Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Greek)

[spin]

This idea also obviously relies on the shaky assumption that 1 Cor 15:7 (and surrounding) is interpolated.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

If you think that 1) Paul says in Gal 1:11-12 that he did not receive—a terminus technicus indicate the imparting of learning from a master to pupil and from God to Paul—his gospel from human sources and 2) in 1 Cor 15:3 he received gospel information from human sources are written by the same person then you can be happy with the integrity of 1 Cor 15:3-11. If you think that 1) Paul says in Gal 1:15 he was called by God before he was born, yet 2) in 1 Cor 15:8 that he was an abortion are written by the same person then you can be happy with the integrity of 1 Cor 15:3-11. If you don't think "raised on the third day according to the scriptures" reflects post-Pauline theology, then you can be happy with 1 Cor 15:3-11. If you don't think that the logical argument Paul mounts in 1 Cor 15:12-19 to justify belief in the resurrection is not rendered meaningless by the evidence of several reports of the resurrected Jesus having been, then you can be happy with 1 Cor 15:3-11.

1 Cor 15:3-11 stinks.

[spin]

Jesus's attitude to table fellowship as evinced in the gospels with his eating with the ritually unclean.

I'm not sure what the gospel story has to do with anything. We're not supposing this was actually "Jesus's attitude" or something, are we?

The whole interpretation of Paul's meeting in Jerusalem is influenced by later thought. I'll happily put aside the table fellowship issue if you don't evince retrojected analysis of the meeting and show some substantive argument for seeing the Jerusalemites as believers in Jesus. Perhaps I have misunderstood this:

Galatians 2:9 ... James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars ...

Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

We don't get exactly the "statement" that we'd want to contradict this idea, but this looks like enough to say that James was "in," as was Cephas.

[Peter Kirby]

Jesus's attitude to table fellowship as evinced in the gospels with his eating with the ritually unclean.

I'm not sure what the gospel story has to do with anything. We're not supposing this was actually "Jesus's attitude" or something, are we?

The whole interpretation of Paul's meeting in Jerusalem is influenced by later thought. I'll happily put aside the table fellowship issue if you don't evince retrojected analysis of the meeting

So this isn't a logical argument. It's just a slight saying that you're being objective, and I'm letting the later literature dictate my opinions.

So we disagree about what argument is best, based on a reading of Paul... obviously.

[spin]

Jesus's attitude to table fellowship as evinced in the gospels with his eating with the ritually unclean.

I'm not sure what the gospel story has to do with anything. We're not supposing this was actually "Jesus's attitude" or something, are we?

The whole interpretation of Paul's meeting in Jerusalem is influenced by later thought. I'll happily put aside the table fellowship issue if you don't evince retrojected analysis of the meeting

So this isn't a logical argument. It's just a slight saying that you're being objective, and I'm letting the later literature dictate my opinions.

It is a conditional logical argument. (Working from the gospel indications of the teaching of Jesus, the Jerusalemites don't show any knowledge of it.)

So we disagree about what argument is best, based on a reading of Paul... obviously.

That might be the case, but I haven't actually seen an argument from you on the subject, just a vague statement of position.

[Peter Kirby]

It is not a logical argument in the context of our discussion, and I have presented some reasons.

Dishonesty will get you nowhere.

[spin]

It is not a logical argument in the context of our discussion, and I have presented some reasons.

Dishonesty will get you nowhere.

Still no content there, Peter

...looks like enough to say that James was "in," as was Cephas.

[Peter Kirby]

Still no content there, Peter.

I will make another post that should make the content of my arguments a little more clear.

1 Cor 15:3-11 stinks.

I agree that the passage is highly problematic. It would in some ways be convenient for me to excise it. I'm just not as certain about it. Because I don't feel very strongly about it, I will just let that point go, but we should of course be aware that it exists and that the argument depends on this interpolation.

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree that the passage is highly problematic. It would in some ways be convenient for me to excise it. I'm just not as certain about it. Because I don't feel very strongly about it, I will just let that point go, but we should of course be aware that it exists and that the argument depends on this interpolation.

I will readily grant that, if certain Pauline passages are not interpolations, then James must have been as Christian (to use the anachronism for convenience) as Paul. But, if those passages are interpolations, would you agree that what remains does not exactly pinpoint the overlap of opinion between Paul and James? And would you also agree that James and Cephas themselves do not have to hold identical beliefs, as well?

Without those proposed interpolations, I do not think we are told what prompted Paul to consult with James in the first place. Might it not be like an adherent to La Virgen de Guadalupe approaching an influential bishop who is not an adherent, trying to get his stamp of approval for a mission in or near his diocese that involves the Virgin? Belief in Our Lady of Guadalupe is not essential to Catholic belief, and both our believing supplicant here and the unbelieving bishop are still Catholics. Likewise, might Paul have approached James simply as a fellow messianist and influential Jew interested in the Diaspora as part of an attempt to get his approval and thereby the support of local synagogues or other Jewish groups under James' sway? Paul's belief that the messiah had already appeared in some obscure way could be like his own Virgin of Guadalupe, so to speak, which James tolerates but does not personally endorse.

Obviously, the text does not tell us the above any more than it tells us (once the interpolations are removed) that Paul and James both believed in Jesus, but is there anything to favor one reconstruction over the other (or over other possible reconstructions)?

[Peter Kirby]

I will make another post that should make the content of my arguments a little more clear.

Preliminaries : Interpolations

Ernst Barnikol concludes that this is the extent of the interpolation in Gal 2:7-8.

https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/barnikol.html

to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,

Leaving this text:

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel and perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Gal 1:18-20 appears to be an interpolation because of the addition of "again" in Gal 2:1, because it all but contradicts the assertion of 1:17 that he did not go to Jerusalem right away, and because it all but contradicts the assertion of 1:22 that he was still unknown to the churches of Judea, although the author is aware of these tensions and can't help but try to assert that the claim is not a lie (1:20).

1 Corinthians 15:7 will be (justifiably) assumed to be part of an interpolation.

Additional relevant data: http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html

First Argument: Those arguing to uphold the law in Galatians believed in Jesus Christ. With James and sometimes Cephas on the other side of this issue, they also seem to have believed in Jesus Christ.

In Galatians 5, the argument of Paul's opponents can be detected by inverting his assertions.

Galatians 5:2
"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

Inversion: You can accept circumcision, and Christ will still be of advantage to you.

Galatians 5:3
3 "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law."

Inversion: You can accept circumcision without obligation to keep the whole law.

Galatians 5:4
4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Inversion: You are not severed from Christ if you keep the law.

Galatians 5:6
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

Inversion: In Christ Jesus, circumcision still counts for something.

Galatians 5:11
"But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed."

So a follower of Jesus Christ can accept circumcision, and then they do not need to believe in the offense of the cross. (This is interesting...)

The upshot here is that the opponents may not believe in the cross, but they do believe in Christ Jesus. The idea that the opponents may not believe in the cross lends new meaning to Galatians 3:1.

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?"

So it seems that there could be a disagreement regarding whether Jesus Christ was crucified. The common denominator and point of disagreement, on the other hand, appears to be Jesus Christ, what it takes to believe in him, whether his gospel is limited to Jews and the circumcised, whether Gentile converts need to become circumcised first, and whether Jews should be eating with Gentile converts who have not first become circumcised.

Second Argument: James and Cephas would be irrelevant to Paul if they didn't preach Jesus Christ.

Paul takes his authority from the revelation from God concerning his Son, Jesus Christ.

The others, such as James and Cephas, are a threat to Paul's authority because they also make claims regarding Jesus Christ. If they did not make claims regarding Jesus Christ, they could be ignored, just like all the other Jews who believed in the coming of a Messiah.

Paul's Gentile converts wouldn't accept the authority of some Jewish Jerusalemite group who only had messianism in a general sense in common. There's no reason they should. But if others could say that Paul has distorted the gospel regarding Jesus Christ (which is what Paul says about them -- they distort the gospel, Gal 1:7), then they could have sway over these converts and convince them that accepting the good news of Jesus Christ's salvation also involves accepting circumcision.

The shared claim to the gospel regarding Jesus Christ is what brought Paul into direct conflict with James, specifically, and all others who believed that the gospel of Christ was for the Jews and for those who accepted circumcision, generally.

It's also a bit strange that they'd be arguing over the name of Christ, one group denying the name being Jesus. There's absolutely no evidence of this being a source of disagreement. There's a lot of evidence of disagreement regarding the nature of this Jesus Christ and what the gospel entails.

Ben C. Smith asks:

Might it not be like an adherent to La Virgen de Guadalupe approaching an influential bishop who is not an adherent, trying to get his stamp of approval for a mission in or near his diocese that involves the Virgin? Belief in Our Lady of Guadalupe is not essential to Catholic belief, and both our believing supplicant here and the unbelieving bishop are still Catholics. Likewise, might Paul have approached James simply as a fellow messianist and influential Jew interested in the Diaspora as part of an attempt to get his approval and thereby the support of local synagogues or other Jewish groups under James' sway? Paul's belief that the messiah had already appeared in some obscure way could be like his own Virgin of Guadalupe, so to speak, which James tolerates but does not personally endorse.

If we allow that James did not disagree with naming Christ as Jesus, then this has my full endorsement.

If we don't, then my credulity is stretched to the breaking point, that Paul would force himself to deal with these people, even though they didn't share anything in common besides a Judaism and a belief in a coming Messiah, which was extremely common in Judaism. They are a millstone around his neck, they contradict his teachings, they require his material support, and they otherwise disrupt his preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. If they didn't even believe in a Jesus Christ, they wouldn't have the same ability and authority to disrupt Paul's mission, because they would be just like any other disbelieving Jews. They could be dismissed as simply ignorant of Jesus Christ. A vast number of disbelieving Jews expected a Messiah one day. The thorn in Paul's side is that these people are believing, i.e., they are believing in Jesus Christ and contradicting Paul's message about Jesus Christ. And it is from Jesus Christ that Paul claims his authority, so this is how they are undercutting Paul's authority. This is what forces him to the table.

It may be a bit frustrating how difficult it is to prove a bunch of specific things, but that's only because the letters just don't offer the precise kind of explicit statements we want either way. Does this damage the idea that they both believe in Jesus Christ? On the contrary, if they didn't believe in Jesus Christ, this is much more likely to come up. It would be a beautiful polemical coup de grâce. "They don't even know about Jesus!"

Third Argument: Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and John are "apostles" and believers called to preach the mysteries of God regarding Jesus Christ. Paul, more specifically, is an apostle to the Gentiles. (Premises 4-5 below.)

Therefore, according to Paul's understanding of what apostleship is, they believe in Jesus Christ. (Premises 1-3 below.)

Premise (1) : Apostles serve Christ (and, to Paul, "Christ" is Jesus Christ).

Supporting data (1)(a): Apostles are "servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."

1 Cor 4:1,6,9-10
This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. ... I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos ... For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ.

Supporting data (1)(b): People were "in Christ" before Paul and "well known to the apostles."

Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Supporting Data (1)(c): Paul tightly associates his call to being an apostle with serving Christ Jesus.

Rom 1:1,5-6
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:1
Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 Cor 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

1 Thessalonians 2:6
Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

Premise (2) : A distinguishing mark of apostleship is seeing "Jesus our Lord."

1 Cor 9:1
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Premise (3) : The gospel was preached first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. Paul is an "apostle to the Gentiles."

Rom 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 11:13-14
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

Rom 15:15-21
"But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. 18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; 20 and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation, 21 but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand.”

Premise (4): Cephas, like Apollos and Paul, appears to be a believer in Jesus Christ.

Supporting Data (4)(a): It's implied here that they are all teaching about the "Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Cor 1:10-13 & 3:22
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
... whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, ...

Supporting Data (4)(b): If Cephas isn't directly called an apostle here (and it's certainly not excluded), he does have the right to take a "believing wife" in a passage regarding the rights of an apostle.

1 Cor 9:1-2 & 5
Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. ... Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? ...

Premise (5): In Jerusalem there were apostles before Paul, such as Cephas and James.

If Barnikol is correct about the extent of the interpolation, it's only a little harder to see that James and Cephas are among the apostles in Jerusalem. Their names are delayed until Gal 2:11-12, where Paul shows himself emerging victorious in an argument in Antioch, after the initial mention of the apostles in Jerusalem in 1:17.

Galatians 1:15-17, 2:7-10, 2:11-14
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to[e] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel and perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

[spin]

Some responses to Peter:

Argument by reversal:

The process of inverting Pauline statements to reveal his opponents' views does not work—at least as attempted here. Paul is talking specifically to the Galatians and contrasting the views of his opponents with what he specifically taught those Galatians. There is no opportunity to see the references to Jesus in these statements as bearing any relevance to what his opponents believed.

Gal 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

The Galatians have been told that they should accept circumcision, but Paul tells them that Christ will be of no advantage to them. There is no reflection on his opponents' views on Jesus in this. There is no indication that the opponents knew anything about Jesus.

Gal 5:4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

The Galatians have been told that to follow the Jewish way of other proselytes to Galatia they need to follow the law (to become justified). Paul tells them that seeking justification through the law will sever them from his Christ, having fallen from grace.

One cannot derive opponents' views about Jesus through the process of inversion as it does not take into account the audience or Paul's pastoral relationship with those he writes to. What is being inverted may contain more information about the supposed original than can reasonable be derived.

It is Paul who is bring the views disturbing his Galatians into contrast with Jesus. It is Paul who is separating the opponents from his Jesus.

Circumcision does not exclude people from justification through Jesus, for circumcision and uncircumcision are irrelevant to Paul's Jesus cult. Otherwise he might not be eligible for his own religion. But those who make circumcision important to their life—Paul tells the Galatians—are severed from Jesus and have fallen from grace. Paul continually tells the Galatians the choice is Jesus or the religion of his opponents. He is not simply contradicting his opponents, but preaching to the Galatians about Jesus.

The process of inversion is liable to assumptions about what to invert. How does one discern what was derived from the opponents and what was not?


Argument from the irrelevance of Jerusalem to Paul

The assertion "The others, such as James and Cephas, are a threat to Paul's authority because they also make claims regarding Jesus Christ" contains the unjustified link to Jesus. We don't know anything about the messiah of Paul's opponents. If we can judge by the story of the messianic proselytizer Apollos mentioned in Acts 18, people preached the Johannine cult of the coming messiah without any knowledge of Jesus. One can be a messianic prepper without any notion of Jesus and one can proselytize a non-Jesus messianism.

Paul before his trip to Jerusalem was a lone wolf preacher, who had no backing, unlike those who were sent by the Jerusalemites. By interacting with them Paul is upping his creds. He has a relationship with the people in Jerusalem and supports the poor there. He suddenly stops being a loner and can place himself into a wider context. Thus, by his trip to Jerusalem his raises his credibility to potential proselytes. It is not important what the Jerusalemites believe, but how Paul can sell his Jesus messianism.

The letter to the Galatians sells the notion that the people in Jerusalem with their insistence on living the
law just don't get it. On the other hand Paul runs with the big guys in Jerusalem so he is someone with an improved claim to apostleship. The trip to Jerusalem is good brand placement.


Argument by retrojection of the terminus technicus "apostle"

The term "apostle" at the time Paul wrote indicated a person who was sent with orders, with a mission. It could not have developed the sense carried by the later christian terminus technicus. The contrary seems to be that a whole technical vocabulary was born in the head of Paul, who received his gospel (and its vocabulary) from a vision. We must scratch the imputation that Paul used the term "apostle" in any christian sense. Terms develop specific significances within linguistic communities over time. We can understand the term apostle from Gal 1:1, which indicates that an apostle was usually of men and/or from men. Paul's mission however came from God. Paul's use of the term was the common usage: he just claims that God gave him his orders. Being an apostle does not imply a commission from God to make converts to the Jesus religion. Just Paul's apostleship. Those who attend Paul would have the same view of their apostleship. They could be described as apostles sent by any recognized organization. Paul contrasts his job as apostle from others by claiming his apostleship was from God, which allows him to compete in the proselytism game, while not having been sent by anyone.

Cephas and Apollos, by virtue of their ambulant proselytizing, could be called apostles sent by Jerusalem or some other such entity. The status of James is ambiguous: although he is implied to be an apostle in Gal 1:19 he does not appear to have been sent anywhere, though he does send people. If we can judge by 1 Cor 9:5, he is separated from people called apostles, "the other apostles and the brothers of the lord and Cephas".

Paul didn't put up his apostleship at the beginning of 1 Thes as he does in all his other letters, despite mentioning it in 1:7. Perhaps he didn't see it as such a badge at the time. Yet he feels he has to clarify his status as apostle in various ways, including 1 Cor 1:1 "called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God". Paul does not use the term "apostle" in any christian sense, yet he sees himself as sent by God on a mission, which makes him an apostle on behalf of God.

We know Paul's view of Cephas in Galatians is quite ambivalent. I don't know if that view is improved in 1 Cor. One cannot glean from the mentions of Cephas in 1 Cor that he believed in the messiah called Jesus. One can say that he was a messianic proselytizer. Was he any different from the Apollos mentioned in Acts 18:25 "who taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John"? That story has Apollos being informed of Jesus by Priscilla and Aquila, but he had been proselytizing for John's messiah, a Christ before Paul began preaching Jesus. Was that what Apollos was doing in 1 Cor and Cephas likewise? Paul doesn't tell his readers. He does however take advantage of their work.

One cannot place too much significance on the term "apostle" as generally used in Paul's writings. He gives the term special significance only when applied to him (and perhaps his) through his sentiment of have been sent by God.