skepticdude

Is Paul saying he went to Jerusalem because he learned from God that he had to make that trip?

Or is he saying his journey to Jerusalem was entirely mental?

I noticed this as I pondered how unlikely it would be for Paul to have actually physically went to meet up with James (given my hypothesis, which I have argued here before, based on Galatians 2 also, that James was the leader of the Judaizers). If Paul was so sure that the Judaizers were cursed by God (Galatians 1:8-9), he cannot seriously expect to think that a physical visit to a Judaizer would accomplish anything more than what he himself could accomplish with prayer and purely mental "revelations".

First, "revelation" here is apokalupsis, the same Greek word used by the author of the Book of Revelation to characterize his spatial but purely mental, ah, "movements":

Second, kata can mean "down, against, according to", the third definition is the only one that makes sense. Paul went to Jerusalem according to (i.e., in accordance with) a revelation he had. While most English bibles use wording that makes it seem that Paul was simply making a physical journey because of mental knowledge he acquired from God about the necessity of this trip, "according to" makes the distinction between the mental knowledge and physical journey less acute. The KJV rendering "And I went up by revelation..." certainly shows that kata can be translated in a way that lessens the distinction between physical trip and mental trip. So Paul was tripping.

Third, even if Paul had explicitly declared in Galatians 2 that the Jerusalem trip was physical, he shouldn't be automatically trusted: He defined his revelations as experiences that that left him unable to figure out whether his movements were physical or mental:
Most Christian commentators are not fooled by Paul's apparant distinction here between himself and this "man" that was caught up to paradise, they all agree that "whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell" requires this man to be himself.

Fourth, we all know what caused Paul to become a Christian in the first place, right? Spiritual visions!
Fifth, it is NOT obvious that the trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is merely Paul's recollection of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, as Christian scholars are evenly divided over which exact Jerusalem visit (there were at least three) Paul is referring to here. For example, FF Bruce holds that the Galatians 2 visit concerned a famine, not the Council of Jerusalem, and the inerrantist-dominated "New American Commentary" denies the Acts 15/Galatians 2 parallel:
Therefore the spiritual interpretation I advance cannot be refuted by mere assumption that he is recollecting the Jerusalem Council, which is presented in Acts 15 as true physical history. One reason why Galatians 2 is not about Acts 15, is because of Paul's statement that the only thing the apostles requested was that he remember the poor:In the context of the Judaizer controversy, Paul stating that James, Peter and John ONLY asked him to remember the poor, makes it near certain that he was not talking about the Council of Jerusalem, which certainly asked more of Paul than mere remembrance of the poor, with it's adding three or four Noahchide laws to his gospel...or...if Paul is recollecting the Council of Jerusalem, then his version conflicts with the Acts 15 version. Many commentators feel the Galatians 2 Jerusalem-visit is the famine visit.

I therefore believe that if we interpret Paul's apokalupsis in Galatians 2 in accordance with Paul's other explanations of the manner in which he experiences these, Paul may be safely interpreted to say that his journey to Jerusalem was spiritual. That is, not physical.

Which then means his recieving from James, Peter and John the approving "right hands of fellowship" on this "visit", so critical to his desire to appear harmonious with the uncontested apostles (Galatians 2:9), was 100% mental.

While this interpretation is not very popular, it is actually in accord with what Paul himself expected his Galatian audience to believe about his apostleship!
If Paul expected the Galatians to believe his gospel represented Jesus correctly merely because of a mental "revelation", then another purely mental "visit" to Jerualem would also be readily swallowed by such converts.

I invite anybody to demonstrate why my interpretation is impossible or improbable.

If it can't be refuted, then it may very well be that Paul never did actually go meet with Peter, James and John in this scenario and authentically recieve their "right hands of fellowship". Since Paul believed himself a gospel authority inspired by God, he'd more likely have felt that a physical meeting with the Jersualem apostles would not accomplish more than his inspired self could already do with his direct access to miracle-working power (Galatians 3:5).

Hey...if they believed in mental telepathy and teleportation back then... ...then they probably wouldn't laugh quite as loudly as modern Christians do upon hearing that Paul's meeting with James was just a divinely inspired mental exercise.

Yeah, and you know that ten bucks I owe you? God showed me a spiritual $10 bill and I put it in your spiritual wallet. Now anybody that doesn't believe this, is cursed by God. Behold I, skepticdude, lie not.

rhutchin

The straightforward reading is that Paul had a revelation that prompted him to travel physically to Jerusalem. Everything we read points to a physical, personal interaction between Paul and the others, including:

1. The time - "...after fourteen years..."
2. The people with him - Barnabas and Titus
3. What was done - "set before them the gospel"
4. Reaction - Titus not required to be circumcised
5. Comparison of Paul to Peter
6. Identification of those present - James, Cephas, and John
7. Decision made - Paul to go to the gentiles; Peter to go to the Jews

There is nothing to suggest that the trip, and all that happened, was a vision.

Which argues against your hypothesis.

Clivedurdle

Except 14 years smells like a sacred number, there are questions if Damascus means Qumran so why should Paul not be talking of a new Jerusalem?

skepticdude

The fourteen years are simply a set amount of time before Paul admits he had this revelation.

Barnabas and Titus could easily converse with Paul through visions as I showed.

None of your indicators of physicality require that the trip was physical, so my hypothesis remains on the table. You also didn't answer my actual arguments.

No it doesn't. If the "mental only" hypothesis is correct, then Paul's stated harmony with the apostles sounds even more unlikely than it already did. I believe Paul's "vision" story of Galatians 2:2 is a lie either way.

skepticdude

We also have to wonder why exactly Jesus told Paul to flee Jerualem quickly, "because they will not believe you", to be sent "far" to the Gentiles:
The first half of the book of Acts shows the original apostles enduring persecution and doing miracles to overcome Jewish resistance to the gospel. Since the refusal of the Jerusalem populace to accept Christianity was never a ticket for the original apostles to leave them and flee to far away-gentile lands, this excuse being used for Paul sounds suspicious. It sounds more like a false excuse Paul concocted to cover his real reason for going far away from the location of the orignal apostles: they disagreed with his version of the gospel.

dog-on

The straight forward reading is as follows:

Marcion went to Rome to buy a seat, but was rejected. Those he visited kept his portfolio for future considertion and amendment.

There was no Jerusalem group until Constantine's mom put one in place.

Littlejohn

Nostalgia....

It is very unlikely that Paul (of Tarsus) has be came back to Jerusalem, after 14 years, to meet James, since the latter in that time was already dead, killed by Paul / Saul and his "gang" of murderers, inside the Temple (*), while preparing to baptize his followers (ebionites) gathered there. Perhaps Paul of Tarsus came to Jerusalem to also avenge the death of James, but his "namesake" murder (Paul / Saul) was managed to leave the city (see Josephus and the Acts of the Apostles) before the arrival of Paul of Tarsus.

Note:

(*) - It was certainly not the Temple of Orthodox Jews, namely the Temple of Jerusalem, but the Temple of the Essenes, which certainly stand in the Essene quarter of Jerusalem. In the Gospels this place has turned into the "house" where Jesus set the disciples met: obviously they were of the disciples of John the Baptist. This was the same Temple where Zechariah, the father of John, was killed several decades before it was also killed James the Just


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Paul of Tarsus (and not Paul/Saul!) left Palestine around 51, after the "Council of Jerusalem ", and he came back around 65: namely after 14 years.

Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

The only way to ascertain whether a particular datum or fact is false or historic is that of an incessant search to find evidence in other sources, including no one can be doubt the absolute lack of dependence by the others (see, for example, the Christian sources and the mandeans ones). They are objective coincidences that make us guess how things really gone. Nor should it affect the alleged date of preparation of historical documents, likely to give evidence, as the counterfeiters apologists would be. I repeat: what really counts are objective coincidences found in various sources. The more they there are many (regardless of the alleged age of the documents, where they are found), and more the datum or the fact is likely to be reliable.

Littlejohn
.

rhutchin

That is always possible. That just means that it could have been more than 14 years, say 15 or 16, and Paul uses 14 to relate to the elect on spiritual level. For what purpose, I don't know, nor do I think Paul really intended to do this.

Why would Damascus mean Qumran?? And why should that be an issue in Galatians 2??