show_no_mercy

The author is clearly not using repitition at all. Like I wrote before, this is the only instance where Paul writes αλλον ιησουν.

sschlichter

Please explain why the use of 'another' is significant to you? If I tell you I believe another thing, why are you confident that I cannot be referring to a different thing. i.e. Why can't 'another' and 'a different' be synonomous references.

So, in your view, verse 4 is referring to 3 specific someones. One is preaching another Jesus, one is preaching a different spirit, and another is preaching a different gospel? Yet, Paul deals with them all in one argument. is that your contention?

In Gal, another (allon) gospel is basically equivocated with a different gospel and both are referring to justification by the law.

~steve

TedM

I do, although I'm not saying it isn't an impressive piece of work. In fact, I think you were wise to write such a large book because it surely is less likely to be ignored by ALL of the scholars out there than your theory has been to date. I think their responses will be very interesting over time.

I plan on reviewing your website articles that address Hebrews. I readily admit that Hebrews, perhaps more than any other early writing, provides a great deal of support for your theory. If any writing is likely to convince me you are right it would be Hebrews, so this could end up being very interesting (for me, at least). Very busy starting my own business, so this may be months away. (I know you aren't holding your breath!).

ted

EarlDoherty

For TedM and others (not judge, who probably wouldn’t be able to handle it anyway), I will point out my website set of three articles on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It’s lengthy and (as I say in the introduction) “not for the faint of heart.” It was somewhat condensed and revised for Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, where it has been more efficiently presented. It begins at http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp14One.htm

Incidentally that set of articles superseded my earlier single article on Hebrews (Supplementary No. 9). Not that the latter is no longer worth reading, but it's a much less developed treatment of the topic. It did not fully cover some of the points Ted is interested in.

Earl Doherty

show_no_mercy

I would agree with your initial observation that it had something to do with the law if Paul wrote ετερον ιησουν [...] ετερον πνευμα [...] ετερον ευαγγελιον. In Galatians Paul clears up what he means when he writes ετερον xyz. It is something else altogether from his own proclamation that has something to do with the law.

Since he doesn't use ετερον with regard to the other Jesus, it doesn't have the same weight.

No.

Paul introduces this other gospel with ετερος in Gal 1.6. The next sentence he clarifies that it "is not another of the same" (ουκ εστιν αλλο). It's almost tautological.

Whatever the "other" Jesus is that the super apostles preach in 2 Corinthians, it's another of the same type of Jesus that Paul preaches. As opposed to the other of a different type of spirit/gospel that the super-apostles preach. Like you pointed out in Galatians, this difference has to do with the law.

TedM

Thanks Earl. I was looking at Supp9, so your link is very helpful. I will look at it instead.

Toto

judge's digression on Rom 8 and the "likeness of sinful flesh"

sschlichter

why do you feel another is less 'weighty' than a different. (and what weightiness means).

also, would a jewish super-apostle that preaches justification by faith in christ and continued adherence to the law qualify as another jesus or just a different jesus? if not, why?

DCHindley

Now as everyone knows, I have my pet theory about how non-christian Paulines were interpolated by a redactor who was a christian, but in the process I have gone over Gal 1:6-8 with a fine toothed comb, fueled by my tiger blood. (Do I sound like Charley Sheen yet?)

Greek (GNT)	English (RSV adjusted to mirror the Greek exactly)
1.6a QAUMAZW OTI OUTWS TACEWS METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI [6b *[CRISTOU]*] 6c EIS ETERON EUAGGELION	6a I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in grace [6b *[of Christ]*] 6c turning to a different good news --
1.7a O OUK ESTIN ALLO EI MH TINES EISIN OI TARASSONTES UMAS KAI QELONTES METASTREYAI TO EUAGGELION [7b TOU CRISTOU]	7a not that there is another (good news), but there are some who trouble you, wanting to pervert the good news [7b of the Christ].
1.8 ALLA KAI EAN HMEIS H AGGELOS EX OURANOU *[UMIN] EUAGGELIZHTAI* PAR O EUHGGELISAMEQA UMIN ANAQEMA ESTW	8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, *should preach [to you] as good news* contrary to that which we preached as good news to you, let him be accursed.

The text marked by *asterisks* reflect the fact that significant textual variants exist for these passages, which are not given here. In my analysis "him who called you in grace" is God, not Christ. The phrase "preach as good news" actually translates various forms of a single Greek verb euaggelizomai, that literally means "proclaim as good news". In vs 7, it does not actually say "another good news" but just "another" although "good news" is implied.

What I think the non-christian Paul called his "good news" was a teaching that gentiles did not have to be circumcised to participate in the "inheritance" God promised to Abram's seed, but were justified before God on account of their faith in God to fulfill that promise, because Abram was justified on account of his faith before he ever circumcised himself and became Abraham. Chances are that the "inheritance" was conceived as a future messianic age of plenty, into which they would one day be resurrected along with the righteous Jews.

Apparently, Paul's buddies were being lobbied by another faction, more than likely Jews like Paul himself, who believed that gentiles could indeed inherit with natural born Jews, but only if they circumcised and followed the Law like circumcised Jews were expected to do. It was "good news" with a negative side for a gentile (circumcision), but still offered them a part in the age to come.

This implies, if you think about it, that there were other Jews who felt that gentiles could not participate in the "inheritance" under any circumstances. The best that gentiles might expect is scraps from the table of the masters of that age to come, and likely no resurrection from the dead was available for them anyhow. "Tough luck!"

Regardless whether one wants to accept my "has to be wrong" theory, I think that the modifications of the English translation needed to exactly mirror the underlaying Greek text show quite clearly the problem with trying to interpret this language from an English translation.

My recommendation to all is to buy an interlinear Greek-English edition of the NT (they go for about $25-$35) so you can see for yourself. Don't get the kind with Greek on the left hand page and English on the right, but the kind that have English glosses right underneath each Greek word. You no longer have to be a Greek expert to get the sense of what is written.

You can download one, Interlinear Scripture Analyzer 2 basic (version 2.1.3), or use their online version.

DCH