Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Basically, yes.

In this scenario, Paul would also not have been aware of any substantial differences until much later, perhaps even after his disagreement with the so-called pillars became evident.

How, in your view, did this misunderstanding survive the agreeable meeting described in Galatians 2.1-10?

Paul went to the meeting hoping to get the seal of approval, which he didn't get. He went away perceiving that he got nothing from them, though they shook his hand and packed him off reminding him to think of the poor, a piece of Jewish praxis Paul still adhered to. The meeting doesn't sound "agreeable" to me at all. Paul went away disappointed, though unclear about its significance.

spin

spin · 05-01-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

this summation of your position by J-D looks reasonable, but for one thing - and I think it hearkens back your dispute with Amaleq13 a few months ago re. what exactly the dispute was with the Jerusalem crowd.

To make your story consistent, it looks like you have to take the Corinthians 1:15 passage as dubious.

I gather you mean the 1 Cor 15 passage. I don't see why infidels should have problems with its dubiousness. Do you think the apocalyptic Paul wrote of the 500 that some of them had fallen asleep? Had so much time passed that he changed his tune? The whole 500 thing is questionable. In fact any reminiscence of events before Paul's revelation must be held as suspect until Paul's logic regarding his theology (and how he got it) in Galatians has been fathomed. When I worked on another of these supposed Pauline records of what happened in the gospels which is related to the problem regarding Corinthians' communal meals in 1 Cor 11, it seemed obvious at least to me that a text about Paul's communal meal had been augmented in posterity with material from the last supper in Lk, so one should be wary of Pauline gospel related material.

spin

Ben C Smith · 05-01-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

How, in your view, did this misunderstanding survive the agreeable meeting described in Galatians 2.1-10?

Paul went to the meeting hoping to get the seal of approval, which he didn't get.

The right hand of fellowship (koinōnia)? The division of the labor into two fields? And these apostles, with Cephas and James meeting Paul for the second time now, never even let Paul know that his gospel of a crucified messiah was strange and foreign in their eyes?

Ben.

Gamera · 05-01-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

How, in your view, did this misunderstanding survive the agreeable meeting described in Galatians 2.1-10?

Paul went to the meeting hoping to get the seal of approval, which he didn't get. He went away perceiving that he got nothing from them, though they shook his hand and packed him off reminding him to think of the poor, a piece of Jewish praxis Paul still adhered to. The meeting doesn't sound "agreeable" to me at all. Paul went away disappointed, though unclear about its significance.

spin

I think you've put a construction on Paul's words that isn't supported by the text. Paul indicates that the pillars of the Jerusalem church added nothing to his mission (i.e., the uninversalist gospel he was preaching). The point here (which Paul repeats elsewhere including the first sentence of Galatians) seems to be that Paul wants to emphasize that he got his gospel directly from the risen Christ, and not from men. Paul does say that the pillars recognized the "grace" of his mission (i.e., divine approval) and gave him their friendship, which he reciprocated by starting a collection in the gentile world for the "mother church" in Jerusalem.

It's an strangely ambivalent event, but I don't think it's fair to say that Paul got nothing out of it. He got some kind of "official" approval and even friendship.

Quote:

Gal 2: And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do. 11

spin · 05-01-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul went to the meeting hoping to get the seal of approval, which he didn't get.

The right hand of fellowship (koinōnia)?

Yet Paul is very disparaging to them in v2:6. All he got from them was a handshake, as I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The division of the labor into two fields?

"You wanna go to the gentiles? You go ahead and leave the Jews to us."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

And these apostles, with Cephas and James meeting Paul for the second time now, never even let Paul know that his gospel of a crucified messiah was strange and foreign in their eyes?

Judaism of the period was heterodox. The major issue was Jewish praxis. That's what made one a Jew. How much of Paul's weird messiah they heard, we get little indication other than Paul saying that the pillars gave him nothing, when he went to them for some recognition and direction. What should be obvious is that Paul is shaping the event into his own mold. Yet, all he came away with is a handshake and nothing else. He's already in conflict with Cephas in 2:11.

And when messianists perhaps like Apollos of the JtB ilk push praxis to Paul's Galatians, he goes ballistic.

spin

spin · 05-01-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul went to the meeting hoping to get the seal of approval, which he didn't get. He went away perceiving that he got nothing from them, though they shook his hand and packed him off reminding him to think of the poor, a piece of Jewish praxis Paul still adhered to. The meeting doesn't sound "agreeable" to me at all. Paul went away disappointed, though unclear about its significance.

I think you've put a construction on Paul's words that isn't supported by the text. Paul says the pillars of the Jerusalem church added nothing to his mission (i.e., the uninversalist gospel he was preaching).

I don't see it this way. The whole of 2:6 is very disparaging.

These pillars who seemed to be something were put down with what they actually were makes no difference to me because god doesn't judge men on face value! (Big boot.) This is the context in which to understand those who seemed gave me nothing (or imparted nothing to me -- see same verb, prosanatiQemi, in 1:16).

I don't think you've got a good perspective on this verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The point here (which Paul repeats elsewhere) is that Paul got his gospel directly from the risen Christ, and not from men. Paul does say that the pillar recognized the "grace" of his mission (i.e., divine approval) and gave him their friendship, which he reciprocated by starting a collection in the gentile world for the "mother church" in Jerusalem.

I agree with the first part of this, though not the part that doesn't come from Gal but Acts. The seeming pillars still somehow managed to recognize Paul's grace doesn't read convincing to me, still putting them down while talking about them recognizing his grace. This elicits a "yeah, sure, Paul: pull the other leg" from me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It's an strangely ambivalent event, but I don't think it's fair to say that Paul got nothing out it. He got some kind of "official" approval and even friendship.

I perceive it at the moment as Paul shaping the event for his audience.

spin

J-D · 05-01-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If I have correctly understood your suggestion, then I can explain the problem I have with it.

Your suggestion depends on there being a distinction in the first century between a minority of Jews who had faith in a messiah and a majority who didn't.

With that assumption, your story hangs together. Paul persecuted the minority of Jews with a messianic faith; then he changed sides and started preaching a messianic faith himself; the 'Judean assemblies' referred to in Galatians are the messianic minority; when they heard that Paul was preaching a messianic faith they assumed that he had come over to their side and they (and perhaps he) were not aware of the divergence between his messianic faith and theirs until later.

However, if belief in a messiah was part of the general faith of Jews in the first century, your story doesn't hang together in the same way. On that assumption, persecution of Jews with a messianic faith could only mean persecution of Jews in general, preaching of a messianic faith could only be perceived as preaching of a general Jewish faith, not the faith of particular 'Judean assemblies', and the distinctiveness of the 'Judean assemblies' would have to consist in something more than messianic faith.

So I arrive at this question: what independent reason is there to suppose that there was a distinction in the first century between a minority of Jews who believed in a messiah and a majority who didn't?

Why would you think that messianism was even a majority position? Are there any hints from either Philo or Josephus? Perhaps we can't trust Josephus when he indicates that the war was the responsibility of a minority, a war that was perhaps over twenty years after the time of the writing of Galatians. Are there any indications that the Sadducees or the Pharisees accepted the notion of a messiah? (Wasn't the first person in the Pharisaic tradition to support messianic claims r. Akiba during the Bar-Kochba Revolt?)

If you have any reason to suspect that messianism was a part of mainstream Judaism at the time Paul wrote Galatians, I'd like to hear it.

spin

Do you always answer a question with four questions?

The answer to my question ('what independent reason is there to suppose that there was a distinction in the first century between a minority of Jews who believed in a messiah and a majority who didn't?') which appears to be implied by what you say is 'there is no record of faith in a messiah being accepted in mainstream Jewish thought in the first century'. That's a reasonable answer and, as I said before, if there was a distinction in the first century betwen a minority of Jews who believed in a Messiah and a majority who didn't, then your story hangs together.

The one small detail that still niggles at me is this: if Messianism was not the mainstream position in Judaism in the first century, when and how did it become the mainstream position? An answer to this is not essential to your case, but I would be interested in any thoughts you may have on the subject.

spamandham · 05-01-2008, 09:47 PM

Would it be out of order to point out that according to William O. Walker Jr (as reiterated by Robert M Price in "The pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)", 2006 Hardback edition, p 319 footnote v), Galatians 2:7-9 is certainly an interpolation. If we remove other suspicious or obviously interpolated passages from Galatians (1:13-14, 1:18-19, 1:22-25...), and if 2:11+ is an anachronistic response to the Jerusalem decree of Acts, it isn't clear that the original writer had ever even heard of a Jerusalem church, Cephus or James.

J-D · 05-01-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Would it be out of order to point out that according to William O. Walker Jr (as reiterated by Robert M Price in "The pre-Nicene New Testament", 2006 Hardback edition, p 319 footnote v), Galatians 2:7-9 is certainly an interpolation. If we remove other suspicious or obviously interpolated passages from Galatians (1:13-14, 1:18-19, 1:22-25...), and if 2:11+ is an anachronistic response to the Jerusalem decree of Acts, it isn't clear that the original writer had ever even heard of a Jerusalem church, Cephus or James.

Of course it's not out of order to suggest that passages might be interpolations, but it would be much more interesting if you could say something about why they're thought to be interpolations and the circumstances in which they might have been interpolated.

Toto · 05-01-2008, 11:24 PM

Neil Godfrey on Vridar

Quote:

The passage in Galatians (2:7-9) that civilly explains how Paul and Peter were each separate but equal apostles, the former preaching the gospel to the gentiles and the latter to the Jews, is evidently a second century catholicizing attempt to re-write history and bring the two apostles into the same "orthodox" fold. The idea of separate apostleships and gospels for the Jewish and Gentile worlds was unknown till the second century. It is certainly foreign to the thought of Paul found in the rest of his correspondence.

[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: ) God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
[8] (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
[10] Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (From Galatians 2)

William Walker, (who has written extensively on criteria for assessing the likelihood of interpolation — see earlier posts here and here), believes that the entirety of 2:7-9 is an interpolation since it "rudely interrupts the sequence of 6 and 10, where the original means the Pillars imposed no conditions upon Paul and Barnabas except for the relief collection." (319, Price)

So it would read:

But as for those esteemed to be something great — what they were then makes no difference to me now; God is impressed by no man’s clout — those of repute added nothing to me, except that we should not forget the Poor, the very thing I was eager to do in any case! (Gal 2:6, 10, Price, p.319)

Some readers like to think that Paul was not being too hard on the Jerusalem leaders and did not mean to sound too dismissive of their status. Again according to Price (p.319) it is worth comparing the expression Paul uses here with the similar phrase used of Simon Magus in Acts 8:9:

But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practised sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great.

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

05-01-2008, 09:47 PM	#358
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Would it be out of order to point out that according to William O. Walker Jr (as reiterated by Robert M Price in "The pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)", 2006 Hardback edition, p 319 footnote v), Galatians 2:7-9 is certainly an interpolation. If we remove other suspicious or obviously interpolated passages from Galatians (1:13-14, 1:18-19, 1:22-25...), and if 2:11+ is an anachronistic response to the Jerusalem decree of Acts, it isn't clear that the original writer had ever even heard of a Jerusalem church, Cephus or James.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.