mikem

Where does the interpolation begin and end in verses 7 - 10?. The particular lines refering to the right hand of fellowship refer to Cephas, and therefore based on what you have said above, are not an interpolation.

It may be that that in the references to Peter in verses 7 and 8, particularly in the context of what they say about Peter being the apostle to the circumcised, Paul is quoting the terminology used in the Council of Jerusalem (se Acts 15), where it is agreed that Paul had a valid ministry to the gentiles.

mikem

I think that Acts 15 is the key to this passage - the Council of Jerusalem. It was agreed there that gentiles were not required to be circumsised and to keep the law of Moses. The restrictions actually laid on the gentiles were that they must abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood and what is strangled, and from unchastity.

This is purely supposition on my part, but there must have been a reason why "certain men came from James", and why Peter withdrew from eating with gentiles. Maybe the men from James had come to check that PAUL was keping his end of the agreement. Most meat that was consumed in that region had probably been sacrificed to idols, and Paul has a few things to say on that head to the Corinthians in chapter 1 Corinthians 9: 23ff. His view was that the Corinthians should not enquire too closely about whether the meat they ate had been sacrificed to idols, so they could eat it with a clear conscience.

Maybe Paul was not being too strict in Antioch either, and Peter who appears to be a moderate, from Acts 15, was just going along with it.

I don't agree that Paul and the pillars didn't agree on the content of the gospel. The crux of that was that Jesus was the Messiah who God had raised from the dead, and who would return in glory - that was the gospel. However, there was clearly a conflict over the implications of Jesus death, relating to the place of works and faith, and Paul saw Peter's withdrawal, and the visit from Jerusalem as a denial of what he saw as the role of faith in the scheme of salvation. Whether he was right to do so is another matter. It is a pity that we onlyhave Paul's version of events here.

However I do agree that Paul was scathing about the "pillars", however he does seem to have been somewhat hot headed, and I would take that into account when considering his views of his fellow Christians, especially those who don't see eye to eye with him!

mikem

Actually it's not just the style. It's the vocabulary, the concepts, and the fact that those letters assume a more settled and organised church organisation than actually existed in the 40s, 50, and 60s, when Paul was around. These letters are not from Paul's hand, and the majority of mainstream NT scholars have established that beyond reasonable doubt.

Richbee

Rubbish.

Paul wrote his letters in the fifties, but certainly not before he was dead. (~ 64 A.D.)

No has proven a different author.

Word.

Richbee

Here is a quote, that I appreciate from.......

Paul

I know this in my heart, because Paul taught boldly and about difficult issues! (In other, words that I fail by.)



2 Timothy 2:14-26

A Workman Approved by God

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,� and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.�

In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Amaleq13

Richbee,

Why didn't Marcion include 2 Timothy in his collection of Paul's letters c. 140CE?

Why don't we find any Christians quoting from it before Irenaeus c.170CE?

Doug Shaver

Who wrote that, and how do you know it?

Richbee

Who were the Apostles? (i.e. witnessess)

Steven Avery

Ironically, many of these claims about nascent church structure simply ignore or bypass or minimize the book of Acts. If the book of Acts is pre-70 AD (my view, and many others) then most of those church structure claims simply poof away. And these actually make up most of the 'soft' claims against the Pastorals. The 'harder' claims suffer from their own set of flaws. This is pointed out by a number of the more (gasp) conservative scholars, folks who really believe that when Paul's epistles say he wrote something, it was Paul, and when Peter's epistles say he was somewhere, Peter was, and when Luke says he researched, that is precisely what he did.

Ahh, the simplicity and beauty of actually believing the word of God

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Thanks for the reference and thoughts Richbee.

In recent years a similar view has been expressed in the writings of Richard Bauckham ("God Crucified" .. see also "Christological Monotheism of the First Century" http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/bauckham.html ).

Here we have proposed that the high Messiahology was a first century apostolic view, and not a later tack-on, Pauline or Nicean or otherwise, (a view common in scholarly circles). I do not know to what extent Richard Bauckham uses the Pauline epistle/hymm aspect in his view, it would be good to find out. And sometimes what are called hymms or hymm-segments in Pauline writings are not universally accepted as such. And I do agree that if Paul was using/quoting high Messiahology hymms from the community of faith that would be a strong argument that such a view was very early.

Tis an interesting study, feel free to share more thoughts and research here and on my home forum with the Messianics where we often tussle and talk about such questions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic