Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

I've already done something like this about 5 years ago.

I haven't really looked into the Pauline literature problem since that time, because I'm just plain disgusted with the whole Pauline studies guild. Nobody seems to be interested in asking even the basic questions about authenticity, the questions which should precede any further enquiry. The prevailing attitude seems to be, Let's just assume that we can trust the Church tradition, so that we can then all play merrily in our little canonical box that the Catholic tradition created for us. :banghead:

So I just moved on to investigating new textual discoveries, such as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and from there went on to the Diatessarons...

In any case, my webpage

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

has a small Pauline section, where I look at some of these questions about the Historical Paul. Most of it is based on the work of Loisy. (It also should be noted that Loisy's main study on the question of Pauline authenticity, REMARQUES SUR LA LITTERATURE EPISTOLAIRE DU NOUVEAU TESTAMENT, still remains untranslated.) You can find there Loisy's suggested reconstructions of Romans, and of the Philippians.

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/al1.htm
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/alph1.htm

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vinnie

PK has suggested that 1:20 makes him suspicious. It looks like a scribe committing piuous fraud in his view. This is possible but let me highlight another view on that verse.

As Raymond Brown wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament, "Then using the rhetorical pattern of court defenses, Paul writes in letter form an apologia (1:11-2:21), polemical in tone but employing a sequence of rhetorical devices." (p.471) I would also refer you to the note (14) which relays further information on the subject. In that light, this does not seem very suspicious to me.

A snippet of note 14 reads: "Judicial or foprenzic rhetoric is explained by betz, Galatians 14-25, with parallels in Plato, Demosthenes, and Cicero. Betz's rhetorical outline underlies those offered by Fitzmeyer, Pukas and others . . .".

In order to argue for a text block or pericope to an interpolation there has to be positive evidence that this is the case. I think we can all agree on that. This suspicion does not seem to meet that criteria in my opinion.

-- Marcions motive for removal is quite obvious.

-- I am told that both "P46 and P75 are the oldest extant copies of the Pauline corpus (late 2nd Century), and both have the accepted reading as found in modern translations."

-- Paul appears to be using polemic and rhetoric in a pattern of court defenses.

How much is going to be placed or built on the text not having "again"?

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

The "I'm not lying thing" is interesting. It reeks of, well, lying.

It is also interesting that Brown uses parallels to establish the bona fides of this case, but if anyone pointed to parallels between the Gospels and other stories, he would undoubtedly dismiss them as indicating anything about its historicity.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Feel free to demonstrate the veracity of this assertion with exact quotations from Brown. Oh wait, you can't....

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Hi Vinnie,

Another point has come to my attention. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga writes, "According to Gal 1:18, Paul journeys three years after his conversion to Jerusalem in order to make the acquaintance of Peter; with the exception of Peter, he sees no one else there but James, and only remains there fifteen days. In Acts 9:26 ff., on the contrary, we are informed that Paul is introduced to the community of Jerusalem by Barnabas, has daily intercourse with the church, and preaches the Gospel - in other words, remains there for some time, and makes the acquaintance of the whole church." ( http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html ) I am not sure what to make of the relationship between Acts and Galatians here. If the author of Acts knew about Galatians, then the absence of this particular passage could explain the differing version of Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Acts. But it is possible that the author of Acts is giving spin to the account in Galatians. On the other hand, Frank R. McGuire sees Galatians as a pseudepigraph written in response to Acts. McGuire writes, "According to the original text, then, Paul returned to Damascus after his sojourn in Arabia (Gal. 1, 17) and did not go up to Jerusalem until whatever is implied by „after fourteen years“; whether a full fourteen years later, or in the fourteenth year of his apostleship, makes little difference. A second writer considers an interval of three years sufficient to demonstrate Paul's independence of Jerusalem; he may also have noticed, as William Paley was to do some 1600 years later, that the „many days“ which the Paul of Acts spends in Damascus could have amounted to three years. The author of Gal. 1, 18-24 did not bother to coordinate the second chapter with his own account; perhaps he hoped to displace the earlier Pauline version of Paul's first apostolic contact with the church at Jerusalem. To differentiate between the two visits now recorded, a still later „Paul“ inserts the word „again“ so conspicuously absent from Tertullian's reading of Gal. ii, 1." I suppose that this can be understood as the thesis of Acts (Paul associated freely with those in Jerusalem), the antithesis of Galatians (Paul didn't see Jerusalem until fourteen years later), and the synthesis or harmonization of an interpolator (yes, Paul did go to Jerusalem after many days as in Acts, and Paul did talk with Peter and James, but nobody else, as Paul imagines himself to be independent...perhaps falsely). For those who can't stomache an inauthentic Galatians, the order of Galatians, a response from Acts, and then an interpolation can be considered.

Another thing that is noteworthy about this passage is the huge commentative mythology that has developed around it. Whenever someone imagines Paul to have received something by tradition, that visit to Jerusalem is always in mind. This is dramatically illustrated by one internet commentary:

http://www.cyberstreet.com/calvary/Gal1;18-24.htm

I don't imagine that this proves that the passage was interpolated, but it is easy to see how delectable this passage is to those who want to see continuity between Peter/James and Paul: as in, "Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor 15:11). Indeed, one of the reasons that Robert Price urges for interpolation in 1 Cor 15 is that it goes against the statement that Paul received his gospel from no man (Gal 1:1,11,12). The same kind of argument would apply here.

I read that footnote in Brown, and Brown doesn't discuss our verse at all there. Perhaps you can find something more relevant to the matter at hand?

If you can see that Marcion had a motive for its removal, can't you see that anti-Marcionites had a motive for its insertion? And if Marcion was thought to have removed this passage, why wasn't that pointed out by the great heresiologists Irenaeus and Tertullian? Irenaeus and Tertullian both refute Marcion in a way that shows their copies of Galatians also lacked the passage. Consider this passage from the Adv. Haer.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf0...#P7603_2061887

Irenaeus doesn't appeal to Gal 1:18-24 despite its obvious apologetic value in this regard, and indeed in the last paragraph Irenaeus shows awareness of only one visit by Paul to Jerusalem in Galatians, or else Irenaeus would pay notice to the correspondence of the earlier trip with the one lead by Barnabas in the Acts. In any case, the earliest patristic testimony to our passage comes from Origen in the third century, who writes: "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine." (Against Celsus 1.47, cf. Commentary on Matthew 17)

I'm not building anything here; it is those who seize upon the reference to "James the Lord's brother" who are placing their hopes on .... what? What suggests that the passage is authentic?

Whenever a passage is suspected of tampering, the cry always goes out that the burden of proof is on the idea of interpolation and that the burden of proof has not been met. I agree with that, up to a point. A completely innocuous passage with no ancient versions disagreeing should not be questioned as to its authenticity. However, I don't think it is realistic to allow only two categories for texts, that of Proven Forgery and Assumed Authenticity, with nearly everything being shoved into the latter category. At the very least, we need a third category, that of Suspicious and Shaky. In this category, it might be shaky to take it as a given that it's a fraud, but the passage is certainly suspicious, so nothing should be built on it either way. And there is adequate grounds for raising reasonable doubt in this case:

1. Some second century manuscripts--as known to Marcion, Irenaeus, and Tertullian--do not have the Gal 1:18-24 passage.

2. The Coptic-Bohairic version, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and uncial 075 omit the word PALIN when quoting Gal 2:1, which (taken together with the absence of the preceding passage in the second century) suggests that it was added after the Gal 1:18-24 passage was inserted.

3. Not only is there the textual evidence cited in the previous two points, but the desire to portray Peter&James as in harmony with Paul and to imagine Paul not to be as independent of human authority as he says he is earlier in Galatians is a clear motive for insertion.

Now, you can say that Marcion removed the passage because it was too juicy and could be used against him...though, oddly, the massive refutations of Irenaeus and Tertullian do not appeal to it. But then you are making your own accusation: you are saying that Marcion is guilty of excising this particular passage. In the court of opinion, other crimes alleged against Marcion are moot, as even an unscrupulous person would be innocent of removing a passage that wasn't there in the first place. So you have to show that the passage was already there for Marcion to remove. This you have not done. Thus I am being reasonable to consider the matter of this passage's authenticity to be non liquet.

best,
Peter Kirby

YHWHtruth

The opening sentence names Paul as the writer of this book. (Ga 1:1) Also, his name is used again in the text, and he refers to himself in the first person. (5:2) A portion of the letter, in the way of an autobiography, speaks of Paul's conversion and some of his other experiences. The references to his affliction in the flesh (4:13, 15) are in harmony with expressions seemingly relating to this affliction in other Bible books. (2Co 12:7; Ac 23:1-5) Paul's other letters were usually written by a secretary, but this one, he says, was written with his "own hand." (Ga 6:11) In his other writings, almost without exception, he sends the greetings of himself and those with him, but in this letter he does not. Had the writer of the letter to the Galatians been an impostor, he would very likely have named a secretary and would have sent some greetings, as Paul usually did. Thus the writer's form of address and his honest direct style vouch for the letter's authenticity. It would not reasonably be fabricated this way.

The letter is not usually contested as being a letter of Paul's except by those who attempt to discredit Paul's writership of all the letters commonly attributed to him. Among evidences from outside the Bible supporting Paul's writership, there is a quotation that Irenaeus (c. 180 C.E.) makes from Galatians and ascribes to Paul.

What facts argue for the authenticity and canonicity of Galatians? It is referred to by name in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. Moreover, it is included in the following important Bible manuscripts of rank: Sinaitic, Alexandrine, Vatican No. 1209, Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, Codex Bezae, and Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46). Moreover, it is entirely in harmony with the other Greek Scripture writings and also with the Hebrew Scriptures, to which it frequently refers.

Max

Peter Kirby

Max, I'd like to keep this thread focused on Gal 1:18-24. An interpolation into this passage doesn't require an inauthentic Galatians, for which I have not attempted to argue (and in which I'm not a believer).

Briefly, though, you argue that Galatians is authentic because (1) Galatians does not mention a secretary, (2) Galatians has no greeting, and (3) Irenaeus quotes from Gatatians ca. 180 CE. (1) The pseudonymous Epistle to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, and Correspondence of Paul and Seneca do not mention secretaries. (2) The NAB refers to "the greeting in verse 3," which says "grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (3) If the epistle were written in the late first or early second century, Irenaeus may have been none the wiser.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

I'd like to keep this live in case there are some other ideas.

Thinking about this, I think we can dismiss the author of Acts knowing about Galicians. Also if Gal 1:18 - 24 is in P46 we don't seem to have any early manuscript attestation with it missing.

But we do have earlier attestation in Tertullian (and other fathers) for the lack of the 'again' in Gal 2:1. How can this be? Some suggestions:

- Tert wrote in Latin while the NT is in Greek so we cannot be sure if he is copying something word for word or paraphrasing from memory;

- With that in mind, when he quotes from Gal 2:1 in Against Marcion 5:3, the quotation marks in the English version may not be appropriate (you can bet your bottom dollar they are not in any manuscripts.

- The 'quotation' is not in the context of Gal 1:18 - 24 so the 'again' would make no sense if Tert included it.

- Hence it seems likely the 'again' is missing because Tert was not copying out a quotation but rather paraphrasing from memory. As he does not have Gal 1:18 - 24 in mind, the again has become superfluous and he forgets to include it.

This suggestion is strengthened if we find fourth and fifth century fathers doing exactly the same thing. After all, by this time we can expect the 'again' to be present in most manuscripts and certainly the Jerome bible used by Augustine. It would be interesting to see the context in which these later fathers miss out the 'again'.

BTW, Peter is your suggestion for an interpolation in Ant 20 not undermined by the first Christian usage of the bother of Jesus called Christ to refer to James being in Origin quoting Josephus? I fear you have caught the JM bug and are trying to rationalise away something that needs no special explanation. None of your questions come close to calling the passage into question unless you have an a priori assumption it is false.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Raymond Brown on the Virgin Birth:

• "Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual union virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These "parallels" consistently involve a type of hieros gamos where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus."
  
  Birth of the Messiah, p523

You citing Brown arguing for parallels:

• As Raymond Brown wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament, "Then using the rhetorical pattern of court defenses, Paul writes in letter form an apologia (1:11-2:21), polemical in tone but employing a sequence of rhetorical devices." (p.471) I would also refer you to the note (14) which relays further information on the subject. In that light, this does not seem very suspicious to me.
  
  A snippet of note 14 reads: "Judicial or foprenzic rhetoric is explained by betz, Galatians 14-25, with parallels in Plato, Demosthenes, and Cicero. Betz's rhetorical outline underlies those offered by Fitzmeyer, Pukas and others . . .".

Like I said, Vinnie, parallels are OK for Brown when they support his thesis, but wrong when they don't. Just another example of NT scholars hard at work makin' history safe for Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Case for interpolation of Galations 1:18-24 (according to Peter):

• 1. Some second century manuscripts--as known to Marcion, Irenaeus, and Tertullian--do not have the Gal 1:18-24 passage.
  
  {Haran} They were addressing Marcion's works. Just because they do not mention this passage, that does not mean that it was not there. One can speculate. Both of these church fathers mentioned Marcion's omissions in certain cases, yet they do not mention this as an omission. Were these verses ever even missing from Marcion?
  
• 2. The Coptic-Bohairic version, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and uncial 075 omit the word PALIN when quoting Gal 2:1, which (taken together with the absence of the preceding passage in the second century) suggests that it was added after the Gal 1:18-24 passage was inserted.
  
  {Haran} The evidence for the omission of 'palin' here is somewhat misleading.
  
  There is only one witness in this list considered by textual critics as primary evidence. Aside from this uncial MS 075 (a 10th century MS which omits the 'palin' but still contains Gal. 1:18-24), the only evidence for the omition of the 'palin' is considered by textual critics to be secondary (versional) and tertiary (church fathers) evidence.
  
  Of the secondary evidence, one Vulgate MS out of the entire Vulgate tradition omits the 'palin'. Only the Coptic-Bohairic does not have the 'palin', the other Coptic versions (i.e. Sahidic, etc.) do seem to have it. Only a part of the Georgian version omits the 'palin', and the other has it.
  
  The rest of the evidence is from the church fathers, considered by textual critics to be tertiary evidence because they often quote biblical verses from memory and/or paraphrase them.
  
  Greek fathers: Only the latin manuscript of Irenaeus omits the 'palin'. Irenaeus was a Greek church father (in fact, he quotes the 'palin' in the source used by the CCEL website). Chrysostom is from a lemma (i.e. NT text preceding commentary), and according to the footnote 12 on p. 37 of the UBS4th, "citations from the commentary part are frequently more faithful than the lemma".
  
  Latin fathers: Tertullian was addressing Marcion's work. Both Ambrosiaster and Augustine are split! They each have a reading without the 'palin' and a reading with the 'palin'. Therefore, their inclusion in this list was somewhat misleading. Were they addressing Marcion in the one place they omitted the 'palin'? Can anyone find a book/chapter reference for these quotes in these fathers works?
  
  
• 3. Not only is there the textual evidence cited in the previous two points, but the desire to portray Peter&James as in harmony with Paul and to imagine Paul not to be as independent of human authority as he says he is earlier in Galatians is a clear motive for insertion.
  
  {Haran} I believe the Motive here is slight compared to Marcion's. Marcion rejected the apostles in favor of Paul and his teachings. The only gospel Marcion accepted was the gospel of Luke, probably because he believed Luke to have been a disciple of Paul. According to Irenaeus and Tertullian (among other church fathers such as Epiphanius), Marcion omitted large parts of Luke and Paul's letters. In fact, the whole 5th book of Tertullian's 5 book series, Adversus Marcionem - Against Marcion, addresses Marcion's omissions from the various letters of Paul which Marcion decided to include in his canon. Galations was important to Marcion and was considered the basis of his rejection of the apostles teachings in favor of Paul's. It seems highly probable that, if Galations 1:18-24 was ever missing at all, Marcion would be the most likely culprit. With so many omissions to his name, this one would fit right in with the rest. The fact that he would have been eliminating a reference to Paul visiting with the apostles Peter and James speaks volumes.

Galations 1:18-24:

• is in the earliest and best manuscripts (i.e. primary evidence)
• does not seem to be missing from any of the thousands of manuscripts that we do have
• is not referred to as missing by any church father (to my knowledge)

Where is the evidence that leads us to assume that Galations 1:18-24 was ever even missing? For that matter, why do major, modern textual critics not mention this? Why, of all scholars, would Dr. Bart Ehrman not mention this in his "Orthodox Corruption"? Perhaps these are questions best asked on the TC-List?