andrewcriddle

a/ IF one accepts the Psalms of Solomon http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...ms-solomon.htm as a Pharisaic text (See http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro...t/PsalSolo.htm ) then this appears to be evidence of Messianic belief b/ Although the Messianism in Mishnah and Tosefta is very low-key it still appears to be there, and we have claims that some of the rabbis (eg Akiba)accepted Bar Cochba as Messiah. Unless one wishes to sharply separate these rabbinic sources from earlier Pharisaism this would support Messianic concerns among the Pharisees.

Andrew Criddle

spin

Try the verb "confer" ("... with", "...something on"). Seems to work both transitively and intransitively without much effort. (Or even from the root "communicate".)

Yup.

(I have argued many times on this forum that 2:7-8 is a clear interpolation. See here for example. Some philological arguments preceded this position, but they've been lost in time and I'm too lazy to reformulate them if I don't need to.)

No. The verb seems to regard the transference of information, counsel, etc.

He is presenting the story for the benefit of the Galatians. He wants to be seen both as someone with a new vision and as someone who has a tradition behind him.

Beyond social ritual, your amicable tenor doesn't seem to be there. He reduces these pillars to the importance of appearance, ie no substance. The verb attached to them is dokew, the same root as has docetic. Put down. The "amicable tenor" is purely on the surface, almost certainly on both sides, though we only have Paul's version.

Paul went to Jerusalem with the desire of getting acceptance and confirmation, so obviously "Paul thought these people were something at the time" of his going. The change in tense indicates a truism: he thought they were something, but as it turns out they are not what he thought. The truism applies from the time he recognized the fact, ie when he talked with them and they gave him nothing to further him from what he had with his gospel. It's purpose is to shed light on them not giving him anything.


spin

Ben C Smith

Okay, that does work. But confer aligns with my interpretation.

Sure. The pillars conferred no counsel (advice, instructions) to circumcise gentile converts. This is what I was saying.

The right hand of fellowship is amicable.

Agreed.

Good. Then you and I agree on this point, and disagree only on the time when the relationship between Paul and the pillars began to get rocky.

You say that it happened immediately, when all Paul got (your interpretation there) was a handshake. I say that it happened when Cephas, apparently on instructions from the James camp, withdrew from table fellowship with gentiles. Paul explicitly tells us that Cephas used to eat with gentiles, and then he ceased to do so. Eating with gentiles gets the Pauline seal of approval; ceasing to do so does not. That is clearly the moment when things began to change between the two sides.

Ben.

spin

Funny thing about the Jewish notion of messiah: a dead messiah is a false messiah. That's where messianic expectation differs. If he hasn't come yet he cannot be seen to be false. The fact that Paul's messiah was supposed to have been crucified nullified his possible status as messiah. Paul's messiah lacked the messianic qualifications. That's why it didn't make a splash among the Jews.


spin

spin

Strange that. It works fine for me. There is no tangible sign that there was any agreement between the pillars and Paul.

Whoa thar, Ben C. Your insinuating of what that counsel was about doesn't seem appropriate to the situation. Paul went to Jerusalem to present before the seeming pillars the substance of his gospel. What became the center of the meeting was Paul's performative lack regarding Jewish praxis, so the pillars added nothing to his gospel and the only resolution was that Paul went off to the gentiles while the pillars dealt with the Jews.

As I said,

Beyond social ritual, your amicable tenor doesn't seem to be there.

So the amicability was nothing but appearance.

Paul didn't get what he wanted when he left. He didn't get support for his gospel. He was hassled regarding Jewish praxis during the meeting (2:4). Later, open conflict arose over Cephas in Antioch.


spin

spin

Ask yourself what were the Pharisees doing during the Jewish War. I think you'll find that it was nothing. Akiba was the only Pharisee on record to get involved in messianism around the time.


spin

Ben C Smith

Shaking hands in fellowship is an agreement.

How so?

The substance of the gospel he was preaching amongst the gentiles, agreed. And not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised. (IOW, the pillars did not compel Paul to have Titus circumcised. If they had tried to do so, that would have been adding something to the Pauline gospel, which Paul insists they did not do.)

The only resolution? On your reading of the passage, did the pillars try to get Paul to circumcise Titus or not? Did Cephas at one time eat with gentiles, before Antioch, or not? Did they add any provisos (besides care for the poor, which Paul claims was already on his mind) to the Pauline gospel or not?

The whole point of the passage is to emphasize that the pillars and Paul agreed, at least for a time, that the gentiles did not have to follow the purity laws and such.

The false brethren are portrayed as wrong (from the Pauline point of view) right from the start; the pillars are portrayed as having flipflopped or backed down from their previous behavior (in Antioch).

How could Paul not be amicable toward people who (unlike the so-called false brethren) agreed with him that Titus should not be circumcised and agreed with him that it was okay for a Jew to eat with the uncircumcised?

How you are getting this from Galatians is a mystery to me. The meaning of 2.10 should not be lost. The only thing the pillars requested of Paul was that he remember the poor. There is no way Paul cannot have been happy that the pillars shook hands on his gentile gospel as it stood with, at most, this tiny proviso.

Yes, by people whom Paul characterizes as having snuck into the proceedings. Certainly not the pillars, who would have no need to sneak into their own meeting.

Ben.

spin

Overinterpreting to me.

Gal 2:2-6 doesn't allow it.

What's the relevance of 2:4-6 if it was not matter discussed at the meeting?

If Paul was written off, what would be the point?

They gave no clarification or elucidation or amendment. Paul would not have accepted it.

We are only getting repetitive. The passage which is clearly anti-pillars is a sanatised version of the events, as can be detected by the undercurrents.

That shows that the meeting was really going to go nowhere. They were related to the meeting for some reason. Your notion of flipflopping is derived from a reading which isn't critical of Paul.

One of the issues discussed in this letter is Jewish praxis, diet, circumcision, etc. That's why Paul mentions Titus. Then we get extra information. Who do you think brought in the "false brothers" and what are their relevance to the meeting? The fact that the information about the false brothers and not submitting to them is followed by the supposed pillars not giving him anything is not coincidental. They give weight to the generally negative presentation of the meeting, the handshake not withstanding.

He got no support from they pillars; they gave him no helpful counsel.

What's left is Paul's clean-up of the affair. He didn't recognize anything affirmative about them, but they recognized his grace! Yeah, sure.

If Paul wasn't prepared to follow praxis, there was little that they had in common. This is one thing which Paul hadn't discarded.

Weren't they snuck into the Galatians' assembly?? Where would they spy on the freedom of Paul's Galatians (or at least his gentiles, depending on hmas)? This can only be relevant if the issue was brought up at the meeting.


spin

Ben C Smith

:huh:

It was matter discussed at the meeting, in my view. The purity matters were things that the pillars decided not to add to the Pauline gospel.

Paul would not have accepted being told that his gospel to the gentiles was okay as it stood?

:huh:

What is in question (at the moment) is precisely how Paul interpreted the state of affairs. You are claiming (as far as I can gather) that his words in Galatians mean that Paul did not get what he wanted. I am claiming that his words in Galatians mean that he did get what he wanted. Let us examine what the words themselves mean, then perhaps we can discuss whether Paul was being altogether truthful or what not.

Agreed. Titus is his object lesson, evidence that the pillars once upon a time agreed with Paul on these matters!

Not sure who brought them in, since Paul does not say. As for their relevance to the meeting, they represented a view that the pillars did not (at first) agree with.

Correct! The false brothers wished to add something (gentile circumcision and such) to the Pauline gospel; but the pillars did not add anything to the gospel. Paul is contrasting the pillars with the false brethren. So you are right; it is not coincidental.

Another item that is not coincidental is the correspondence of Galatians 2.6 with 2.10:

...those who were of reputation added nothing to me.

They only asked us to remember the poor-- the very thing I also was eager to do.

The difference between the pillars no more than one item that Paul already (he claims) had in mind and the false brethren adding things that Paul would openly reject and not shake hands on (such as compelling Titus to be circumcised) is the meat of the passage.

He got no amendments to his gospel from the pillars; they laid on him no additional burdens. See 2.10.

He did recognize the affirmative about them (you and I agreed that he did at first)... until Cephas refused to eat with gentiles at Antioch (this is where we apparently still differ; you have him refusing to recognize their good at the handshake!).

Ben.

Gamera

That isn't clear at all. Paul says he went "by revelation" (Gal 2:2). Presumably this is one of his (apparently many) revelations he gets, as in Acts and Ephesians 3:3. Paul is nothing if not obedient to the divine voices he was wont to experience. See Acts 26:19.

So I take it he didn't give the revelation a single thought, but just went.

Now as a narrative this detail tells us perhaps a bit more. By adding it, the author is telling us that Paul wasn't submitting to the authority of the Jerusalem Church, and didn't really care what they thought. Indeed, it had been 16 years since he bothered to make a visit there, as Paul explicitly tells us for that very reason.

Given that he was directed to go, given that he probably would have told the pillars that he came due to a revelation, given that he was convinced that his gospel was taken directly from the risen Christ, and given that he had carried on a successful ministry for 16 years without approval of Jerusalem (which had become somewhat passee and insular -- not to mention cash poor -- in light of Paul's thriving ministry), I would think he would have been delighted to have gotten a handshake from the pillars, which could only have meant some kind of endorsement in light of the foregoing.

If the pillars thought Paul's gospel was off base, you would have expected them to have just said so. Instead, the differences seemed to relate not to the gospel Paul preached, but the implications of that gospel (which came to a head in the Cephas confrontation later, but weren't contemplated at the time).