dog-on

Probably because this was originally a Marcionite document and as a result was revised to be included in the Luke/Acts gift set.

spin

You already know the answer, having asked me questions before.

There is another issue that seems to me to be worthy of consideration. There were messianic movements and messianic expectation; the latter, it seems, JtB caused to become a movement. Messianic movements were started by some fellow basically saying I'm the guy. I don't think they interest us here: the guy gets killed, so the movement falls apart. It's the abstraction of a messiah, the getting rid of the guy who can die, such as suggested by JtB that would be the sort of movement we should expect, a movement that had a figure such as Apollos spreading it, that led to the non-christian baptist sects.

I can't imagine Judean messianic movements of the ilk of Judah the Galilean going around the Mediterranean proselytizing gentiles as happened at Galatia.

I'm not sure that messianism ever became the mainstream position as such. You had a few messianic contenders threatening to kill Jews if they didn't fight (damned if you do and damned if you don't), so we don't ever leave the military free-the-Jews profile. It was absorbed as part of the Jewish tradition, shelved, and functionally forgotten about until such times as conditions required socio-political action.


spin

gurugeorge

OK, so it makes no sense to think of the "Pillars" as being part of a community that was a messianic movement, because as you say, if it had been such, the movement would already have fallen apart with the death of the (militarily) failed Messiah. It seems more likely that they were people who were in some sense upholders of an idea, the abstraction.

But if we accept that, why not the possibility that this particular bunch of upholders of the Messianic idea were (as portrayed in 1 Corinthians 15) already upholders of a different sort of Messianic idea (a revised, inverted concept of the Messiah)?

It's not too far from your concept of origins, but saves more of Paul's text, makes more sense of more of it.

I agree with Ben that the relationship portrayed is too friendly (even in the more "distant" reconstruction of Marcion's Galatians); and I agree with Amaleq13 that the differences between the Pillars and Paul can't have been as fundamental as the difference between a community believing in the military messiah to come and some dude coming to them with a revelation about a messiah who's been and done his stuff.

The "you do the gentiles we'll do the Jews" just doesn't make sense if the original community is traditional military-Messiah-to-come and Paul is newfangled-spiritual-Messiah-who-has-been. There's no common ground that could be said to be be divided up here. You "do" what? What would be the thing that they share that one group would do differently from the other?

The division of labour only makes sense if the difference of opinion is with regard to the universality of a spiritual-Messiah-who-has-been that both parties accept, only one party (Paul) thinks the message is more universal than the other. It's the universality that was Paul's particular twist, his particular gospel, not the very concept of an inverted Messiah itself - that was already a newfangled idea that had already been dreamed up by these "Pillars".

spamandham

The primary reasoning is, that 7:9 completely interrupts the flow that would otherwise exist.

6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

dog-on

Almost sounds like Marcion's attitude right after meeting with the Church leaders in Rome and having his little "gift" rejected, doesn't it...

andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

I have two separate problems here.

a/ Granted FTSOA that messianism was not the majority position in pre 70 CE Judaism, it seems unlikely that it was sufficiently marginal/heterodox that one was liable to any type of persecution merely for generic messianism. The people that Paul persecuted must IMO have been the wrong sort of messianists and the most obvious explanation is that they shared Paul's later belief in a crucified Messiah.

b/Even if FTSOA most Jews were not messianists it seems IMHO that Pharisees (like Paul) would have been messianists. (I am aware of the major problems of determining what pre 70 CE Pharisees believed but I still would be surprised if they had no messianic doctrine at all.)

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

From Liddell & Scott:

προσ-ανατιθεμαι, Med. to take an additional burthen on oneself, Xen.; but, πρ. τι τινι to contribute of oneself to another, N.T. II. προσανατεθεσθαι τινι to take counsel with one, Ib.

That verb in 1.16 has Paul for its subject and no direct object; in 2.6 it has the reputable ones for its subject and a direct object (nothing). The sense is different, as can be shown by the fact that we cannot even insert the same English verb into both contexts: I did not consult with flesh and blood would lead to those of reputation consulted nothing to me, which makes no sense; those of reputation added nothing to me would lead to I did not add with flesh and blood, which again makes no sense.

The sense in 2.6 has to be that those of reputation added nothing to the Pauline gospel; this is confirmed both by the αλλα (but rather) of 2.7 and by the μονον (only) of 2.10: They added nothing new to Paul, but rather only reminded him of something he was already eager to do. (In context, what they did not add to Paul is obviously the custom of gentile circumcision and the related purity requirements.)

The generally amicable tenor of the meeting in 2.1-10 is also confirmed by 2.11: But when Cephas came to Antioch... trouble.

The dismissive tones in 2.1-10 are there, no doubt about it. But they are there, in my judgment, mainly because of events that have happened since the original meeting. Paul comes close to contradicting himself because of this difference in timeframe and hindsight; on the one hand he says he submitted his gospel to the pillars for some kind of review, while on the other hand what and who the pillars are makes no difference to him. The easiest solution is to look carefully at the verb tenses: Paul submitted (past tense) his gospel to the pillars (verse 2), but what the pillars were (past tense, same timeframe) makes (present tense, current timeframe) no difference to him (verse 6). Paul thought these people were something at the time; why submit his gospel to them at all if they had absolutely nothing of value to offer him? But subsequent events, including a direct showdown with one of them based on men apparently sent by another one of them, have tempered his estimation of them somewhat.

Ben.

dog-on

Yup, those interpolations really made a mess of that letter...

spin

The messianism of the "I"m he" type is band together and fight to the end messianism. That would mean a force outside the reach of anything Paul could have done. However, messianic expectation of the JtB type which did force its way out of Judea as an independent faith if we can take the Mandeans as a descendant group or Apollos as a representative. JtB talked of repentance for the messianism he preached, so it didn't seem to be a militant variety, perhaps making such a movement vulnerable to a Paul.

Why? Didn't Josephus pack messianism off into zealotry? What would make you think the Pharisees as a whole might have been messianist? (And open to the possibility of accepting a messiah doesn't make one a messianist.)


spin

J-D

The expression 'messianic faith' could mean 'faith that a messiah will come'. Also, it could mean 'faith in a known [that is, known to the people holding the faith] individual's being the messiah'.

'Faith that a messiah will come' is part of the dominant mainstream position in Orthodox Judaism now, and up to a couple of hundred years ago (before Progressive Judaism and Conservative Judaism, whose positions on the Messiah I don't now, provided alternatives to Orthodox Judaism) it was the dominant mainstream position in Judaism. But since when? If it was not so in the first century, when did it become so and how?

If 'faith that a messiah will come' was part of the dominant mainstream position in Judaism as far back as the first century, that would bring us back to the question of what distinguished the minority of the 'Judean assemblies' we were talking about before, the minority whose faith had been (at least allegedly) persecuted by Paul. If it was 'faith in a known individual's being the messiah', the question would become 'who was that individual?'. However, this problem doesn't arise on the supposition that what distinguished the 'messianists' from the mainstream was their faith that a messiah would come. It is possible that that was not a mainstream position at the time. But it definitely was later on, so there is still a question about that change. But now I'm repeating myself.

I'm not saying all this in order to argue against what you've said, just in order to clarify my understanding of what you're saying.