Layman

I read it somewhere and can't remember precisely where. So, for now, I can't really rely on it. I'll see if I can track it down.

Peter Kirby

Discussing the historicity of Judas, and what he did if he existed, and how that was perceived in the Jerusalem church, and why the Gospel writers tell the story the way that they do, is outside the scope of this thread. The purpose of the thread is to note details in the Pauline letters that show a different understanding of the narratives behind early Christianity than that revealed in Luke-Acts, thus to clarify the relationship between the two. I submit that the reference of an appearance to the Twelve is more primitive than a reference to an appearance to the Eleven, as they are called consistently by the author of Luke-Acts, and this is confirmed by the absence of any Eleven language in the Gospel of Mark, which also doesn't reveal the fate of Judas. The association between appearance to the eleven references and the defection and exclusion story is both logical and revealed in our NT sources. The consistently different language used in literature that doesn't mention the Judas mythos, such as 1 Cor 15:3-11 and the Revelation of John show that there was a tradition, at variance with Luke-Acts, that the Twelve was a fixed entity, as can't be reasonably denied with the names of the Twelve inscribed on the foundations of the heavenly city from all eternity.

The practically undatable first-second-earlythird century Christian-revised composite called the Ascension of Isaiah shows the same phenomenon, in narrative form:

13. For Beliar was in great wrath against Isaiah by reason of the vision, and because of the exposure wherewith he had exposed Sammael, and because through him the going forth of the Beloved from the seventh heaven had been made known, and His transformation and His descent and the likeness into which He should be transformed (that is) the likeness of man, and the persecution wherewith he should be persecuted, and the torturers wherewith the children of Israel should torture Him, and the coming of His twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that He should before the sabbath be crucified upon the tree, and should be crucified together with wicked men, and that He should be buried in the sepulchre,

14. And the twelve who were with Him should be offended because of Him: and the watch of those who watched the sepulchre:

15. And the descent of the angel of the Christian Church, which is in the heavens, whom He will summon in the last days.

16. And that (Gabriel) the angel of the Holy Spirit, and Michael, the chief of the holy angels, on the third day will open the sepulchre:

17. And the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth and send out His twelve disciples;

18. And they will teach all the nations and every tongue of the resurrection of the Beloved, and those who believe in His cross will be saved, and in His ascension into the seventh heaven whence He came:

19. And that many who believe in Him will speak through the Holy Spirit:

20. And many signs and wonders will be wrought in those days.

21. And afterwards, on the eve of His approach, His disciples will forsake the teachings of the Twelve Apostles, and their faith, and their love and their purity.

22. And there will be much contention on the eve of [His advent and] His approach.

23. And in those days many will love office, though devoid of wisdom.

24. And there will be many lawless elders, and shepherds dealing wrongly by their own sheep, and they will ravage (them) owing to their not having holy shepherds.

25. And many will change the honour of the garments of the saints for the garments of the covetous, and there will be much respect of persons in those days and lovers of the honour of this world.

26. And there will be much slander and vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many.

27. And there will not be in those days many prophets, nor those who speak trustworthy words, save one here and there in divers places,

28. On account of the spirit of error and fornication and of vainglory, and of covetousness, which shall be in those, who will be called servants of that One and in those who will receive that One.

29. And there will be great hatred in the shepherds and elders towards each other.

30. For there will be great jealousy in the last days; for every one will say what is pleasing in his own eyes.

31. And they will make of none effect the prophecy of the prophets which were before me, and these my visions also will they make of none effect, in order to speak after the impulse of their own hearts.

Judas is not included at all -- all of the Twelve apostles are offended at the crucifixion and all of the same Twelve apostles go out to preach! This is logically the earlier doctrine of the Twelve than the more complicated Judas-Matthias rationalizing narrative found in Luke-Acts. This is again evident in the way that Matthew, Acts, and Papias give completely free-wheeling and variant accounts of the untimely demise of Judas. Even if it isn't earlier (and I don't know how you can reasonably call this derivative of a Luke-Acts picture), it is clearly a narrative difference that should be noted and is relevant for buliding explanations of the relationships of our documents.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Actually, that is not true. The Epistle to the Galatians indicates quite forcefully that a short time has passed between conversion (or, perhaps, Paul's presence) and the writing of the letter.

First, there is Gal. 1:6-7. "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." Gal. 1:6-7.

We cannot put a definite time period on "quickly".
And I do not think we should put too much importance on a single word, which is suggestive but indefinite.
Maybe Paul used "so quickly" as an expression of speech, to stress the Galatians should not desert him because they have been converted by Paul not long ago.
Another way to explain it, and likely better, is that "so quickly" is related to the time between the Judaizers showing up in town and the start of the desertions. I do not see why not. Actually, after reading again the beginning of 'Galatians', that's what it appears to me now. Instead of years, we would be talking of days or weeks.

"Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you **soon**, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." 1 Cor. 4:18-20.

"But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you **shortly**, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare." Phil. 2:19-20.

In the first example, Paul issued a "threat" (to come soon), conditional to "the Lord wills". Once again, it is suggestive and not definite.
In the second example, again Timothy's trip is conditional to a hope.
Paul used this Greek word only in these 3 cases. In all 3 cases, the meaning is suggestive but not definite.

Second, there is the complete lack of references to church leaders or elders. In his other letters, Paul appeals to the church to give heed to its leaders in resolving the present situation. (1 Cor. 16:15-16; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Thess. 5:12-13). Galatians is conspicuous by its lack of such references.

Yes, I follow you here. But why do you think it would take years for leaders to emerge? If Paul stayed with the Galatians for some times, leaders would have emerged very soon, more so from the first converts, just like Stephanas in Corinth. But still no leaders in Galatians!
Another thing to consider is that Galatians was written in period of the worst crisis for Paul, with his Galatians abandoning him in numbers, that Paul did not think of civilities in the conclusion of the letter. Look at the ending, except for 6:18. It is very passionate. I think civilities would not be called for. Or maybe Paul was not in the mood for it. Or maybe, with Christians deserting him in drove, Paul thought the communities had no leaders to be trusted.
I regard this point as not really significant.

I listed these two together because (D) explains away (E). The similarities you list in (E) arise out of topic (D). It would be difficult for someone with Paul's theology to talk about salvation, and especially against Judaizers, without discussing Abraham's being saved by faith, the law, becoming sons of God, mentioning the circumcision/uncircumcision, and God sending his Son as an eschatological act of salvation.

According to my research, Paul's Christology & Theology were always evolving (from very simplistic beginning) & getting more sophisticated. For these reasons (and many others) 'Galatians' and 'Romans" are typical of the end of his "ministry" (with 1Thessalonians typical of his early "ministry").
I listed the analogies with 'Romans'. I cannot add anymore.
Simply, Galatians could not have been written before or around the time of 1Thessalonians.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Yes I agree that when the meeting took place, the collection did not occur yet. But 'Galatians' was written AFTER the meeting, and Paul did not say how long after. A lot of things happened, in the future (relative to the meeting) between the "council" and the writings of 'Galatians', including the collections, as I explained on my page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this explains why James would raise an issue that had nothing to do with the conversation Paul reports. But Acts provides such a reason.

Where is the issue?
Gal2:10 NASB They only asked us to remember the poor-- the very thing I also was eager to do."
I do not see that as an issue, just a wish, or a suggestion from the "Nazarenes".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the visit you mentioned, the one prior to the famine, it is not reported by Paul (see Gal1:18-2:1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the question under consideration. If Paul wrote Acts before the Jerusalem Council then he did mention it.

There seems to be no reason for Acts to have invented a second visit.

Do you really think Paul wrote 'Acts'? Or is it a typo?
Anyway, if Paul himself would have delivered lot of money to provide food for the "Nazarenes", and that 2-3 years before the famine happened (they had very good prophets those days, especially that Agabus !!!), he would have mentioned that in Gal2:1-10, a very good thing to say in the context of 'Galatians'. But not a word.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, that a collection was done in Antioch among Christians, because a famine was predicted years in advance, does not pass my reality check. Furthermore, it looks to be part of "Luke" ploy (& coloring) to show that Paul was most attentive to the "Nazarenes".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would Paul, who indisputably was raising money for the Jerusalem Church all over the empire, need any coloring ont his issue? If anything, the entire affair is understated. Nor is Paul given a leading role in the raising of the relief. In fact, he played no part in it at all. He was simply asked to deliver it.

We do not know when or in what form the revelaton occurred. We know there were Christian prophets travelling around the empire. That one may have predicted something that others took to mean the famine that happened later is hardly surprising. Nor do I think the text suggests that the Christians in Antioch spent three years raising funds.

I already explained "Luke" wanted to have Paul being more attentive to the "Nazarenes" than he really was. So more visits to Jerusalem in 'Acts' that shows in Galatians (two to be exact).
So now we have one prophet making a prophecy, and then the Christians of Antioch really believing the man and happily providing money 2-3 years before the famine happened
I never said the funds are raised in 3 years, but Paul & Barnabas give the money to the Nazarenes 2-3 years before the famine occured!!!

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

The word quickly/shortly is very suggestive. Although it may not specify a definite time period such as five days or five weeks, it certainly does have a meaning. And a meaning which, especially in this context and with the usage of Paul, is unlikely to extend to a matter of years. It fits much better my chronology, coming soon after Paul's first missionary journey.

Do you have any evidence that Paul used the term as such an expression of speech? Or that other Jews did in a similar context? In any event, you have to resort to a short period of time ('not long ago') to argue "so quickly" is not as short period of time? Not sure I understand this point yet.

I see. You've gone from arguing that "quickly" does not mean shortly to arguing that it means very very shortly. This also seems rather ad hoc, especially since Paul seems to be imitating Exodus 32:8 and Deut. 9:16. Both verses remark on the time between God's establishment of a new covenant or ordinance and the Israelites turning away from it.

Ex. 32:8.

Quote:

So I turned and came down from the mountain while the mountain was burning with fire, and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. And I saw that you had indeed sinned against the LORD your God. You had made for yourselves a molten calf; you had turned aside quickly from the way which the LORD had commanded you.

Deut. 9:16.

Gal. 1:1-7.

The most plausible reading of this passage is that Paul is remarking on how little time it took these churches to turn from the Gospel that he taught them.

None of these examples could be used to imagine Paul meant he would come within a few years. Which is what your theory suggests.

What letters did you study to reach this conclusion? 1 & 2 Thess. 1 & 2 Corinthians. Romans. Galatians. Philemon. Phillipians. Given that these are occasional letters, and with the possible exception of Romans, were not intended for any comprehensive presentation of his theology, any such study would be highly speculative. This is especially true given 4 of the letters were sent to 2 communities relatively near in time to each other and one of the letters, Philemon, does not even merit chapter designations.

But what I consider to be the greatest weakness of confidently charting Paul's "always evolving" theology is that even at the earliest possible letter Paul had already been a Christian for 15 years. Prior to that he was a Pharisee trained in the law and high enough in rank to be a persecutor of the new unorthodox sect of Christians.

This is especially true given the topic of Galatians and the source of your listed similarities with Romans: salvation and the law. Paul himself states that upon his conversion he was called to minister to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16). He did so for three years in Damascus and Arabia, several years in Syria and Cilicia, a year or more in Antioch, and through his first missionary journey through south Galatia. To argue that Paul had not worked out his views on how Gentiles were justified apart from the law after 15 years of ministering to them is not very persuasive.

A further difficulty in concluding that Romans and Galatians were written at the same time is that Romans is that Galatians makes no mention of an ongoing collection. 1 Corinthians does. (1 Cor. 16:1) 2 Corinthians does. (2 Cor. 8:1-5). So too does Romans, even though Paul had never been there. But no collection is to be found in Galatians. (Rom. 15:22-27). Not only is this odd on its face, if Galatians was written after 1 Thess. and contemporaneous with Romans, but it is odd given

F. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, at 59.

For all of these reasons, the comparison between Romans and Galatians offers no reason for such a late dating, and its lack of reference to an ongoing collection indicates an earlier dating.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Problems such as? You've not identified a single chronological impossibility, or even unlikelihood, in equating Acts 11 with Gal. 2.

34/35 - Paul's conversion
36/37 - Paul's First Visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-20 & Acts 9:26-29)
37-46 - Paul in his home region (Gal. 1:21-22 & Acts 9:30)
46/47 - Paul to Antioch with Barnabas (Acts 11:25-26)
48 - Paul's Second Visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 & Acts 11:29-30)
48 - Paul's First Missionary Journey (including Southern Galatia--Lystra and Derbe) (Acts 13 & 14)
48/49 - Judaizers in Antioch and Incident with Peter.
48/49 - Paul writes Galatians.
49/50 - Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)
50-52 - Second Missionary Journey/1 & 2 Thess. written.
53-57 - Third Missionary Journey (Acts 18:23-21:16)
54-55 - 1 & 2 Corinthians written.
55 - Romans written.
56 - Paul arrested in Jerusalem.
60 - Imprisonment in Jerusalem.

OK, I have one for you:
How do you fit Gal2:1 (more so the 14 years) into your scheme?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
For all of these reasons, the comparison between Romans and Galatians offers no reason for such a late dating, and its lack of reference to an ongoing collection indicates an earlier dating.)

Gal2:10 "All they [the "Nazarene" leadership] asked was that we should continue to remember the poor,
[collect "survival" money for the church of Jerusalem: 1Co16:1-4, 2Co8-9, Ro15:25-27]
the very thing I was eager to do."

It looks to me that in the past (that is relative to 'Galatians' writing), Paul himself did something concrete about remembering the poor.
But as you said in an earlier post, there is nothing which says in 'Acts' that Paul participated in the alleged collection in order to provide money for the prophesied famine.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
I still don't see how you have proven that these are not "city folk."

Because the letter, contrary to his other ones, was not addressed to the inhabitants of a city. That's why.

Layman wrote:
Or what the distinction is between "villagers" and "city folks." Or why that would preclude Paul having preached to them prior to 48 CE? Why could not this have happened during the year of Paul's ministry in Antioch? Or during the first Missionary Journey?

There was quite a distinction between villagers & city folks in these days. I already explained why in these days, it did not make sense for Paul & his few helpers to preach outside the cities.
For the rest of your question, the onus is on you to provide evidence Paul preached his gospel to country folks also. The evidence is for Paul preaching only in cities (except for "Galatians", but that was because of illness).

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to my research, Paul's Christology & Theology were always evolving (from very simplistic beginning) & getting more sophisticated. For these reasons (and many others) 'Galatians' and 'Romans" are typical of the end of his "ministry" (with 1Thessalonians typical of his early "ministry").
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What letters did you study to reach this conclusion? 1 & 2 Thess. 1 & 2 Corinthians. Romans. Galatians. Philemon. Phillipians.

Them all, but 2 Thess. is pseudo-Pauline, in my view, Kirby's and almost all critical biblical scholars.
I have 9 pages on the Corinthians & Philippians' letters in my website.
On another page (HJ-3b), I deal with 1Thess & parts of 1Corinthians and Hebrews (not by Paul). I make also many references to 'Galatians' & 'Romans' in my pages. I explained my dating of Paul's journey in two pages, with many references to the content of 1Cor, 2Cor, Gal, Philemon, Rom & Philippians.

For the rest of your post, about Paul's evolving Theology/Christology, it is a main theme on my website, more so on pages like HJ-2b & HJ-3b.
I do not have the time to get into that here, but my website is available for free to anyone on the internet.
I think my 'In basket' is empty so far, but that will not last long.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Paul went up to Jerusalem 14 years after he was saved. Pursuant to my chronology Paul was saved in or about 34 CE and went up to Jerusalem a second time in or about 48 CE. The 14 year reference in Gal. 2:1 fits my chronology exactly. Even scholars who reject equating Gal. 2 with Acts 11 accept this reading as plausible, and in the case of Paul J. Actemeier, likely.