Amaleq13

You haven't done it here or provided a link to where you have. Smells like a red herring, though, since Paul's clear focus on the difference between and opposition to his good news by those "of the circumcision" does not depend on those two passages.

Do you argue elsewhere that the passages, in their entirety, cannot stand or only that the name "Peter" is suspect?

That is your assumption but you have yet to support it as being anything more than that. I see him using the phrase to describe the entire belief system as well as specific portions. What was preached before his conversion is certainly "good news" but that portion which Paul was uniquely given by the risen Christ is also "good news" in and of itself. It is clearly Paul's unique "good news" which differentiated him from "those of the circumcision" and that characterization, alone, should inform you of the focus of their difference.

And, again, there is no reason to limit one's understanding of what Paul is talking about to only one portion of the letter. The context of the entire epistle, even removing 7 & 8, is blatantly about a conflict between Paul's gospel and "those of the circumcision".

The scene between him and Peter is simply emblematic of the broader conflict between Paul's revealed "good news" and the desires of "those of the circumcision". I don't know how anyone can read Galatians and come away thinking that conflict wasn't central. :huh:

It is certainly not a theme unique to Galatians, either.

So, he refers to that "one particular part" as his gospel so we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming he means "the whole package" every time he uses the term (ie your mistake )

JoeWallack

JW:
The problem with your position here Doug is that the Details of Galatians indicate that Paul thought there should only be one Gospel for everyone, the Gospel of Faith, as opposed to the Gospel of Law. This is also confirmed by the details of all his other Epistles. This contradicts the Implication from your position that Paul was okay with a different Gospel for the Jews. It's certainly possible that this contradiction did exist in Paul's writings but it does support the position that the difference in Gospels was conflicting and not complementary. You may not be able to explain it but you should at least deal with it to have the position you have.

Closely related to this problem is the issue of Paul's sources which I Am dealing with in Sources of Paul's Witness. Revelation, Reception or NecRomancy?. Paul keeps emphasizing that his source is Divine and periodically qualifies that it is not human. Again, this indicates that the difference in Gospels is conflicting and not complementary. Paul never, never, says he learned anything specific from someone who knew Jesus. What he does have to say about the Jerusalem bunch indicates Competition.



Joseph

Sources of Paul's Witness. Revelation, Reception or NecRomancy?

spin

I guess I'll have to eventually write it up again in full because of the fact that it was mainly done back when CX was a mod. It's been referred to several times regarding the sudden appearance of Peter in the two verses, when Paul uses Cephas elsewhere. It's also because 7-8 contradict what is said in 9, which tells us that the pillars should go to the circumcised, while 7-8 makes it just Peter. There are other issues.

You are the one who has invented a restricted view of the significance of Paul's gospel and reread it elsewhere. This invention hangs merely on the fact that Paul says he stays true to his gospel in 2:14 and you assume that he must mean only the dietary dispensation.

What do you think Paul is talking about in 1:6-9?

How did the revelation of dietary dispensation convert him from being a conservative Jew to being a proselytizer of a religion to the gentiles based on Jesus (1:11-15)?

It should be obvious that Paul's gospel was the whole kit and kaboodle.

If you want to understand what a word means you look to see how he uses it. Don't get stuck on 2:7-8. The scene about Cephas was a small section of Galatians which must be read in the context of the whole work. Yes. Do it.

What was the conflict? Why did Paul go off in a huff from those pillars he had so little respect for? For example, read 2:5.

So Paul's gospel of christ which he received by revelation not from humans and which he proclaimed to his Galatians, was actually only the exemption from Jewish law part of a wider gospel that he doesn't tell us about, but you know, by brushing aside the "historical" portion of Galatians and concentrating on one dispute. Sorry Amaleq13.


spin

Chili

The Gospel of Paul is very much conflicting and they are as far removed from each other as heaven is from hell because that is where they eventually end up (or heaven and hell in so many words). In Paul's Gospel religion comes to a sudden stop and ends with the unspoken Beatific Vision that knocked Paul of his high horse on the way to Damascus, while for Cephas and co circumcision and observence of the law takes on a new meaning without end.

No, it is not Competition because Paul went to the gentiles including Jews by birth who were not sinners of gentile origen . . . to say that sin is only skin deep as it was for both Joseph the son of Heli (not Jacob) and for Paul.

Ted Hoffman

Its still available. I havent searched but if one searches under CX and "cognate" one should be able to get it.

Ted Hoffman

Cant find it. It mustave been archived. I remember rehashing the arguments here though. This may be equivalent though.

dog-on

In my opinion, Galatians, (and probably the entire Pauline corpus), was originally a Marcionite document. This church probably had a relatively large number of followers. After Marcion's death, a divergent sect (Orthodox) co-opted these works.

The battles between Peter and Paul may simply be personifications of the battle between the Marcionites and the Orthodoxy.

I tend to think that we are looking at second century, post 135, as the time these writings were taking place (both the gospels and the Paulines). If earlier, I believe that we should look no further back than the 70's, post temple period, for "Paul", though I tend to think this is generally unsupported by the evidence.

I would be interested in any evidence that can firmly place Paul (and by extension the Gospels) any earlier.

andrewcriddle

This may possibly be relevant
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1557036

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I don't see how this creates a problem for Paul referring to both parts and the whole as "good news" in different contexts.

I don't see how this is a necessary implication. Paul tells us he modified his approach depending upon his audience so we should not be surprised when we find him tailoring his message.

Good thing that isn't my position. There is a clear and specific conflict being described. Paul's revealed "good news" that Christ-believing gentiles don't have to adhere to the purity codes is in conflict with "those of the circumcision" who felt otherwise. There is absolutely no indication that there was any dispute with regard to the "good news" described in 1 Cor 15.

Sounds like a good way to convince believers that they should accept his revealed "good news" despite the opposition of "those of the circumcision".

The specific claims described as "good news" in 1 Cor 15 are clearly beliefs that were held by the group prior to Paul's conversion and, given his confessed persecution, he would have known of at least the core tenet of death/resurrection. The addition of "who knew Jesus" is an irrelevant red herring. My position doesn't require anyone to have actually known Jesus.

Amaleq13

Whether it is "Cephas" or "Peter" or some other name entirely actually makes no difference to my position since I only require that someone opposed Paul on the issue of circumcision, etc.

I hope there are other issues because that one seems to be of the "non" variety. There is no contradiction between the two. He's just identifying one member of the group and the group, as a whole, as having the same target audience or goal. There is no difference between that and saying "The D.A. seeks a conviction." and "The Justice Department seeks a conviction."

Nonsense. I haven't invented anything. I've simply read what Paul says. In Galatians, he quite clearly restricts what he is describing as "good news" to the specific exceptions he preached for gentiles. He also quite clearly indicates these exceptions were revealed by Christ. All of this is entirely consistent with Paul's depiction of himself presenting something new to the pillars which was specifically targeted at gentiles.

More nonsense. The conflict is evidence throughout Paul's letters. He brought something new and specifically targeted to gentiles. It was opposed by those who came before him.

Those "of the circumcision" who preached that gentiles were required to adhere to the purity codes.

Straw man. I've never claimed that this unique information was the entirety of Paul's conversion experience. Obviously, his conversion entailed acceptance of the beliefs he had previously been persecuting and the new information specifically given to him, alone.

It should be obvious that Paul could refer to both the whole and just his unique portion as "his good news".

They wanted gentiles to fully convert to Judaism but Christ told Paul they didn't have to.

The conflict clearly continued despite the appearance of acceptance. I don't think it is a coincidence that Paul mentions their willingness to accept the donations he collected.

There is nothing appropriate about using "only" in describing Paul's addition to the "good news". It was clearly vital to both sides. And Paul clearly does tell us about the "wider gospel" in 1 Cor 15 when he repeats the beliefs that were held prior to his conversion.