Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:26 pm

Jax wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:14 pm

On the thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3459&start=170 I responded to the poster Kapyong with this quote.

"In my opinion Paul really is the key. But who is Paul in the letters as opposed to others inserting themselves into his texts?

First we need to distill the letters down to those authentic to Paul, then we need to dissect those letters into their component parts, and finally we need to weed out the later interpolations.

< .. snip .. >

I am now looking into the possibility that 1 Corinthians and Galatians might also be composed of smaller letters. Does anyone here have any links to arguments on these two letters being compilations?
Jax wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:01 am
Does anyone know of any arguments that Galatians might also be a composite?
Stuart wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:24 pm

The two stories about Jerusalem are from different sources in Galatians. verses 1:18-24 are at odds with 1:15-17, and 2:1 onward

The secondary nature of 1:4-5 and of 2:7b-8 is well established. Verses 3:6-9, 11-12, 14-25 concern the "promise" replacement theology, fundamentally opposed to the theology of the rest of the letter (e.g., 5:3). Verses 1:13-14 can be seen as part of the effort to link Paul's "grace" theology with the OT "promise" theology. There are many other seams and they have been written about by critics for almost three centuries. The letter is hardly a "unity."

My general comment is, this looks like a students first crack at it without disciplined systemic methodology, and without enough foundation to recognize all the conflicting themes. You are about where I was in the mid-1990s.
Neil Godfrey has addressed Galatians 1:18-19, -

.
Though Tertullian made many references to Marcion’s copy of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and though he regularly castigated Marcion for chopping out verses he did not like as interpolations, Tertullian makes no mention at all Paul ever having acknowledged that James was the brother of the Lord or of Jesus. It is as though that passage did not exist in either Marcion’s or Tertullian’s copy of the epistle.

Accordingly, Jason D. BeDuhn in The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, states that the passage quoted above, 1:18-24, “is unattested” (p. 262).

Adolf Harnack, an early scholar of Marcion, wrote in Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, of the same passage in Galatians:
Chapter 1:18-24 probably were omitted because Marcion could not allow these connections of the apostle with Peter and the Jewish-Christian communities to stand . . . (p. 31)
Yet Harnack finds no opportunity to inform readers that Tertullian took the opportunity (as he did elsewhere) to excoriate “the heretic” for cutting out passages he did not like.

Another author in his book arguing against Christ Myth proponents of his day, A. D. Howell Smith, noted a further indication that Galatians 1:18-19 was unknown to anyone, “orthodox” or “heretic”, at that time:
There is a critical case of some slight cogency against the authenticity of Gal. i, 18, 19, which was absent from Marcion’s Apostolicon; the word “again” in Gal. ii, 1, which presupposes the earlier passage, seems to have been interpolated as it is absent from Irenaeus’s full and accurate citation of this section of the Epistle to the Galatians in his treatise against Heretics. (p. 76 of Jesus Not A Myth by A. D. Howell Smith [1942].)
< .. snip .. >

It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Galatians 1:19 passage was added at some point after the time of Tertullian.

Supporting the idea that only one visit to Jerusalem was depicted in the Epistle to the Galatians (and that the first visit in which Paul says he met Peter/Cephas along with James the brother of the Lord was an interpolation) is Irenaeus’s apparent quotation of Galatians 2:1. He indicates that Paul only paid one visit to Jerusalem, not two. He does not know the word “again”. [A] Benedictine text available at archive.org: translated, Irenaeus has “After 14 years I went up to Jerusalem”; no "again" ....

https://vridar.org/2019/07/12/when-did- ... -the-lord/
.

Peter Kirby has addressed Galatians 1:18-24 -

These verses are unattested as being in Marcion. Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13), Tertullian’s quotation of Marcion (A.M. 5.3.1), Augustine (Quaestionum Evangeliorum 2.40, Migne PL vol. 35 col. 1355), John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians 2.1, Migne PG vol. 61 col. 633), a certain Greek Catena in epistulam ad Galatas (e cod. Coislin. 204, page 27, line 10), the Bohairic Coptic version, and a manuscript of the Vulgate have Galatians 2:1 without the word “again.”

There is some level of expectation that Tertullian would have quoted it in an attempt to show subordination of Paul to Peter and James.

Some or all of these verses are considered an interpolation on other grounds by J. C. O’Neil (The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, p. 25), Frank R. McGuire (“Did Paul Write Galatians?“), Hermann Detering (“The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians,” p. 20), David Oliver Smith (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, p. 72), Robert Price (The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 415), and in some comments online.

http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html

Peter K goes on to talk about other passages missing - “shorter readings” - in the Apostolikon; and this web-page refers to a number of large omissions in Marcion's version of Galatians, including Gal 1:18-24 -
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7144
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:52 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:26 pm
Neil Godfrey has address Galatians 1:18-19, -

....

It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Galatians 1:19 passage was added at some point after the time of Tertullian.

Supporting the idea that only one visit to Jerusalem was depicted in the Epistle to the Galatians (and that the first visit in which Paul says he met Peter/Cephas along with James the brother of the Lord was an interpolation) is Irenaeus’s apparent quotation of Galatians 2:1. He indicates that Paul only paid one visit to Jerusalem, not two. He does not know the word “again”. [A] Benedictine text available at archive.org: translated, Irenaeus has “After 14 years I went up to Jerusalem”; no "again" ....

It will not do to argue that the first visit (in Galatians 1.18-24) postdates Tertullian without at least dealing with Tertullian's apparent knowledge elsewhere of that first visit:

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 23.6-7: 6 But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren — to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. 7 Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter [ascendit Hierosolymam cognoscendi Petri causa] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. 8 Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have glorified the Lord [nec dominum praeterea magnificassent], because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him.

Galatians 1.18-24: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas [ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν], and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24 And they were glorifying God [ἐδόξαζον... τὸν θεόν] because of me.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:05 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:52 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:26 pm

Neil Godfrey has addressed Galatians 1:18-19, -

....

It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Galatians 1:19 passage was added at some point after the time of Tertullian.

Supporting the idea that only one visit to Jerusalem was depicted in the Epistle to the Galatians (and that the first visit in which Paul says he met Peter/Cephas along with James the brother of the Lord was an interpolation) is Irenaeus’s apparent quotation of Galatians 2:1. He indicates that Paul only paid one visit to Jerusalem, not two. He does not know the word “again”. [A] Benedictine text available at archive.org: translated, Irenaeus has “After 14 years I went up to Jerusalem”; no "again" ....

It will not do to argue that the first visit (in Galatians 1.18-24) postdates Tertullian without at least dealing with Tertullian's apparent knowledge elsewhere of that first visit:

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 23.6-7: 6 But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren — to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. 7 Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter [ascendit Hierosolymam cognoscendi Petri causa] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. 8 Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have glorified the Lord, because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him.

Galatians 1.18-24: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas [ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν], and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24 And they were glorifying God [ἐδόξαζον... τὸν θεόν] because of me.

I'm not sure the issue is denial of an account of a visit to Jerusalem to visit Peter. It would seem to be whether there were two visits as outlined in the present day versions of Galatians 1:18-19 and Galatians 2:1-2 (Peter is not mentioned in Gal 2:1-2).

It would seem everyone who has doubted the authenticity of Gal 1:18-19, or the wider Gal 1:18-24, has done so on the basis of, or partly on the basis of, a reconstruction of Marcion's Apostilikon on the basis of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem.

Tertullian discusses Paul and passages in Galatians 1 in Adv. Marc. Book V. At the beginning of chapter 3, Tertullian recounts "fourteen years after he [Paul] went up to Jerusalem" to confer with Peter and the rest of the apostles, -

But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after, he went up to Jerusalem", in order to confer with them [Galatians 2:1-2] about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method ...http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

The preceding two chapters of Adv. Marc. Book V make reference to only vv. 1-8 of Galatians 1, and even then in what I think are interesting contexts, such as Tertullian claiming Paul "as much mine as the Christ is", -


Chapter 1
... Since therefore I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point, I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostle even — I, who am to some degree a new disciple, the follower of no other master; who at the same time can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed without any examination of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles. Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection ...

Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. He professes himself to be "an apostle" — to use his own, words — "not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ" [Galatians 1:1] Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person ...

Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment/apportion the spoil" [Genesis 49:27]. He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order [other?] words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles. Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul — belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe — and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy.

Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man"" [Galatians 1:1], thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defense of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. Then you deny the Apostle Paul. I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine ... Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the Christ — the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is ...


Chapter 2
The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator, — a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God ...

... Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator — a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law — especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him who has called you to His grace to another gospel" [Galatians 1:6-7]. He means "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; another as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to ''be removed to another gospel", simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another" [Galatians 1:7], he confirms the 'fact' that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get you up into the high mountain, you that brings to Sion good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, you that brings the gospel to Jerusalem." Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good [Isaiah 52:7] — even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles trust"; that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given you as a light of the Gentiles" [Isaiah 42:6]. However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another gospel" [Galatians 1:7], since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defense of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed" [Galatians 1:8] because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! ... His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel [Galatians 1:8]. It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel ...

[no further citations of Galatians for the short rest of the chapter, though Tertullian touches on Paul being a persecutor, - ]

He [Paul] then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle — confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear ...

Chapter 3
But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after, he went up to Jerusalem", in order to confer with them [Galatians 2:1-2] about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method ...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

Neil made the point, -
... Tertullian makes no mention at all [of] Paul ever having acknowledged that James was the brother of the Lord or of Jesus. It is as though that passage did not exist in either Marcion’s or Tertullian’s copy of the epistle.

Accordingly, Jason D. BeDuhn in The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon states that [Galatians] 1:18-24, “is unattested” (p. 262).

https://vridar.org/2019/07/12/when-did- ... -the-lord/
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:13 pm

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 23.7:

[Paul] went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching.

This seem like embellishment: it would seem unlikely Paul would have status of an 'office', and whether he would have had "right of a common belief and preaching" would seem to be negated by the stated reasons for his trip.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7144
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:17 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:05 pm
I'm not sure the issue is denial of an account of a visit to Jerusalem to visit Peter. It would seem to be whether there were two visits as outlined in the present day versions of Galatians 1:18-19 and Galatians 2:1-2 (Peter is not mentioned in Gal 2:1-2).
Right, the issue is not the presence of any visit to Jerusalem; the issue is the presence of the visit described in Galatians 1.18-24. But your source says:

It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Galatians 1:19 passage was added at some point after the time of Tertullian.

And it does so in the context of that "first" visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1.18-24. Yet Tertullian knows about that "first" visit (even if his text of Galatians 2.1 lacks "again"), so how can the first visit's presence in the text of Galatians postdate Tertullian?
It would seem everyone who has doubted the authenticity of Gal 1:18-19, or the wider Gal 1:18-24, has done so on the basis of, or partly on the basis of, a reconstruction of Marcion's Apostilikon on the basis of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem.
Yes, and Tertullian's given text of Galatians 2.1 plays into that discussion. But that is about the Marcionite text, and I am asking about the text which lay before Tertullian a few decades later.

ETA:
MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:13 pm
Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 23.7:

[Paul] went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching.

This seem like embellishment: it would seem unlikely Paul would have status of an 'office', and whether he would have had "right of a common belief and preaching" would seem to be negated by the stated reasons for his trip.
It is obviously embellishment, yes, as the "doubtless" implies.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:19 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:17 pm

... the issue is not the presence of any visit to Jerusalem; the issue is the presence of the visit described in Galatians 1.18-24 ... in the context of that "first" visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1.18-241 [which] Tertullian knows about2 ... (even if his text of Galatians 2.13 lacks "again"), so how can the first visit's presence in the text of Galatians postdate Tertullian?
It would seem everyone who has doubted the authenticity of Gal 1:18-19, or the wider Gal 1:18-24, has done so on the basis of, or partly on the basis of, a reconstruction of Marcion's Apostilikon on the basis of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem.
Yes, and Tertullian's given text of Galatians 2.13 plays into that discussion.
1 A significant issue for me, at least, is the lack of mention of James in Tertullian's commentary about Peter and the apostles, in the context of his discussion of Galatians.

2 How do you think Tertullian know about the first visit or if there were two visits? b/c he mentions Peter and the other apostles in Adv Marc V.3.1? (they aren't mentioned in Gal 2.1.)

3 But is Tertullian giving the text of Galatians 2.1 as we know it today?

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:17 pm
But that is about the Marcionite text, and I am asking about the text which lay before Tertullian a few decades later.
Is there any indication Tertullian had a different text before him a few decades later? (I often wonder why Tertullian would be chiding Marcion when Marcion would seem to have dropped off the radar by Tertullian's time, likely b/c he'd died).

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7144
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:41 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:19 pm
A significant issue for me, at least, is the lack of mention of James in Tertullian's commentary about Peter and the apostles, in the context of his discussion of Galatians.
That could make a topic of discussion, sure.
How do you think Tertullian know about the first visit or if there were two visits? b/c he mentions Peter and the other apostles in Adv Marc V.3.1? (they aren't mentioned in Gal 2.1.)
Tertullian obviously had a text of Galatians which included the first visit. Your source claimed that this visit might not have made it into the text of Galatians until after Tertullian. This is a problem.

(Note that this is a separate issue from the text which Tertullian appears to attest for Marcion.)
But is Tertullian giving the text of Galatians 2.1 as we know it today?
He is giving the text of Galatians 2.1 as we know it today from some manuscripts: those which lack the word πάλιν ("again").
I often wonder why Tertullian would be chiding Marcion when Marcion would seem to have dropped off the radar by Tertullian's time, likely b/c he'd died.
He is chiding Marcion in much the same way that modern evangelicals chide Joseph Smith or Brigham Young: that is, as a convenient proxy for the followers of that sect.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:38 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:41 pm

Tertullian obviously had a text of Galatians which included the first visit. Your source claimed that this visit might not have made it into the text of Galatians until after Tertullian. This is a problem.

(Note that this is a separate issue from the text which Tertullian appears to attest for Marcion.)

He is giving the text of Galatians 2.1 as we know it today from some manuscripts: those which lack the word πάλιν ("again").
How is it obvious Tertullian had a text of Galatians which included the first visit?

Note Neil has, -
Supporting the idea that only one visit to Jerusalem was [originally] depicted in the Epistle to the Galatians (and that the first visit in which Paul says he met Peter/Cephas along with James the brother of the Lord was an interpolation) is Irenaeus’s apparent quotation of Galatians 2:1. He indicates that Paul only paid one visit to Jerusalem, not two. He does not know the word “again” ... If Irenaeus indicates the original here, then this section of Galatians read:

1.17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.


2.1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem [as per Tert. Adv. Marc. V.3.1]...

https://vridar.org/2019/07/12/when-did- ... -the-lord/

I suggest Tertullian's commentaries - ie. including On the Prescription of Heretics 23.6-7 - also support the idea that only one visit to Jerusalem was depicted in early, pre-Tertullian versions of Galatians; that the visit in which Paul says he met James the brother of the Lord along with Cephas/Peter would be an interpolation; and, that Tertullian or someone around him was part of the embellishment / 'expansion'.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7144
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:23 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:38 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:41 pm

Tertullian obviously had a text of Galatians which included the first visit. Your source claimed that this visit might not have made it into the text of Galatians until after Tertullian. This is a problem.

(Note that this is a separate issue from the text which Tertullian appears to attest for Marcion.)

He is giving the text of Galatians 2.1 as we know it today from some manuscripts: those which lack the word πάλιν ("again").
How is it obvious Tertullian had a text of Galatians which included the first visit?
He refers to a visit to Jerusalem, and he explicitly cites Galatians 1.18 and 1.24. I quoted the text; I underlined the cited bits from Galatians. What are you missing?

ETA: Here it is again:


Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 23.6-7: 6 But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren — to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. 7 Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter [ascendit Hierosolymam cognoscendi Petri causa] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. 8 Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have glorified the Lord [nec dominum praeterea magnificassent], because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him.

Galatians 1.18-24: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas [ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν], and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24 And they were glorifying God [ἐδόξαζον... τὸν θεόν] because of me.

Tertullian tells us that he is citing Paul, and then he cites Paul; the verse that he paraphrases is Galatians 1.18. A sentence or two later he alludes to Galatians 1.24.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11306
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Deconstructed Letters of Paulos

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:54 am

I haven't been following this whole debate but my impression of Against Marcion has always been that

1. scholars assume that because Tertullian is citing from a text of Galatians which has details of this visit that
2. Marcion's text had the visit to Jerusalem and other biographical details

But the intro to book 5 makes clear that the Marcionites themselves could provide no biographical details of Paul. As such, I think

a the Marcionites had letters with no biographical details
and
b the orthodox version did have these details and they were accounted as superior because of the presence of biographical details (i.e. they were more typical of ordinary letters).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply