Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps there is an ancient writer that might provide evidence of this epistle without this verse. See what you think of this:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

They are assuming that it is not necessarily false that Paul met "James, the brother of the Lord" Let us assume the opposite that meeting James, the brother of the Lord" is impossible." Then according to these rules the correct translation would be:

The meaning is now that Paul met nobody but Peter. This meaning makes sense as Paul is clearly trying to prove that nobody influenced him. By saying that he met Jacob (James), he would not be making his case, but destroying it. By denying he met anybody else, he would be arguing for it.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So far I guess it looks like the answer is "No" to my two questions below in terms of no responses. I look forward to any responses about it.

Originally Posted by Solo

However, I find it interesting that no-one in the debate has pointed out that the Gal 1:19 nomenclatura contradicts Paul's 1 Cor 9:5, in which he speaks of apostles as separate from brothers of the Lord and separate from Cephas. Curious !

Originally Posted by tanya

Holy Cow, Jay, you just turned this thread upside down!!!

Well done, sir. I am very impressed with your logic, and hope that the folks on the forum who are fluent in Greek, will offer some comments. I look forward to Andrew's comment, if he has time.

It makes so much sense, when I read your explanation, I just want to kick myself, for having been so stupid, as to have not seen this obvious alternative to the orthodox view. See, Jay, that's the difference between those of us who WATCH cinema, (like me), and folks like you, who CREATE cinema. Bravo. hurrah. This thread needed a lift, and you gave it one.

Jay, congratulations. You have earned the title: Philosopher for the day!!! Best post on this thread, by far.... Wonderful work.

:notworthy:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

There are two problems here. The first concerns Paul's "basic argument." You are conflating two very different sections with very different purposes. Paul makes this explicit. After talking for some time about his direct relationship to Jesus and God through revelation (and thus the basis for his authority to preach the "good news" and be called an apostle; cf. 1 Cor. 15:10), he then talks about his 3 years preaching in Arabia and then back to Damascus. However, he introduces this within the context of his argument of "authority via revelation." He doesn't just say "then I went to Arabia..." but oude anelthoun eis Hierosoluma pros tous pro emou apostolous... The oude here explicitly connects this line with the previous, itself part of Paul's declaration of his claim to apostleship. Why would Paul continue his argument about being an apostle through revelation and through god, by noting that he did not go to Jerusalem to the other apostles? This is to bulster his argument. He didn't need to, because he was an apostle to God. It is only after saying this that Paul then notes that eventually (after three years), he did in fact go to Jerusalem to spend 15 days with Peter. If we see this as still a continuation, at least to some extent, of his indepent claim to be an apostle, then why does he say he went at all? And for 15 days?

The way these lines are connected give us clues (as do other lines from this letter and others). In Gal 2, Paul admits that Peter is a "pillar" or an important figure. Having a connection to the Jerusalem church was clearly important. And in various places in Galatians and other Pauline letters Peter is singled out as the most important. Paul, therefore, admits that he did spend time with Peter, but qualifies this. He spent his time with Peter alone, not with the other apostles in general, with one exception. The emphasis is on the time spent with Peter, rather than the apostles at Jerusalem in general, and therefore Paul emphasizes this, and admits James as an exception, rather than saying he spent time with Peter and saw James too.

As for the "seeing the brother of God," this of course is not what Paul says.

The "one translation makes no sense" only if you interpret "lord" as "god," but not only is there no reason to, there is good reason not to.

Also, it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul to make an obscure transformation of classical logic (which wasn't around yet). Humans are not naturally inclined to be able to understand modus tollendo tollens. They are even less likely to use the resulting structure in natural speech. We could spend weeks searching through corpora without finding an instance of natural speech in which someone uses a conditional sentence with the logical structure outlined above along with the contextual environment. It just doesn't happen outside of a logic class. When people want to say "I didn't see anybody else" that's exactly what they say. What possible reason could there be for Paul to include the ei me conjuction and what follows about James at all if all he wanted to say was "I didn't see anybody else? Had he left out the part about James, the line would read "I did not see any of the other apostles." Simple, plain, easy to understand. But Paul doesn't say that. He adds ei me Iakobon ton adelphon tou kuriou. So according to you, rather than just saying "I didn't see other apostles" Paul uses an obscure conditional logical structure "If I didn't see James, then I didn't see any of the other apostles."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The craziness of the meaning of the whole sentence suddenly struck me. Its like saying,"I went to Washington and didn't meet anybody, except for Vice-President Biden," or I went to London and did not meet anybody except for the Queen."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I'll reply to the rest when I have more time on Wednesday. (Sorry, I have to prepare lessons for tomorrow's classes.)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin