Amaleq13

Doesn't 9:12 suggest that the nature of the agreement was, at the least, exaggerated?

What does "right hand of fellowship" from 2:9 really mean given that the matter of whether gentiles need to fully convert to Judaism clearly was not resolved?

It sounds to me like he is initially putting a positive spin on what was apparently a rather lukewarm "acceptance" of his gospel by the group (I don't know how else to describe what amounts to "you do your thing, we'll do ours but don't forget to keep sending in the donations you obtain") while subsequently openly acknowledging that tension persisted.

J-D

9:12? Doesn't Galatians have only 6 chapters?

And isn't tension and conflict compatible with the existence of some sort of link, however lukewarm?

spin

Umm, 2:12.

Well, Paul has gone to meet these guys. Obviously, there is at least now a link. Before that? Nothing visible.


spin

spin

They recognized the grace that had been given to him, yet Paul finds them worthless. Did he tell them then what he thought of them or was that only for his Galatian readers? It's obvious that the meeting was tense and it is hard to know how Paul was really received by the pillars. He may simply be making the best face possible. They shook his hand (umm, "extended the hand of fellowship"?) and sent him packing.


spin

J-D

Oh, OK.

Yes, that's evidence of tension, conflict, and disharmony. But the whole story still only makes sense on the assumption of a link of some sort.

Incidentally, if you reject 2:7-8 as an interpolation, what do you make of the references to Peter in 2:11 and 2:14?I don't see that this makes a difference to what I'm saying. Of course Paul wasn't born an adherent of the movement represented by the Jerusalem apostles: any connection must therefore have been established at some later point. My point is that such a link was established at some point by Paul attaching himself to a pre-existing movement (however insecure subsequent events were to show that attachment to be). Yes?

J-D

But why do you suppose that he wanted to put a good face on the events, even if it was by misrepresenting them? Why does he even mention the 'pillars'? Why are they significant in his letter to the Galatians?

To me, the natural explanation, on the face of it, is that Paul saw a purported connection with the 'pillars' as adding legitimacy. But that could only be true if his Galatian audience regarded the pillars as legitimate. In other words, it appears that Paul was assuming that his Galatian readers regarded themselves as adherents of a movement of which the pillars were recognised leaders (whether or not the pillars would have regarded those Galatians in the same way). Then it would make sense for Paul to try to build up his legitimacy in the eyes of the Galatians by asserting that the pillars recognised it. Of course, that would be pointless if Paul dismissed the pillars as 'worthless'. But where does he do that? I don't see it. What I see him doing is asserting directly that his gospel is true (a claim he buttresses by attributing it, not to the pillars, but to the ultimate source of the apostolate he claims to share with them) and hence, by indirect implication, that any gospel differing from his must be in error. This is exactly the posture I would expect from somebody trying to build up a following for himself and his own doctrine within an existing religious movement, in implicit rivalry with the existing leadership but without directly challenging the loyalty to the movement of existing or potential adherents. That sort of thing does happen in the history of religious movements (and other sorts of organisation as well). In the end, sometimes it leads to a split, with the challenger and the challenger's supporters definitively leaving the existing movement, but sometimes the challenger and the challenger's supporters succeed in taking over the whole existing movement and possibly changing the official line as they do so. And the stage of the process that Paul looks as if he's talking about in Galatians is one before any split becomes definitive, with him and any supporters he may have had still working inside the old movement.

spin

You seem to have reduced this to insignificance. Christianity was an offshoot somehow of Judaism. Paul claimed a tradition before him. Understandable, but not helpful for the sort of thing you seemed to be advocating when you came into the discussion. You remember "continuity of identity"?


spin

J-D

You refer to what I 'seemed to be advocating'. But maybe that only means what you thought I was advocating. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I acknowledge that it is possible that, if so, it was partly or wholly because of lack of clarity in my own expression.

If Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, it seems reasonable to suppose that this process of 'offshooting' was an incremental process, and specifically that the stage at which Christianity (or, if you prefer, its precursor--I think this is essentially a terminological point) became identifiable as something distinct within Judaism can be distinguished from--and by necessity must have been earlier than--the stage at which Christianity became identified as something distinct from Judaism. And reading the account in Galatians it seems to me that the stage at which Paul became involved was somewhere between those two points.

spin

He could claim that there was a tradition behind him. He wasn't just a lone nutter.

Yup.

The Galatians only had Paul. When Paul hooks onto a movement he gives his views depth. What they knew of the pillars was almost certainly zero. But there were these pillars in Jerusalem and Paul had them behind him, even though Paul was better than them. He was after all set aside even before birth.

Sounds here like you're arguing my case for me.

2:6, "...supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me...) -- those leaders contributed nothing to me."

He's a cuckoo in the nest.

You got this ass up. This is functionally the first time he's officially meeting with the Jerusalem cult. He was not already attached to them. He didn't know their doctrines. He avoided the doctrines. He is seeking something to be part of in this meeting. They're seeking to give him the door. They give him the kiss off. He receives the hand of fellowship.


spin

spin

You're a slippery devil, ain't ya?

That depends on how christianity was born. I didn't refer to "Christianity [being] an offshoot somehow of Judaism" as a clarification, but as something that is obscure. The real relationship is lost in unrecorded developments. I've put forward the notion that if Paul was the initiator of christianity, then there need not be any continuity whatsoever with those who came before Paul. There need not have been a human Jesus at all. After all his information about Jesus didn't come from this world. Then again, Paul may have somehow learnt about Jesus then cooked his own variety. I put forward the first based on my reading of Galatians, because to me it is simpler and just as functional.

The precursor I'm presenting here being a Jesusless precursor.

But I don't.

Look, I presented the notion that Paul went to Jewish messianists in Jerusalem, putting forward his unmessianic Jesus messiah, and they discretely got rid of him. (It's a bit like Marcion trying to fit into the Roman christian church. He thinks it's ok and they want to get rid of him.)


spin