Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-21-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you want me to read the whole thing again? Tell me the god-damn evidence. Quote it. Put it in bold. Tell me exactly what your argument is.

Never mind, you won't, and I won't keep on asking. I will, however, keep on bugging you about this.

So Abe, what did Tertullian say about Paul's first visit to Jerusalem?

I'll spell it out for you, as it seems dealing with the actual evidence is a bit above your paygrade, atm...

Extant:

What Tertullian was reading from:

...

Besides the obvious reasons why the first visit would not appear in the Marcionite texts, here is compelling evidence that, in fact, the passage in question was not there, as it would have significantly helped Tertullians overall argument regarding both Acts and the larger argument regarding the nature of Jesus himself.

Here is the section in question, reconstructed from the anti-heretical apologetics:

Quote:

Neither went I up into Jerusalem
to those who were before me apostles;
but I went into Arabia, and again returned into Damascus.
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia.
After fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem;

Thanks, dog-on, we are finally making progress. You will need to hold my hand through the evidence, because there are times when I misunderstand the arguments. Why do you say that there are "obvious reasons why the first visit would not appear in the Marcionite texts"? What reasons are those?

dog-on · 05-23-2011, 12:10 AM

Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely.

Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

jgoodguy · 05-23-2011, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely.

Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

We have no copy of Marcionite Galatians. We have a recreation based on Tertullian's work without the 1:19 verse and another recreation with it. I supposed the difference is the set of assumptions the re-creator uses. It appears that Tertullian did not reference the 1:19 verse. It may not have been in the original, it was unimportant or that part of his work is lost. We do not know if his apology would have been enhanced by it or he had a different line of argument that did not need it. In brief, the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

There are several reasons to believe that it was added later, either to agree with Acts or as an anti Marcion addition. I find 1:20 to be very odd. Why would Paul be so concerned about a rather ordinary meeting in Jerusalem. OTOH Paul may have been referring to everything from 1:1 to that point. 2:9 seems awkward in light of 1:19. OTOH maybe our Galatians is composed of several letters redacted into one as is theorized for Corinthians .

One of the more intriguing theories is that Marion edited Paul's letters and the orthodox lacking a true copy of Paul's letters, edited Marcion's edited letters to reflect orthodox theology.

In any case, the earliest MSS P46 from about 200CE has 1:19.

The Redactor writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure the text back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Wishes restore a Word of it.

dog-on · 05-23-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely.

Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

We have no copy of Marcionite Galatians. We have a recreation based on Tertullian's work without the 1:19 verse and another recreation with it. I supposed the difference is the set of assumptions the re-creator uses. It appears that Tertullian did not reference the 1:19 verse. It may not have been in the original, it was unimportant or that part of his work is lost. We do not know if his apology would have been enhanced by it or he had a different line of argument that did not need it. In brief, the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

There are several reasons to believe that it was added later, either to agree with Acts or as an anti Marcion addition. I find 1:20 to be very odd. Why would Paul be so concerned about a rather ordinary meeting in Jerusalem. OTOH Paul may have been referring to everything from 1:1 to that point. 2:9 seems awkward in light of 1:19. OTOH maybe our Galatians is composed of several letters redacted into one as is theorized for Corinthians .

One of the more intriguing theories is that Marion edited Paul's letters and the orthodox lacking a true copy of Paul's letters, edited Marcion's edited letters to reflect orthodox theology.

In any case, the earliest MSS P46 from about 200CE has 1:19.

The Redactor writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure the text back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Wishes restore a Word of it.

All true. the point being that the text is not secure, so again, before arguing for, or against the meaning of any particular phrase, the first order of business is to establish, if possible, that the passage in question was actually original to the text and specifically, with regards to the Paulines, why this is, based on the current evidence we possess, pretty much impossible.

So, all Abe really needs to do to deal with my objection is to reword his argument allon the following lines: "Assuming that the current text reflects the original...", of course the collary being, "assuming it does not..."

...EDIT

I neglected to point out that, based on the citation from Tertullian and the fact that the word 'again' is missing, the reference to the first visit may have been unknown to Tertullian as well and that is why he did not use it to better tie the Galatians story to the Acts story, which claims that soon after his conversion, Paul went to meet with Peter, et. al and basically became their errand boy, a story, it seems, that Macion completely rejects.

ApostateAbe · 05-23-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely.

Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

The passage I led the topic with is Galatians 1:19. You are bringing up a point of disagreement that is related to that verse only by proximity. If you argue that there was an earlier version of the Epistle to the Galatians, including Galatians 1, that is significantly different from the one we rely on today, and as evidence you use the point that Tertullian omitted a point that he could have used against the Marcionites, and you explain that with Tertullian having the same version of the Epistle to the Galatians that the Marcionites did, then I think it is important to analyze the specific reason why you would expect that Tertullian would make a point of that. Why would Paul's first trip to Jerusalem be important to either the Marcionites or Tertullian, one way or the other?

jgoodguy · 05-23-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely.

Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

The passage I led the topic with is Galatians 1:19. You are bringing up a point of disagreement that is related to that verse only by proximity. If you argue that there was an earlier version of the Epistle to the Galatians, including Galatians 1, that is significantly different from the one we rely on today, and as evidence you use the point that Tertullian omitted a point that he could have used against the Marcionites, and you explain that with Tertullian having the same version of the Epistle to the Galatians that the Marcionites did, then I think it is important to analyze the specific reason why you would expect that Tertullian would make a point of that. Why would Paul's first trip to Jerusalem be important to either the Marcionites or Tertullian, one way or the other?

The Marcionites rejected the idea of a physical Jesus and 1:19 provides evidence of a physical Jesus. The Marcionites also rejected Jesus as a Jewish messiah and the whole meeting in Jerusalem may have been objectionable.

In my opinion, v20 seems to be a response to a Marcionite version of Galatians and/or Marcionite theory of Jesus's nature by emphasizing the trip to Jerusalem and the existence of a brother to Jesus. It seems to be oddly placed at best. Sorta saying I ain't lying, Jesus had a brother.

Tertullian could have used the verse in the same way against the Marcionites as a proof of a physical existence. I find the omission odd, but not evidence.

robert_bumbalough · 05-23-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you want me to read the whole thing again? Tell me the god-damn evidence. Quote it. Put it in bold. Tell me exactly what your argument is.

Never mind, you won't, and I won't keep on asking. I will, however, keep on bugging you about this.

So Abe, what did Tertullian say about Paul's first visit to Jerusalem?

I'll spell it out for you, as it seems dealing with the actual evidence is a bit above your paygrade, atm...

Extant:

What Tertullian was reading from:

...

Besides the obvious reasons why the first visit would not appear in the Marcionite texts, here is compelling evidence that, in fact, the passage in question was not there, as it would have significantly helped Tertullians overall argument regarding both Acts and the larger argument regarding the nature of Jesus himself.

Here is the section in question, reconstructed from the anti-heretical apologetics:

Quote:

Neither went I up into Jerusalem
to those who were before me apostles;
but I went into Arabia, and again returned into Damascus.
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia.
After fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem;

Hello Dog-On: Sir, Tertullian's ignorance of the Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:1's inclusion of "palin" (again) is good evidence these verses were interpolated into the text sometime in the third century. This is buttressed by the fact that Irenaeus to was ignorant of the alleged first trip to Jerusalem after three years. Irenaeus described a trip to Jerusalem by Paul and Barnabas to discuss Paul's missionary work amongst the credulous pagan gentiles in Against Heresies book 3, chapter 12, section 14

Quote:

14. This is shown in a still clearer light from the letter of the apostles, which they forwarded neither to the Jews nor to the Greeks, but to those who from the Gentiles believed in Christ, confirming their faith. For when certain men had come down from Judea to Antioch--where also, first of all, the Lord's disciples were called Christians, because of their faith in Christ--and sought to persuade those who had believed on the Lord to be circumcised, and to perform other things after the observance of the law; and when Paul and Barnabas had gone up to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this question, and the whole Church had convened together, Peter thus addressed them: "Men, brethren, ye know how that from the days of old God made choice among you, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, the Searcher of the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as to us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to impose a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear But we believe that, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are to be saved, even as they."(5) After him James spoke as follows: "Men, brethren, Simon hath declared how God did purpose to take from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And thus(6) do the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, among whom my name has been invoked, saith the Lord, doing these things.(7) Known from eternity is His work to God. Wherefore I for my part give judgment, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that it be enjoined them, that they

436

do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever(1) they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others."(2) And when these things had been said, and all had given their consent, they wrote to them after this manner: "The apostles, and the presbyters, [and] the brethren, unto those brethren from among the Gentiles who are in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain persons going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; men who have delivered up their soul for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, that they may declare our opinion by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from fornication; and whatsoever ye do not wish to be done to you, do not ye to others: from which preserving yourselves, ye shall do well, walking(3) in the Holy Spirit." From all these passages, then, it is evident that they did not teach the existence of another Father, but gave the new covenant of liberty to those who had lately believed in God by the Holy Spirit. But they clearly indicated, from the nature of the point debated by them, as to whether or not it were still necessary to circumcise the disciples, that they had no idea of another god.

http :// wesley.nnu .edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/irenaeus-against-heresies-book-iii/

It is then the case that there is evidence that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian's text of Galatians had the James Brother of the Lord or first trip to Jerusalem reference. This is strong evidence Gal. 1:18-9 should be set aside as an interpolation and join the growing list of refuted arguments for the HJ position.

Best Wishes to the Reader

aa5874 · 05-23-2011, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

The Marcionites rejected the idea of a physical Jesus and 1:19 provides evidence of a physical Jesus. The Marcionites also rejected Jesus as a Jewish messiah and the whole meeting in Jerusalem may have been objectionable. ...

Actually Galatians 1.19 has NOTHING to the bodily nature of Jesus. It is Galatians 1.1 where "Paul" claims he was NOT the Apostle of a MAN but of Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead..

"Paul" had ALREADY claimed Jesus was DEAD, BURIED and RAISED from the DEAD when he met the Apostle Peter and James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...In my opinion, v20 seems to be a response to a Marcionite version of Galatians and/or Marcionite theory of Jesus's nature by emphasizing the trip to Jerusalem and the existence of a brother to Jesus. It seems to be oddly placed at best. Sorta saying I ain't lying, Jesus had a brother.

Tertullian could have used the verse in the same way against the Marcionites as a proof of a physical existence. I find the omission odd, but not evidence.

"Paul" supposedly preached ALL OVER the Roman EMPIRE that Jesus Christ was GOD INCARNATE, God's OWN Son made of a woman. See Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3 &32.

The Church writers CLAIMED Jesus Christ was God Incarnate.

The NT Canon is from the Church.

The Church writers claimed it was Heretical for Jesus to have been an ordinary man with a human father.

Church writers IDENTIFIED the Heresy and the Heretics that PREACHED Jesus was just an ordinary man with a human father and "Paul" was NOT inlcluded.

It is just a complete waste of time to look in the Canon of the Church for the Heresy that Jesus was a MAN with a human father when the very writings make NO claims whatsoever that Jesus Christ had a human father.

The NT CANON is about God Incarnate, a MYTH.

jgoodguy · 05-23-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_bumbalough

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you want me to read the whole thing again? Tell me the god-damn evidence. Quote it. Put it in bold. Tell me exactly what your argument is.

Never mind, you won't, and I won't keep on asking. I will, however, keep on bugging you about this.

So Abe, what did Tertullian say about Paul's first visit to Jerusalem?

I'll spell it out for you, as it seems dealing with the actual evidence is a bit above your paygrade, atm...

Extant:

What Tertullian was reading from:

...

Besides the obvious reasons why the first visit would not appear in the Marcionite texts, here is compelling evidence that, in fact, the passage in question was not there, as it would have significantly helped Tertullians overall argument regarding both Acts and the larger argument regarding the nature of Jesus himself.

Here is the section in question, reconstructed from the anti-heretical apologetics:

Quote:

Neither went I up into Jerusalem
to those who were before me apostles;
but I went into Arabia, and again returned into Damascus.
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia.
After fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem;

Hello Dog-On: Sir, Tertullian's ignorance of the Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:1's inclusion of "palin" (again) is good evidence these verses were interpolated into the text sometime in the third century. This is buttressed by the fact that Irenaeus to was ignorant of the alleged first trip to Jerusalem after three years. Irenaeus described a trip to Jerusalem by Paul and Barnabas to discuss Paul's missionary work amongst the credulous pagan gentiles in Against Heresies book 3, chapter 12, section 14

Quote:

14. This is shown in a still clearer light from the letter of the apostles, which they forwarded neither to the Jews nor to the Greeks, but to those who from the Gentiles believed in Christ, confirming their faith. For when certain men had come down from Judea to Antioch--where also, first of all, the Lord's disciples were called Christians, because of their faith in Christ--and sought to persuade those who had believed on the Lord to be circumcised, and to perform other things after the observance of the law; and when Paul and Barnabas had gone up to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this question, and the whole Church had convened together, Peter thus addressed them: "Men, brethren, ye know how that from the days of old God made choice among you, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, the Searcher of the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as to us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to impose a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear But we believe that, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are to be saved, even as they."(5) After him James spoke as follows: "Men, brethren, Simon hath declared how God did purpose to take from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And thus(6) do the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, among whom my name has been invoked, saith the Lord, doing these things.(7) Known from eternity is His work to God. Wherefore I for my part give judgment, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that it be enjoined them, that they

436

do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever(1) they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others."(2) And when these things had been said, and all had given their consent, they wrote to them after this manner: "The apostles, and the presbyters, [and] the brethren, unto those brethren from among the Gentiles who are in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain persons going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; men who have delivered up their soul for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, that they may declare our opinion by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from fornication; and whatsoever ye do not wish to be done to you, do not ye to others: from which preserving yourselves, ye shall do well, walking(3) in the Holy Spirit." From all these passages, then, it is evident that they did not teach the existence of another Father, but gave the new covenant of liberty to those who had lately believed in God by the Holy Spirit. But they clearly indicated, from the nature of the point debated by them, as to whether or not it were still necessary to circumcise the disciples, that they had no idea of another god.

http :// wesley.nnu .edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/irenaeus-against-heresies-book-iii/

It is then the case that there is evidence that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian's text of Galatians had the James Brother of the Lord or first trip to Jerusalem reference. This is strong evidence Gal. 1:18-9 should be set aside as an interpolation and join the growing list of refuted arguments for the HJ position.

Best Wishes to the Reader

By the early 3rd century, 1:19 was in place. The evidence is interesting, but is of the form of an argument from silence which needs substantially more than the fact that 2 ancient writers omitted it before becoming persuasive.

The difficulty can be expressed as we have an official copy of Galatians with 1:19 in place. 2 ancient commentators failed to mention 1:19 in their commentary prior to that time. Is a later addition of 1:19 the only or even the most likely explanation of that omission. The same logic can be used to assert that Galatians did not exist until just before the 3rd century.

dog-on · 05-24-2011, 12:24 AM

Perhaps, jgoodguy.

Of course, this is not a question of proof one way or the other.

With regards to the OP, this is a question of an unprovable assertion, (Gal 1:19 was written by Paul), being the basis upon which another unprovable assertion,(therefore HJ), rests.

That the record is cloudy and that there was argument over the content of the texts themselves from a period of time prior to the existing manuscript record, is reason enough to reject the argument of the OP, until such time, when and if, evidence can presented that actually justifies the initial assumption.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2011, 12:10 AM	#72
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Judaizing, but that is not very relevant to my point and is another topic entirely. Again, my point is simply that we do have evidence from a time prior to any of our extant manuscripts, of significant disagreement regarding the actual content of the texts themselves and that the passage you have led this topic with happens to fall into one of these areas of disagreement.

05-24-2011, 12:24 AM	#80
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Perhaps, jgoodguy. Of course, this is not a question of proof one way or the other. With regards to the OP, this is a question of an unprovable assertion, (Gal 1:19 was written by Paul), being the basis upon which another unprovable assertion,(therefore HJ), rests. That the record is cloudy and that there was argument over the content of the texts themselves from a period of time prior to the existing manuscript record, is reason enough to reject the argument of the OP, until such time, when and if, evidence can presented that actually justifies the initial assumption.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.