Huon

Galatians 2 :
The same guy is called Peter (Πέτρος) in Gal 2.7 and 2.8. And he is called Cephas (Κηφας) in Gal 2.9.

This discrepancy has been interpreted as an interpolation.

JP2

As arnaldo has already pointed out, "slavery" is a common Pauline epithet denoting bondage to the Law. The Hagar / Sarah story was plainly an allegory (in Paul's own words) for the distinction between the unbelieving Jews (who remain bound to the law) and those who had accepted Christ's sacrifice as a means of escaping that bondage. There is nothing in that story which unambiguously compels us think that Jews of Jerusalem had literally been cast into slavery, which - in any case - isn't really an accurate depiction of what actually happened in 70 CE.

I don't think that making pronouncements concerning Gods wrath against Israel disqualifies one from being Jewish: the OT prophets did that all the time. In any case, I think you're in some way right in identifying the tone as perhaps not typical of a mid-1st century Jew. There is a tendency in Pauline scholarship (since E.P. Sanders and the "New Perspective on Paul") to downplay the idea that Paul marked a radical break with the Judaism of his day, but I think one can take that argument a little too far. In my opinion, Pauline Christianity, for all that it owes to Jewish theology, clearly does represent a discontinuity with what came before it and Paul is never reluctant to make this discontinuity explicit. The passage you've just quoted demonstrates that nicely.

As for what this passage means, I think it's a little brazen to think that a reference to "God's wrath" must automatically imply some calamitous event. In any case, the Fall of the Temple was hardly the only adversity that befell the Jews in the first century. If the reference is indeed to some specific "punishment" that the Jews have received, events like the expulsion of the Jews from Rome or the massacre of Jews in the Temple Court in 49 CE are possibilities, and certainly fit in well with the traditional dating of 1 Thessolonians.

There's also the possibility that "wrath" is used in a more eschatological sense, for instance cf. 1:10. Here the wrath is expected to be directed against those who have not been "rescued" by Jesus, which is quite consistent with the use of the term in 2:16.

arnoldo

Here is Mark 13:1-4


So this anachronism dates the gMark to post 70 A.D. The writings of Paul are also dated post 70 A.D.

Perhaps the gospel writers and the pauline writers weren't aware of each other's doctrines (or forgot)?

aa5874

So which of the two names is the interpolation? Peter and Cephas appear to be the same person in Galatians only that the Greek and Aramic version of the word "rock or stone" is used at different times.

Now, the use of the name "Cephas" instead of Peter is another indication that the Pauline writings are anachronistic.

No Synoptic writer called Peter by the name Cephas. The Synoptic writers exclusively used ONLY Peter.

This would seem to indicate that these Synoptic writers did not see any Pauline writings where Peter was called by the name Cephas.

It must be noted that the "politically correct" name for "Peter" would have been "Cephas" once he was from a Jewish community speaking Aramic.

Now, in the Canon, the author of gJohn appears to have corrected the ealier Synotic authors and wrote that Jesus did use "Cephas" and not "Peter."

Mark 3.14-16 The author of gJohn corrected the author of gMark.

Joh 1:42 - Now, according to Church writers the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke, now it would appear he was also aware of gJohn's Cephas/Peter.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

arnoldo

Marcion also wrote that the apostles corrupted the Lord's teaching but that Paul epistles were authentic. Maybe Marcion is one of the mysterious author(s) of Paul's epistles?

Johnny Skeptic

Since Marcion rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, how could he be considered a credible source about Paul's epistles?

Consider the following:

http://www.cogwriter.com/marcion.htm

How do you know that whatever Marcion read in Paul's epistles was not changed later by other writers?

aa5874

It was known or should have been known for over 1700 years ago that Hippolytus CONTRADICTED the information that Marcion mutilated the Pauline writings.

[b]Hippolytus a Church writer claimed Marcion PLAGERISED Empedocles.

See the "Refutation of All Heresies" 18.7 by Hippolytus

It was known or should have been known for over 1600 years ago that Origen CONTRADICTED the information that Marcion mutilated the Gospels.

Origen claimed Marcion did NOT mutilate the Gospels.

See "Against Celsus" 2.27 by Origen.

The writer called Tertllian admitted that there were various copies under his name (Tertullian) about Marcion that were full of mistakes. The writing called "Against Marcion" under the name Tertullian may very well be one of the various copies that were FULL of Mistakes.

See "Against Marcion" 1.1 by Tertullian.

Now, the Pauline writings do not support the doctrine of "Dualism" it is therefore highly unlikely that Marcion would have used the Pauline writings when there were others like Empedocles who taught Dualism.

DCHindley

Well, that explains away the contradiction quite nicely. The reason I separate out two arguments is because there are two distinct arguments going on here. However, the argument about law equating with slavery is a digression hinging on the fact that the other argument mentions that Hagar was a slave woman, not the fact that Abraham was justified before God on account of his faith in God's promise to his descendents. That argument is about the fact that Abraham was thus justified before God even before he had circumcised himself. Only then does the originator of that primary argument bring in law, asking his readers why they would accept the covenant of circumcision, and with it the covenant of the law which was later imposed by God on those of the circumcision, when they could be justified before God on the basis of their faith. The justification before God on the basis of his faith was unrelated to the covenant of circumcision. Thus, gentiles were not under compulsion to accept circumcision like Abraham and his children were.

If you also think about it, he says the present Jerusalem is in slavery with her childrten. Exactlty how does that jive with an allegorical interpretation of the digressive argument about law [Sinai]?

DCH

DCHindley

I take it, then, that you have not read Mark Nanos' Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

After taking on traditional interpretations of Romans in The Mystery of Romans, Nanos now turns his attention to the Letter to the Galatians. A primary voice in reclaiming Paul in his Jewish context, Nanos challenges the previously dominant views of Paul as rejecting his Jewish heritage and the Law. Where Paul’s rhetoric has been interpreted to be its most anti-Jewish, Nanos instead demonstrates the implications of an intra-Jewish reading. He explores the issues of purity; insiders/outsiders; the character of “the gospel”; the relationship between groups of Christ-followers in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Galatia; and evil-eye accusations.

Or Nanos' The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (or via: amazon.co.uk):

Mark Nanos "locates in the author of Romans a very different Paul: a thoroughly Jewish Paul, functioning entirely within the context of Judaism, giving priority to Israel..." With this mindset, "The Mystery of Romans" starts to reveal a message different from what history and Christianity has perhaps taught us.

Really? Wars of the Jews 6:414-418

414 And now, since his soldiers were already quite tired with killing men, and yet there appeared to be a vast multitude still remaining alive, Caesar gave orders that they should kill none but those who were in arms, and opposed them, but should take the rest alive. 415 But, together with those whom they had orders to slay, they slew the aged and the infirm; but for those who were in their flourishing age, and who might be useful to them, they drove them together into the temple, and shut them up within the walls of the court of the women; 416 over which Caesar set one of his freedmen, as also Fronto, one of his own friends; who was to determine everyone's fate, according to his merits. 417 So this Fronto slew all those who had been seditious and robbers, who were impeached one by another; but of the young men he chose out the tallest and most beautiful, and reserved them for the triumph; 418 and as for the rest of the multitude that were over seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines. Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be killed in their theatres, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those who were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves.

Again, this "explains away" the "wrath" not actually explains how the injustices inflicted upon the Judeans by the Roman governors, or Gaius' attempt to erect his statue in the temple in Jerusalem (he never actually did so, and no blood was shed), qualify as "wrath." These are at best injustices or spiteful things, but not very wrathful. Destruction of the holy city and the burning of the temple, now that seems to fulfil the definition of "wrath" (ORGH wrath, anger; retribution, punishment; revenge), don't you think?

DCH

arnoldo

Well, you certainly seem to have reasonable doubt that Marcion used Pauline writings written sometime after 70 A.D. to further his doctrine.