The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a.God

[toejam]

Finally got around to reading this book. Wow. Excellent. One of the best books on early Christianity I've read. This is actually more along the lines of what I was expecting Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" to be like, but I found that too broad trying to cover everything from the Historical Jesus through to 4th C Trinity debates. The focus in this one is a little more sharp. Great stuff. Great scholarship.

[DCHindley]

J. C. O'Neill's The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, (SPCK, 1972) was reviewed by "Mr.Scrivener" on the NT Textual Criticism (aka 21st Century TC) blogspot, here:
http://nttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/ ... tians.html

I guess you could say he poo-poo'd O'Neill's suggested interpolations and glosses, and misrepresented some of the things he quoted O'Neill as saying.

The site is closely connected to the Evangelical Textual Criticism website, and you can even book Dan Wallace there in order to speak at your educational institution. Basically, everything seems to revolve around the Byzantine text type (with the Pericope about the Adulteress in John) with a whiff of KJVO.

The upside is that he gives the entire 6 chapters of Galatians (in English) and strikes through the text which O'Neill thinks are either interpolations or glosses.

Out of curiosity, did you scan the text yourself or find an electronic version somewhere? I looked but failed to find a PDF or online version of this book anywhere. FWIW, I know what it is like locating Greek text (online, or with a purchased program), copying it in Unicode and pasting it where the OCR software has mutilated it. Fun, fun ... !

DCH

Galatians 1:13-14, 22-24

13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. . . .

22 And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; 23 they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

From The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, by J.C. O'Neill, 1972

...

[robert j]

Galatians 1:13-14, 22-24

13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. . . .

22 And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; 23 they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

From The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, by J.C. O'Neill, 1972

omit 1.13, 14, 22-4

These verses have been interpolated into Paul’s argument by a
later writer who wished to glorify the apostle. The argument is
irrelevant and anachronistic, the concepts differ from Paul’s con-
cepts, and the vocabulary and style are not his...

J.C. O’Neill claims that the passages above are interpolations because “the argument is irrelevant” and “the concepts differ from Paul”.

If O’Neil fails to see how those passages fit perfectly with Paul’s primary theme and efforts in Galatians, then IMO, he fails to understand Paul and the letter. I see no need (nor have the time) to address his other arguments and other proposed interpolations in the letter.

These passages clearly promote, and are central to, Paul’s efforts in the letter ---

Paul threw the kitchen sink at the Galatians --- using as many arguments as he could muster. And Paul used and abused just about everyone to make his point --- Cephas, the other Pillars, Titus, even Barnabus, and even himself. Here’s an example of Paul using himself to make his point. In Gal. 1:13-16 (and 1:22-24) Paul tells about how he, a zealous Jew, once hassled believers in Jesus Christ --- but, Paul implies, he was wrong then just as those hassling you (his congregation) are wrong now.

In addition, these passages fit very nicely and provide additional detail about why Paul would refer to himself as the ektroma, the abortion or stillborn, in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, as I have previously described in this post ----

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=711

[bcedaifu]

Robert J wrote
Paul tells about how he, a zealous Jew, once hassled believers in Jesus Christ --- but, Paul implies, he was wrong then just as those hassling you (his congregation) are wrong now.

Perhaps I misunderstand this text. I didn't realize that the intended recipients of this letter had been "hassling" his congregation. I thought the Galatians had been viewed by "Paul" as "foolish", because they had listened to his "Jesus is god" message, for a few months or weeks, but then decided to return to orthodox Judaism, in order to continue with ancient mores and regulations, and thereby rejected Paul's "new" covenant, which had authorized consumption of pork, eating with unwashed gentiles, concluding menstuation without employing a mikveh, and worshiping both Jesus and YHWH on Sunday, instead of YHWH alone, on the sabbath. How can you regard the Galatians' behaviour as anything other than logical? They were not hassling anyone. They simply turned their backs on the new religion, and consequently, "Paul" lost their financial contributions, which instead went back into the coffers of the local temple.

[Sheshbazzar]

Be interesting if and when an authentic 1st century copy of Galatians is discovered.

Hope such is never discovered by Christian 'archaeologist' hands, as I expect they would do just as their church fathers did to all earlier 'heretical' texts that they could lay their hands on.
After all, What is more important, the loss of a little bit of papyrus ..or the loss of the traditional faith of billions of Christian believers? Not a hard decision for most Christians.

[DCHindley]

J.C. O’Neill claims that the passages above are interpolations because “the argument is irrelevant” and “the concepts differ from Paul”.

If O’Neil fails to see how those passages fit perfectly with Paul’s primary theme and efforts in Galatians, then IMO, he fails to understand Paul and the letter. I see no need (nor have the time) to address his other arguments and other proposed interpolations in the letter.

These passages clearly promote, and are central to, Paul’s efforts in the letter ---

You've been brainwashed, like all the rest of us who grew up in the western world. The issue of what Paul is supposed to be saying is not as obvious as you think it is.

The more one studies the problems, and the arguments, and stops assuming that glaring contradictions are actually perfectly crafted dovetails - because Paul was such a rhetorical genius as God's amanuensis - then what happens to him in Acts 9:18 can happen to you as well:

"And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight."

DCH (see the J C O'Neill thread to download a file containing an analysis of Galatians that hopefully makes a lot of the problems pretty clear)

[robert j]

Robert J wrote
Paul tells about how he, a zealous Jew, once hassled believers in Jesus Christ --- but, Paul implies, he was wrong then just as those hassling you (his congregation) are wrong now.

Perhaps I misunderstand this text. I didn't realize that the intended recipients of this letter had been "hassling" his congregation. I thought the Galatians had been viewed by "Paul" as "foolish", because they had listened to his "Jesus is god" message, for a few months or weeks, but then decided to return to orthodox Judaism...

Just unclear writing on my part ---- Paul, of course, was writing to his congregation. Those hassling the congregation are the ones encouraging circumcision.

[robert j]

J.C. O’Neill claims that the passages above are interpolations because “the argument is irrelevant” and “the concepts differ from Paul”.

If O’Neil fails to see how those passages fit perfectly with Paul’s primary theme and efforts in Galatians, then IMO, he fails to understand Paul and the letter. I see no need (nor have the time) to address his other arguments and other proposed interpolations in the letter.

These passages clearly promote, and are central to, Paul’s efforts in the letter ---

You've been brainwashed, like all the rest of us who grew up in the western world. The issue of what Paul is supposed to be saying is not as obvious as you think it is.

The more one studies the problems, and the arguments, and stops assuming that glaring contradictions are actually perfectly crafted dovetails - because Paul was such a rhetorical genius as God's amanuensis - then what happens to him in Acts 9:18 can happen to you as well:

"And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight."

DCH (see the J C O'Neill thread to download a file containing an analysis of Galatians that hopefully makes a lot of the problems pretty clear)

You may be right. Just a matter of opinion. I flirted with skepticism about Paul some years ago --- I so wanted to reject an historical Paul as I had rejected the NT gospel tales of Jesus --- exploring solutions with various combinations and components of Dutch Radical/ Simonian/Marcionite/extensive proto-orthodox redactions for Paul's letters. But applying my skeptical nature only brought me around to letters of an entrepreneurial, proud, and jealous mid-first century Jewish evangelist of a heavenly spirit, and a clever author exhibiting a complex, yet reasonably consistent personality. YMMV.