Amaleq13

My answer-in-the-form-of-a-question already answers this. :huh:

Prior to the meeting, they were potential cohorts or agents or representatives of the "pillars" as far as Paul was concerned.

spin

I was trying to get you to come at it from another angle.

Did the false brethren, as free agents totally independent of the pillars' community, go off to Galatia, enter the Pauline assembly and reprimand the people for not adhering to Jewish praxis, then for some unknown reason decide to curry favor with the pillars of some small sect in Jerusalem who they didn't know? How did they get into these private assemblies among the Galatians if they had no connections? Were they off on a paid vacation to Galatia or did they just happen to be there, say for a pottery decoration convention or something, and dropped in to admonish the Galatians for their sloppy praxis? I'm trying to envision how it could or should make sense.


spin

Amaleq13

Didn't know them? Of course they knew them. Paul admits their reputation was well established just before he downplays its importance to him.

I would suggest that they did have a connection but Paul's concern was whether that connection extended to support for their requirements of his gentiles.

A group of Jews preaching the gospel advocated by the "pillars" are giving grief to Paul who is preaching his gentile version of the gospel because he isn't making them get circumcised. The "false brethren" claim either that the "pillars" told them to do it or that they are certainly supportive of their efforts. Paul decides, with a little help from JC, to see for himself if that is truly the case because these guys are stealing his converts away. He finds that the "pillars" are not as militant in their views only remind him to keep the cash coming home. He wants his gentiles to understand that the "pillars" support what he is telling them but also doesn't want them to consider the "pillars" his boss. That is how we get the somewhat mixed message about the meeting.

"Hey, I didn't go to those guys because they are my boss. I just went there to shut those other guys up."

Analogy:

Paul is a newly converted Republican trying to obtain converts from some right-leaning liberals. He tells them that they don't have to agree on abortion as long as they support the President. Local party leaders say otherwise and claim that the national party leaders back them on this. Paul goes to the national leaders to find out for himself but, while declaring they refrained from supporting the local leaders, also downplays their authority as ultimately irrelevant given support for the President. In addition, he informs his right-leaning liberals that they did not tell him to change a thing about what he had been telling them.

spin

Just to check we're on the same page and assuming the account relates somehow to an actual event:

Gal 2:1-10 sans 7-8

1. Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
   1. When and with whom Paul came to Jerusalem
2. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
   2. Why he came: a) revelation and b) to check out how his stuff compared with those of repute
3. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
   3. Titus didn't need to be circumcised (so neither do the Galatians)!
4. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
   4. False brethren, obviously somehow related to the Jerusalem community, probably horrified by the omission pushed adherence to Jewish praxis in Paul's Galatian group.
5. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
   5. But Paul was steadfast against them. (The thing that must have stood out is Paul's rejection of central Jewish praxis, ie that which made Jews Jews. Paul's gospel probably wasn't of great interest to the community leaders. Hence the following comment: )
6. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
   6. Those reputed to be something gave him nothing. (Details of the actual meeting Paul holds to himself, obviously because he didn't get anything he wanted out of it.)
7. [omit Petrine
8. interpolation]
9. and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
   9. Those reputed to be pillars shook hands with Paul noting his grace and agreeing that Paul should go to the gentiles while they to the Jews. (This could have been a clandestine hint to "keep out of our hair" while maintaining formal hospitality, seeing as there were Jewish communities throughout the diaspora and among them there were probably messianic communities of the JtB ilk.)
10. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.
    10. Paul has already made clear the fact that he didn't follow central Jewish praxis in his assemblies through the discussion regarding the "false brethren". The "pillars" hoping to maintain some semblance of superior position over Paul, require him to "remember the poor" -- though, if some specific entity is implied by "the poor", it is unclear to us

Any constructive criticism or additions welcome.


spin

dog-on

Get rid of "again" in verse 1

Erase verses 3 though 5 and 9, in their entirety.

spin

Why? It's there in the both Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek. (The translation isn't mine, but NASB, and my request for crit was for the brief commentary.)

For what reasons?


spin

dog-on

Again, because it was his first visit.

Verse 3 through 5 break the flow of the dialog. Look at verses 2 and 6:




Now WTF do verses 3 through 5 have to do with what Paul is talking about?

Verse 9 smells funny, at least the proper named portion, imo... I think this section:

is also an alteration of the original.

spamandham

Verse 9 is also part of the later interpolation. post 358

Take it out and you'll sow how smoothly the text flows without it.

spin

Verses 7-8 subtly contradict v.9. It's not Peter who is entrusted with the Jews, but James, John and Cephas. And I have no problem regarding smoothness with the verse. If v.9 were part of the same interpolation then it would also use Peter consistently throughout all the manuscript testimony as is the case with vv.7-8, but it doesn't.

And to argue for interpolations you need to argue more than smoothness. You need to look at the text from the original language, for translation can cause disturbances as well as hide them. When I looked into this passage some years ago I developed a number of arguments against vv.7-8, but I couldn't seriously fault v.9. If you have solid philological reasons for discounting v.9, I'll be happy to read them, but I have no trouble reading v.9 after v.6.


spin

spin

What about 1:18? And as I said "It's there in the both Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek. (The translation isn't mine, but NASB, and my request for crit was for the brief commentary.)"

As I said to spamandham, you need more than a personal feeling that the flow of the dialog has been broken.

If you've read the rest of Galatians, it's one of the main reasons the trip to Jerusalem is even mentioned.

It may disturb, but it's still insufficient grounds for hacking it out, especially when it continues the disparagement, referring to them as the "reputed pillars", not the more transparent "pillars", which continues to call into question the reality of their position. The names help the following passage work by contextualizing both James and Cephas.


spin