Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Marcion had his copy of Galatians. "
But Marcion removed whatever he judged were interpolations - that is, anything that did not agree with his understanding of what Paul should have written. For example, Galatians 3:16-4:6 was deleted because of its reference to Abraham and its descendants. More examples may be found in [Evans] (pp. 643-6). "

Marcion's gospel has the brother of the lord in it.

Bottom line: it appears there was two copies of Galatians, each with the brother of the lord in it.

It appears that you should actually read the cited evidence, as your conclusion, above, is demonstrably incorrect.

Yep it says 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Thanks! :wave:

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Perhaps book v, been a while. There are at least 2 chapters just on Galatians...

And I am not claiming that Paul did not write Galatians, as I do not have evidence to support this, I am claiming that there were copies of this epistle, from the second century, that do not contain the reference you are referring to in the OP and that these copies are older then our oldest manuscript evidence of the epistle.

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Toto · 05-21-2011, 09:48 AM

If Marcion's gospel used the term "the Lord's brother" - I think that would be evidence that Marcion at least did not think that it meant the biological brother of Jesus.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe Galatians 1:19 is an interpolation.”

An interpolator of Paul has no more apparent reason to lie than Paul himself, and this claim is improbable for the same reasons as above.

This is a strange rebuttal. I just happen to think that Gal 1:19 is a part of a later interpolation, but I don't see how that would imply that the interpolator was lying if this is to be understood as James being the brother of Jesus. Then we would simply have this belief in a James the brother of Jesus in the 2nd century.

And why is the interpolation claim improbable? Or is "this claim" only that the interpolator was "lying" not that it's an interpolation'

Sorry, yes, there is of course more than just the assertion of lying to explain a possible interpolation. For example, maybe the interpolator inserted the phrase, "Lord's brother," to clarify what Paul meant, because Paul didn't specifically identify this "James." It would be more reasonable than the assertion that the interpolator lied, and I apologize for overlooking it. It is, however, an ad hoc explanation all the same. When isolated from the needed theory, there is no reason to suspect that it is an interpolation. Since James was a common name, there was more than one James affiliated with the Christian leadership, there are few contextual details to lead a reader to understand which "James" Paul was referring to, then it is unlikely that Paul would have left "James" unidentified in this particular writing. We have no reason to suspect it except for the needed theory. That is what makes for an "ad hoc" explanation.

Or, maybe you have in mind some other explanation for why this phrase may have been interpolated? You weren't clear, and I am sorry if I have you wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Some Jesus-birthers say: “Maybe the Epistle to the Galatians was forged.”

No, the Epistle to the Galatians was written by Paul. In this letter, Paul makes enemies with other heroes of the early Christian church--Peter (Cephas), James and John--over the matter of whether or not Gentiles should be accepted into the faith. He writes that he opposes Cephas to his face (Galatians 2:11). This is something that we expect Paul may write, but we would never expect a later Christian to write such a thing. Like any other member of a cult or a religion, a writer is always interested in the founding figures being in agreement with the writer, not divided among themselves. For example, the author of the book of Acts, telling of the same event (the Council of Jerusalem), portrays it as a peaceful occasion where all members are in agreement.

Wait a minute, we would never expect a later Christian to write that Paul was opposed and condemned Peter? What about Marcionites?

Not even the Marcionites would be interested in portraying a conflict between Paul and Peter. Instead, they would be interested in portraying both Paul and Peter as in agreement with the Marcionites. We already know what the account looks like when it goes through the filter of second-hand/third-hand/fourth-hand testimony, and we see it in Acts 15.

If a claim of a forgery of Galatians by the Marcionites is put on the table as a serious possibility, then there is an abundance of evidence to help make that case and build the model, and the claim should not be merely thrown across the table to make a mere passing rebuttal, to fall off the edge when the topic of debate goes to something else.

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The complete text of Adversus Marcion, Book IV, is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...0book4_eng.htm

There is one mention of James and two mentions of Galatians. In each of those three cases, it is assumed by the author that Paul wrote Galatians.

I already gave the reasons why it is highly probable that Paul wrote both Galatians and Galatians 1:19 in the OP.

"Here is the bottom line, prior to any extant version of Galatians, there was a version of Galatians, in circulation, that did not contain reference to the first trip to Jerusalem, the one after three years, the one where the supposed meeting with James took place."

Evidence?

Perhaps book v, been a while. There are at least 2 chapters just on Galatians...

And I am not claiming that Paul did not write Galatians, as I do not have evidence to support this, I am claiming that there were copies of this epistle, from the second century, that do not contain the reference you are referring to in the OP and that these copies are older then our oldest manuscript evidence of the epistle.

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Translators adjust for earlier and most common variants. Some translation opt for the earliest and some opt fo the most common. If the common translations all included the phase, then the experts rejected any variants without it as spurious. Without good reason to accept the variant, if it exists, the burden of proof is on the advocate of the variant as more accurate. In short the existence of a hypothetical variant is not a magic bullet.

Here are some variants from the web.

This lists variants in the Galatians MSS

Variants: Pauline Epistles:

I don't see that 1:19 has any variants.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Translators adjust for earlier and most common variants. Some translation opt for the earliest and some opt fo the most common. If the common translations all included the phase, then the experts rejected any variants without it as spurious. Without good reason to accept the variant, if it exists, the burden of proof is on the advocate of the variant as more accurate. In short the existence of a hypothetical variant is not a magic bullet.

Here are some variants from the web.

This lists variants in the Galatians MSS

Variants: Pauline Epistles:

I don't see that 1:19 has any variants.

Yes, you are right, thank you.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps book v, been a while. There are at least 2 chapters just on Galatians...

And I am not claiming that Paul did not write Galatians, as I do not have evidence to support this, I am claiming that there were copies of this epistle, from the second century, that do not contain the reference you are referring to in the OP and that these copies are older then our oldest manuscript evidence of the epistle.

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Book v chapters two and three.

dog-on · 05-21-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Translators adjust for earlier and most common variants. Some translation opt for the earliest and some opt fo the most common. If the common translations all included the phase, then the experts rejected any variants without it as spurious. Without good reason to accept the variant, if it exists, the burden of proof is on the advocate of the variant as more accurate. In short the existence of a hypothetical variant is not a magic bullet.

Here are some variants from the web.

This lists variants in the Galatians MSS

Variants: Pauline Epistles:

I don't see that 1:19 has any variants.

The reference to a version without this passage predates our earliest extant version, which I have now said three times. Perhaps this was not clear.

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If the earliest extant copies of any text omit the relevant phrase, that is very often all that is needed to establish the probability of a later insertion of that same phrase. So, I am curious to know precisely what the evidence is to that effect. Please let me know when you happen to find it.

Book v chapters two and three.

The full text of Book V is given here:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...2book5_eng.htm

Can you please quote the specific statements that you take as evidence that Galatians 1:19 was disputed? Here is what seems to be a relevant passage:

From now on I claim I shall prove that no other god was the subject of the apostle's profession, on the same terms as I have proved this of Christ: and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That these have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect.

2. On the Epistle to the Galatians. We too claim that the primary epistle against Judaism is that addressed to the Galatians. For we receive with open arms all that abolition of the ancient law.

This seems to assume that Paul wrote Galatians. What specific passage do you have in mind?

jgoodguy · 05-21-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Marcion's gospel used the term "the Lord's brother" - I think that would be evidence that Marcion at least did not think that it meant the biological brother of Jesus.

The issue is what Paul wrote not what Marcion thought.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2011, 09:48 AM	#43
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If Marcion's gospel used the term "the Lord's brother" - I think that would be evidence that Marcion at least did not think that it meant the biological brother of Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.