Clivedurdle

Do we need to look at this again to Jerusalem carefully. That is correct if Paul had witnessed Stephen's martyrdom.

And do we know where the false brethren were? Might they have been in Galatia?

But fourteen may be a suspicious number, and might Jerusalem be code?

spamandham

I'm not a subject matter expert, I'm simply leaning on William O. Walker Jr and Robert M. Price whose conclusions I've reiterated here.

Personally though, it seems contradictory for vs. 6 to say the pillars contrubuted nothing to him, followed immediately by the claim in vs. 9 that they gave him the right hand of fellowship.

When you combine that with the rather awkward reading vs 9 imposes, and since the prior two verses are also later additions, it seems a solid enough argument to me.

spin

It's a sign to the Galatians that Paul was seen by the pillars as a good guy. Remember that this letter is a political tract to the Galatians. The aim is to say that Paul's right and even the pillars could see that -- while all along putting the pillar in question.

I see no awkward reading -- perhaps you might enlighten me.. And I pointed out the subtle contradiction between vv.7-8 and v.9. (Who exactly is to take care of the Jews??)


spin

spamandham

You don't consider that 'giving' Paul something? If I were an outsider and received a welcome hand, I guess I wouldn't whine about not receiving anything. What else could possibly be expected?

dog-on

Again... Tert says this:

But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us s that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method.

Tert doesn't seem an issue with this (missing AGAIN)...must not have had it in his own version...

Spin, I understand the "rest of Galatians", but I still think that those lines are not original and in reality, I don't even think there actually was a "Jerusalem Group", at least not in the way it has been portrayed by Christians. I don't believe Jerusalem had anything to do with early Christianity, other than providing a setting and some older text, nor do I believe that the writer of Galatians was, in fact, even Jewish.

cont....(Fie on CTL +V's sponge!)

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.

What, do you think, those spys, found out? That Mr. Winkie had no tent? Interesting that supposedly Jewish Paul, uses the word "we"...

spin

(Does that mean you'll consider v.9 as kosher for a moment? )

The word translated as "give" is based on a word meaning "communicate" and seems to deal with the idea of "counsel". Remember the reason Paul went to Jerusalem in v.2.


spin

spin

If you read back through my participation in this thread, you'll find that I've argued that Gal can be read to say that Paul got his gospel through "revelation", ie it started with him, and his religion had nothing directly to do with Jerusalem at all, except for a vague notion of Paul's regarding a link between his own misinterpretation of messianism and that of Jewish messianists. The gulf between the two must have been apparent to the Jewish messianists.

That the Galatian Paulites didn't adhere to Jewish praxis and wouldn't consider doing so under Paul's effect.


spin

Amaleq13

In the context of the purpose of his visit, anything "added" to Paul would have been bad (ie circumcision).

Support for the false brethren (ie adding the requirements).

Solitary Man

Emphasis is mine. There's no evidence nor any indication that it started with Paul. In fact, Paul himself in 1.15-24 explicitly connects his "revelation" with the Pillars, and after meeting the Cephas and James for two weeks preached what he once "persecuted" in Syria and Cilicia. For the notion that Paul misinterpreted the other Jewish messianists we are left cold with regard to evidence. It doesn't exist.

Only to a person who already comes to this conclusion - for its not in the text at all.

J-D

That's a pity. For a while there it looked as if you had a viable alternative theory, but now it seems that if you do it's not one you're capable of articulating fully. Too bad.