various factions in later ecclesiastical disputes attempted to drape the authority of this council over their arguments. Neither this article nor Apostolic Council addresses this aspect of the subject -- that this council had a lasting doctrinal effect upon Christianity. (Although from the heat of this dispute, I'm sure no one would be surprised of this fact.)
As a result, I believe this article should try to document at least the earliest examples of various doctrines or beliefs which claimed to have been advocated at this council. While that would admit a number of POVs -- some of which might strain the credulity of Wikipedians -- at least it would help explain the differing opinions we may see about this subject. -- llywrch 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, a possible outline:
1. Council of Jerusalem according to Acts 15:1-35
2. Council of Jerusalem according to Galatians 2:1-10
(making note that there are some scholars who dispute that this is a record of the Council of Jerusalem)
3. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts
4. Other early claims of record, such as the Apostolic Constitutions
(btw a very interesting document, approved by Orthodox Christianity: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-39.htm#TopOfPage)
another source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Since the Didache claims to be the teachings of the 12 Apostles and the only known Apostolic Council is the Council of Jerusalem, seems like it's relevant also: http://earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
5. Other attempts to reconstruct what actually happened at the Council of Jerusalem
This is a big project, seems do-able though, after this - the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-21)? 209.78.20.203 22:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"paraggellein te terein" = proclaim and keep, not proclaim [them to] keep"
So Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN:0933999992: "But some of the Pharisee party who were believers stood up and said, "They have to be circumcised; we have to proclaim and keep the law of Moses.""
The KJV translation shows [them] is an addition.
According to Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the Western Version of Acts has for 15:2 "...for Paul spoke maintaining firmly that they should stay as they were when converted; but those who had come from Jerusalem ordered them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question." (anon. edit by 64.169.6.194)
"Who it was that was responsible for the additional information concerning the apostolic age or where it came from is entirely unknown. According to F.G. Kenyon (Text of the Greek Bible), "What one would like to suppose (but for which there is no external evidence), is that one of St. Paul's companions transcribed Luke's book (perhaps after the author's death), and inserted details of which he had personal knowledge, and made other alterations in accordance with his own taste in a matter on which he was entitled to regard himself as having authority equal to that of Luke."" -Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek NT 64.169.0.206 07:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Western Acts has the negative form of the Golden Rule instead of the prohibition of things strangled in the "Apostolic Decree" (15.20,29). The Didache also cites the negative Golden Rule. 64.169.7.34 08:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Acts_of_the_Apostles#Manuscripts
What does the ew edit with Josephus' story of King Izates and his circumcision have to do with the Council of Jerusalem. If it's relevant, would someone edit it and make it so. -- Wetman 07:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll change the section title to "Historical Context", if you guys just don't get it feel free to erase it.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukejosephus.html http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl79/Comm12m.htm http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html
http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/lukejose.htm http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3679/is_200101/ai_n8932530 http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels2.htm http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/Law.htm http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_199907/ai_n8852822 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/30-2-05.htm
What translation translates Porneia as "unlawful marriage"?
I find: KJV: fornication; NRSV: fornication; NIV: sexual immorality; Young's Literal: whoredom; Gaus: unchastity; BAGD Lexicon: prostitution 64.169.2.246 28 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
Might it help to know that Porneia is the word we get the term Pornography from? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
The primary Lexicon of NT Greek and other early Christian lit (cites other Koine works as well) is Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, called BAGD above. For porneia it has: prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. It lists two subsections: subsection 1 is the literal meaning and this is where the Apostolic Decree is filed, subsection 2 is the figurative meaning of apostasy from God as the relationship is seen as a type of marriage. No doubt somebody sometime wrote a paper claiming the Apostolic Decree was meant figuratively, but I wouldn't know who.
Paul seems to define porneia in 1 Corinthians 5-7, food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and the collection for Jerusalem in 1 Corinthians 16. Colossians 3 may be his record of the Apostolic Decree. And of course the "Law of Moses" has definitions of porneia.
The Roman Catholic NAB translates porneia as "unlawful marriage." See Acts 15:20. Along with this explanation in their footnotes:
"According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews."
That is also the standard translation of all Catholic Bibles I have run into, so if we're going to preach NPOV, let's stop just pushing Protestant theology here. -- Damiel 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
1. James the Just was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians, in fact, he exceeded the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) as he was a Nazirite.
2. Jesus was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians today.
3. Paul of Tarsus was Torah observant, a shocker to many Christians, particularly Lutherans, but part of the New Perspective on Paul pioneered by E. P. Sanders and James Dunn (theologian).
4. Some early Christians were Torah observant, others were Gnostics or Marcionites or Montanists.
5. Jewish Christians were Torah observant.
6. Some Ethiopian Orthodox today are Torah observant, in fact the church claims to be the only church free of Marcionism.
7. Some Messianic Jews today are Torah observant.
"Anyone who is interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity and who has not engaged with the works of James D. G. Dunn is not really interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity."
The article is extremely messy, and seems obsessed with circumcision, but other than that doesn't strike me as particularly biased, at this moment in time. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Yes, but your website appears to be an extreme minority view. Please quote someone who is actually citeable. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)
You keep failing to respond to the issue at hand; Dunn doesn't make the connection, only you and your site do. This is the third time I've pointed that out now. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
This important but apparently highly disputed article will, I hope, settle down. It's far too crucial an event to leave the article as messy as it is.
I have NO desire to get involved in the dispute, but as someone who has not really been engaged in this dispute, I thought I'd offer a few suggestions:
May God bless you as you work this stuff out; I hope you do so successfully and that we have a wonderful, undisputed, NPOV article soon. I meant to offend no one and am sorry if I have...just wanted to offer some suggestions. KHM03 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peter also opposed the practice of circumcision in the first century. His name has been added to that of Paul.
Basic information on the nature of circumcision and the dominant Hellinistic culture is necessary for full understanding. Truthbomber
You have done a good condensation and a removal of irrelevant material that was inserted in the article by others. Truthbomber
Jayjg: If the statement about the Noahide laws is to stay, we need a citation to support the statement. Christian Knight 00:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please verify this information: "However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping." Where do you find that the council retained this in the bible? I think that it is preety clear that this was not the case in 1 Corinthinans 8 where paul does not lay down a legal law but a law of love that is accorodance with the law of the spriti that frees man from all laws pertaining to meriting righteousness. In this situation the Judaizers are telling the chrisitians at Corinth that they cannot eat meat sacrificed to idols. Pauls pint is most clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 10:25-27 "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake." If Paul were establishing this as a rule of Holiness then he would tell them to besure that nothing was taken that was polutted by idols but he is not. He clearly states that all is the Lords. In verses 28-30 he institutes a rule of love saying, "But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? He makes clear three things:
Therefore, I think this sentence needs to be verified.
Sources
See John Gill on Acts 15:21. He Provides the reasoning that if the Gentiles are hearing that they are free they may go to the Jews and disturb the synagouge worship which shows that the letter [Acts 15:23-29] is writtn to Gentiles not Jews.
It may be more correct/neutral to say that Paul opposed the Judaizers. Peter and James may have mediated in the dispute and not specifically belonged to either group. The conclusion of the council is a determination by James (showing his authority), not a vote or consensus or appeal to other authority such as the Jerusalem Priest or Prefect or Roman Emperor.
My suggestion is that the second sentence be modified as such:
The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those derogatively called Judaizers, who believed gentiles must observe the rules of Judaism, specifically circumcision, and those, such as Paul of Tarsus, the self proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles", who believed there was no such necessity for gentiles.
It most certainly is not. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it. In the Incident at Antioch Paul publicly accuses Peter of Judaizing. Check the cites at Judaize
The Greek is Ioudaizo (to live like a Jew) and it occurs twice in the Greek Bible:
It occurs once in the Septuagint, in Esther 8:16-17 written around 200bce in Susa, Persia:
It occurs once in the New Testament, in Paul's Letter to the Galatians 2:14 (part of the "Incident at Antioch") written around the year 50:
"Council of Jerusalem" is an anachronism applied to Acts chapter 15.
According to the Greek (NA27) of Acts 15: Some people from Judea were teaching that if you aren't circumcised then you can't be saved. Paul and Barnabas argued with them and they arranged for Paul and Barnabas to see the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about it. In Jerusalem, with the church and apostles and elders, some of the Pharisee party told them that Gentiles have to be circumcised because they have to proclaim and keep the Law of Moses. Peter asked "Why are you trying to put the yoke around their necks since neither we or our fathers were able to bear it?" Paul and Barnabas recounted the "signs and wonders" God had worked among the Gentiles through them. Then James made his statement: he quoted from the Prophets and then he said his judgement was not to bother the Gentiles. But they should write to them about avoiding the pollution of idolatrous sacrifices and unchastity and meat of strangled animals and blood since the Law of Moses was proclaimed from city to city since time immemorial and was read every Sabbath. Then the apostles and elders decided to send Judas Barabbas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to spread word of James' judgement. In writing, James, with unanimous accord, had decided not to burden them with anything more than to stay clear of sacrifices to idols, blood, strangled meat and unchastity.
Jayjg claims: The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those, such as James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity. The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping.
Where do you find: "cleavage", between James and Paul, James believed the church must observe Judaism, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement?
These are all your POV, not facts of evidence. They do not exist in Acts 15.
Please read this first before you take any more actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
As a side note on your claim that Paul rejected Judaism: Acts 16 has Paul personally circumcise Timothy even though his father was Greek because his mother was Jewish. Rather unusual act for someone who has rejected Judaism (more proper Law of Moses) as you claim.
Marcionism is the first to reject the Law of Moses.
Anonymous editor, please sign your posts by following them with ~~~~.
Jayjg, cleavage is not a good word to use. "Dispute" perhaps, although I personally lean in favor of "machaloqeth"... Tomer TALK 06:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Paul's conflict with James starts at Acts 21:17
Sentence 1: "The council was convened as the result of the disagreement within the early Christian community between those, such as the followers of James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism1, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity"
The council was convened to resolve the dispute between Paul and those who taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation, see Acts 15. James, more or less, ruled in Paul's favor by declaring that Christians should not bother Gentiles turning to God about circumcision but instead should teach what in later Judaism is called the Noahide Laws, see Acts 15. James and Paul were both Torah observant Jews, James is obvious, for Paul see Acts 16 and 21. Thus the claim that Paul believed there was no necessity to observe the Law of Moses is false. Paul simply believed that it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised. "Traditional Judaism" has no meaning in the time period of the first century and second temple Judaism. The reference to Galations 2:12 is irrelevant as it is not about the Council of Jerusalem and it documents a dispute between Paul and Peter not Paul and James.
Sentence 2: "The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement."
That is not what the council resolved, see Acts 15. "Possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement" is a complete speculation. The reference to Acts 15:19 does not say that, again we have a problem with sticking to the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
* if only a few statements seem inaccurate: o insert dubious – discuss after the relevant sentence or paragraph. o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
* if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
o paste
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2008) |
in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
Someone left a request for a 3rd opinion... so, what's the problem? If there's two folk here at logger heads, could you each briefly outline your view of the issue? Please don't start replying to each other - just let your original statements make your points. Dan100 00:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
First, can I ask people to sign their comments (you can do this by typing ~~~~)? I can't tell who is saying what.
Second, the 'summary' above is rather long and rambling - it's rather mis-named :-). So - thanks to Wetman for putting his position - now I'd like to hear from the person who disagrees with his proposal. Dan100 11:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Acts and Paul's letters present two differing views of the events between Paul and the Jerusalem Church; relying only on Acts would be misleading. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it worth summarizing the position of this book on the Council of Jerusalem for this article? If yes, would someone who has read the book do it?
I'm not sure how to insert this matter into this dispute, but these points are relevent:
1. Both Acts 15 & Galatians 2 describe the same meeting. This has been accepted by NT scholars. Allow me to quote from Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (where by "Gal" he means the Epistle to the Galatians:
(As I type Brown's words, I feel does a nice & succinct job of explaining the issues for these 2 sources.) Also, this is not Brown's unique opinion on the matter -- as he indicates with the words "Scholars tend to prefer" -- but is shared by a number of different experts; for example, the notes in my copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible to this section of Acts refers to Galatians 2.
2. The two accounts are very different. The author of Acts limits his account to explaining what the members gathered agreed to -- that all Christians should observe several specific points of Mosaic Law (listed at 15:23-9). Paul says only that he was given the authority to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who were to be treated as the equal of the Jewish Christians.
I could speculate here on why they are so different (although Brown, in the passage I quoted above, offers a better analysis than I could), but I feel it's more important to acknowledge that if the sources disagree over what was discussed & agreed to at this Council, then it should be no surprise that a number of editors would hotly disagree over what happened. May I suggest that the two accounts are both offered, followed by some research over what various authorities have said about this issue?
3. This council assumed great influence over early Christianity. Because it was the first synod of Christianity, over the next few centuries (IIRC, until AD 400) a number of writings appeared which claimed to be the decisions of that council; one example would be the Apostolic Constitutions. AFAIK, no authority seriously believes their claims; they instead read these works as evidence that various factions in later ecclesiastical disputes attempted to drape the authority of this council over their arguments. Neither this article nor Apostolic Council addresses this aspect of the subject -- that this council had a lasting doctrinal effect upon Christianity. (Although from the heat of this dispute, I'm sure no one would be surprised of this fact.)
As a result, I believe this article should try to document at least the earliest examples of various doctrines or beliefs which claimed to have been advocated at this council. While that would admit a number of POVs -- some of which might strain the credulity of Wikipedians -- at least it would help explain the differing opinions we may see about this subject. -- llywrch 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, a possible outline:
1. Council of Jerusalem according to Acts 15:1-35
2. Council of Jerusalem according to Galatians 2:1-10
(making note that there are some scholars who dispute that this is a record of the Council of Jerusalem)
3. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts
4. Other early claims of record, such as the Apostolic Constitutions
(btw a very interesting document, approved by Orthodox Christianity: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-39.htm#TopOfPage)
another source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Since the Didache claims to be the teachings of the 12 Apostles and the only known Apostolic Council is the Council of Jerusalem, seems like it's relevant also: http://earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
5. Other attempts to reconstruct what actually happened at the Council of Jerusalem
This is a big project, seems do-able though, after this - the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-21)? 209.78.20.203 22:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"paraggellein te terein" = proclaim and keep, not proclaim [them to] keep"
So Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN:0933999992: "But some of the Pharisee party who were believers stood up and said, "They have to be circumcised; we have to proclaim and keep the law of Moses.""
The KJV translation shows [them] is an addition.
According to Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the Western Version of Acts has for 15:2 "...for Paul spoke maintaining firmly that they should stay as they were when converted; but those who had come from Jerusalem ordered them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question." (anon. edit by 64.169.6.194)
"Who it was that was responsible for the additional information concerning the apostolic age or where it came from is entirely unknown. According to F.G. Kenyon (Text of the Greek Bible), "What one would like to suppose (but for which there is no external evidence), is that one of St. Paul's companions transcribed Luke's book (perhaps after the author's death), and inserted details of which he had personal knowledge, and made other alterations in accordance with his own taste in a matter on which he was entitled to regard himself as having authority equal to that of Luke."" -Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek NT 64.169.0.206 07:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Western Acts has the negative form of the Golden Rule instead of the prohibition of things strangled in the "Apostolic Decree" (15.20,29). The Didache also cites the negative Golden Rule. 64.169.7.34 08:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Acts_of_the_Apostles#Manuscripts
What does the ew edit with Josephus' story of King Izates and his circumcision have to do with the Council of Jerusalem. If it's relevant, would someone edit it and make it so. -- Wetman 07:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll change the section title to "Historical Context", if you guys just don't get it feel free to erase it.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukejosephus.html http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl79/Comm12m.htm http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html
http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/lukejose.htm http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3679/is_200101/ai_n8932530 http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels2.htm http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/Law.htm http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_199907/ai_n8852822 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/30-2-05.htm
What translation translates Porneia as "unlawful marriage"?
I find: KJV: fornication; NRSV: fornication; NIV: sexual immorality; Young's Literal: whoredom; Gaus: unchastity; BAGD Lexicon: prostitution 64.169.2.246 28 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
Might it help to know that Porneia is the word we get the term Pornography from? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
The primary Lexicon of NT Greek and other early Christian lit (cites other Koine works as well) is Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, called BAGD above. For porneia it has: prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. It lists two subsections: subsection 1 is the literal meaning and this is where the Apostolic Decree is filed, subsection 2 is the figurative meaning of apostasy from God as the relationship is seen as a type of marriage. No doubt somebody sometime wrote a paper claiming the Apostolic Decree was meant figuratively, but I wouldn't know who.
Paul seems to define porneia in 1 Corinthians 5-7, food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and the collection for Jerusalem in 1 Corinthians 16. Colossians 3 may be his record of the Apostolic Decree. And of course the "Law of Moses" has definitions of porneia.
The Roman Catholic NAB translates porneia as "unlawful marriage." See Acts 15:20. Along with this explanation in their footnotes:
"According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews."
That is also the standard translation of all Catholic Bibles I have run into, so if we're going to preach NPOV, let's stop just pushing Protestant theology here. -- Damiel 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
1. James the Just was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians, in fact, he exceeded the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) as he was a Nazirite.
2. Jesus was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians today.
3. Paul of Tarsus was Torah observant, a shocker to many Christians, particularly Lutherans, but part of the New Perspective on Paul pioneered by E. P. Sanders and James Dunn (theologian).
4. Some early Christians were Torah observant, others were Gnostics or Marcionites or Montanists.
5. Jewish Christians were Torah observant.
6. Some Ethiopian Orthodox today are Torah observant, in fact the church claims to be the only church free of Marcionism.
7. Some Messianic Jews today are Torah observant.
"Anyone who is interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity and who has not engaged with the works of James D. G. Dunn is not really interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity."
The article is extremely messy, and seems obsessed with circumcision, but other than that doesn't strike me as particularly biased, at this moment in time. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Yes, but your website appears to be an extreme minority view. Please quote someone who is actually citeable. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)
You keep failing to respond to the issue at hand; Dunn doesn't make the connection, only you and your site do. This is the third time I've pointed that out now. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
This important but apparently highly disputed article will, I hope, settle down. It's far too crucial an event to leave the article as messy as it is.
I have NO desire to get involved in the dispute, but as someone who has not really been engaged in this dispute, I thought I'd offer a few suggestions:
May God bless you as you work this stuff out; I hope you do so successfully and that we have a wonderful, undisputed, NPOV article soon. I meant to offend no one and am sorry if I have...just wanted to offer some suggestions. KHM03 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)