http://vridar.org/2013/11/02/a-simonian ... galatians/
Roger’s arguments attempt to solve what he sees as five “puzzling features” found in the extant Galatians 1:1 through 2:14.
When I read his 5 “puzzling features” my first thought was --- what ? that’s it? what’s so puzzling? If those puzzles can be readily explained as the actual writing of a jealous mid-first century Jewish evangelist promoting a spiritual savior, then there is no need for Roger’s extended proposals of shadowy figures of legend, nor proposed, speculative Marcionite constructions, nor extensive interpolations in the letter to the Galatians.
I contend that the letter to the Galatians was written by Paul for one sole purpose. Paul was defending his authority against some others that were telling his congregation that --- regardless of their belief in a spiritual savior --- circumcision was necessary to be full participants in the Israel of god. Nearly all of Paul’s statements in the letter to the Galatians must be viewed through that prism --- all were directed to refute that claim. And Paul’s arguments in Galatians fit very well with the personality he exposes in his other letters.
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. Before getting to Roger’s puzzles, here’s an example of Paul using himself to make his point. In Gal. 1:13-16 (and 1:22-23) 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.
Here is the very beginning of Roger’s essay, with his 5 puzzles (bolding and color similar to Roger’s), each followed by my response ----
Those expecting perfect consistency and logical exactness from Paul --- or those who claim extensive interpolations and redactions based on those characteristics ---- are on the wrong track. Galatians and the Corinthian correspondence were written to address a wide variety of sometimes conflicting problems within his congregations --- IMO some inconsistencies actually favor authenticity.The Transformation of Simon/Paul into Proto-Orthodox Paul in Galatians 1:1 – 2:14
This post will consider Galatians 1:1 – 2:14 from the perspective of my Simonian hypothesis. That passage contains some of the few bits of biographical information the Pauline Corpus provides about Paul.
If my hypothesis is correct, it should be able to untangle that information, plausibly assigning some parts to the real Paul (Simon of Samaria) and the rest to a later proto-orthodox interpolator. And that separation should help solve the puzzling features of the passage.
The puzzles I have in mind are:
1. The turnaround by Paul: In 1:8 he is ready to curse himself or anyone else—even an angel from heaven— who dares to preach a gospel contrary to the one he had preached. Yet in 2:1-2 he says that he went up to Jerusalem to present his gospel because, after all, he might be running or have run in vain! How, in the short space of time it takes to compose fourteen verses, does one’s attitude change from the adamant “there’s no way I’m wrong” to the conciliatory “well, maybe I was wrong?”
Roger’s twist on these passages is misleading. Paul used the authority of the Jerusalem group to bolster his own authority on the Jewish practice of circumcision. He evidently decided the stamp of approval from this leadership group for his missions among the Gentiles, from the traditional heart of Judaism, was worth the risk to any perceived compromise to his own importance.
Again, Paul is using Peter/Cephas to bolster his own authority and make his point by relating a story of calling-out of Cephas on his inconsistency on Jewish practices. Fits perfectly with Paul’s purpose in the letter.2. The turnaround by Peter: In 2:9 he is shaking hands with Paul and agreeing that he should go preach his brand of gospel to the Gentiles. But just a few verses later he, “fearing the circumcision party, separated himself” from Paul.
I think this name-game is much ado about nothing --- same guy. The similar translation of the Aramaic and Greek, as well as the inconsistent use of the names in the ancient manuscripts, seems nothing more than scribal confusion and initiative.3. The switch back and forth between the names Cephas and Peter. Cephas is the name of the person Paul stayed with during his first visit to Jerusalem. But in the account of the second visit the name “Peter” is used for him twice before the switch back to Cephas. In the Antioch incident Cephas is the only name used for the one who stood condemned.
Sure a little repetitious, but this was a very important part of Paul’s arguments. Not even the leaders in Jerusalem compelled the Greek Titus to be circumcised --- so, Paul implies, surely those compelling you (his congregation) are wrong.4. The double notice, in the space of only three verses, that Titus was with Paul (2:1 and 2:3).
And how does the repetition argue for interpolation? One would think an interpolator would be just as careful, or more-so, than a dictating Paul.
Paul decided he needed the appearance of approval of the Jerusalem group. But the proud and jealous Paul walked a fine-line between signifying their leadership position, and smugly downplaying their influence over himself.5. The use of the expressions “those who seemed to be something” and “those who seemed to be pillars” for the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Why not something more straightforward? And why does Paul only use the expressions when recounting his second visit to Jerusalem. He tells us that at his first visit he made the acquaintance of Cephas and saw James. Didn’t they “seem to be something” at that time? So why do the “seem” expressions appear four times in the account of his second visit (which was, at least temporarily, a success) but not at all in the first?
Galatians makes the most sense, IMO, if one sees Paul as a clever lawyer --- presenting all the arguments he could muster, hoping to give the jury (his congregation) something they might be able to hang their hat on and see things his way.
robert j.