Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 am

The possible variant (please note the difference with the table above):

Galatians 1narrative themeMark 3
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days
Meeting only with the insider(s)
Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.
I saw none of the other apostles.
...
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.
The outsiders can't become insiders
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

only James, the Lord’s brother.
an outsider becomes insider, but he is only a mere spiritual Christian (Carrier's point)
33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:18 pm

@Giuseppe
not just. Already Carrier has pointed out the strange fact that Paul mets only Peter and James, but not the others. The fact is strange per se. So a difference is required, between to meet only the apostles, and to meet only James. Or none of both them.
Peter is the only person Paul ever mentions as being his own peer (Peter : Jews :: Paul : everyone else), and Peter is the only one Paul mentions as furnishing a purpose for the first Jerusalem visit. As I wrote in my first reply, I doubt that Peter and James were the only two people of repute whom Paul literally "saw" in Jerusalem, but if he's only interested in meeting one person, then meeting with a small number of close associates isn't "strange" in any obvious way. Particularly if Paul himself isn't a big deal yet, and wouldn't draw a crowd simply by showing up and hanging with Peter.

I am also surprised that Carrier, Bayesian that he is, would be unfamiliar with sample bias. The only reason we are hearing about this trip is because it bolsters Paul's case. If what happened on the trip hadn't been useful to his case (that Paul met only a small number of people, and could then show that each of them wasn't a plausible source of his gospel), then we'd be reading some other argument instead. If instead of what did happen, he'd met with all kinds of apostles, then he could only with great difficulty convincingly argue that none of them had put him on the right path.

Speaking of which, if this James isn't an apostle and the reputed pillar who complicated Paul's plans for table fellowship in Antioch, then what does eliminate him from being the source of Paul's gospel? If he's a nobody, then how does the average Galatian know that James didn't have a vision or tongues-interpretation or an exorcism or whatever, report this experience to Peter and Paul both, obtain Peter's blessing, and then Paul runs with it, making it "his own" - and maybe even source it as "from revelation," because it was, sort of?
the case of Dykstra and Adamczewski (especially of the latter) requires a perfect pattern matching between Galatians and Mark. So I wonder if the interpolator broke the pattern matching. It is not more perfect, now. But it is still visible.
Meaning what? Mark is such an untalented writer that he can't do better than to recycle Galatians as a coded message?
Is the pattern matching broken because "only James, the Lord’s brother" is an interpolation?
Anything can be an interpolation.

You should try some experimental archeology: Maybe the prompt for the pericope is the punch line (Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother) and Mark could figure out the rest. Give the prompt to a university creative writing class. See how many novices come up with closer parallels to Mark's version than the received tale of Paul visits Peter plus or minus the meeting with James.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:50 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:18 pm
@Giuseppe
not just. Already Carrier has pointed out the strange fact that Paul mets only Peter and James, but not the others. The fact is strange per se. So a difference is required, between to meet only the apostles, and to meet only James. Or none of both them.
Peter is the only person Paul ever mentions as being his own peer (Peter : Jews :: Paul : everyone else), and Peter is the only one Paul mentions as furnishing a purpose for the first Jerusalem visit. As I wrote in my first reply, I doubt that Peter and James were the only two people of repute whom Paul literally "saw" in Jerusalem, but if he's only interested in meeting one person, then meeting with a small number of close associates isn't "strange" in any obvious way. Particularly if Paul himself isn't a big deal yet, and wouldn't draw a crowd simply by showing up and hanging with Peter.
I disagree strongly here. I may apply a kind of reductio ad absurdum to your logic: if Paul has to list any person met by him (when he wants to meet only Peter), then Paul should list also the slaves of Peter, the wife of Peter, the children of Peter, the friends of Peter, any Christian or apostle who is close associate of Peter. But he didn't.

This to say that the meeting (and relative mention) of James is strange per se, insofar we can't know why Paul has need to make it known that he met also James.

According to Carrier, the function of this James, meant as a mere Christian, was to witness the happened meeting between Paul and Peter (so the Galatians can verify independently about it).

If James was not a mere Christian but a Pillar, then the his presence there is not explained by Paul. Hence the strangeness of the his mention remains.

I prefer the solution that explains the higher number of things, and not a solution that leaves unexplained something. Carrier's solution explains why a mere Christian is mentioned there, whereas your solution doesn't explain why another Pillar is mentioned in the absence of the apostles.

This prima facie.

Secunda facie, since I realize (surely more than you :D ) the judaizing trend in action in the late Christianity, I lean to consider interpolation any occurrence of “brother of Lord”, designed to rehabilitate the (invented by Mark) brothers of Jesus against pauline (not Paul's) defamation of them.



The only reason we are hearing about this trip is because it bolsters Paul's case. If what happened on the trip hadn't been useful to his case (that Paul met only a small number of people, and could then show that each of them wasn't a plausible source of his gospel), then we'd be reading some other argument instead. If instead of what did happen, he'd met with all kinds of apostles, then he could only with great difficulty convincingly argue that none of them had put him on the right path.
I agree that "the only reason we are hearing about this trip is because it bolsters Paul's case", but I think that if James was a mere Christian, then Paul's case would be more strong: the Galatians have two good witnesses of the happened meeting of Paul with Peter: Paul himself, and the mere Christian James. If James was the Pillar, then the Galatians would have asked to James: are you really witness of the sincerity of Paul (when he says that he met only Peter and you)? James the Pillar would have answered: No, I didn't see him, therefore he is lying to you.

So Paul mentions a James mere brother as implicit attack against James the Pillar: a James mere brother becomes virtually more important - in the eyes of the Galatians, as witness - than James the Pillar.
Speaking of which, if this James isn't an apostle and the reputed pillar who complicated Paul's plans for table fellowship in Antioch,
You are not correct here. James the Pillar is an apostle, since he is probably the same person who saw the Risen Christ, after Peter. Therefore it is impossible that Paul didn't see apostles, while he saw James who is an apostle.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:15 am

@Giuseppe
if Paul has to list any person met by him
But he doesn't have to list any and all persons he met. He chooses whom he lists. It's his argument, and he chooses to list apostle(s). You and I seem to be in agreement that he must have seen (literally seen) other people in the Jerusalem movement. I am not suprised that, regarding the potential surrebuttal that any one of those other people might have been the source of his gospel, Paul chose to cross that rhetorical bridge when he came to it.
According to Carrier, the function of this James, meant as a mere Christian, was to witness the happened meeting between Paul and Peter (so the Galatians can verify independently about it).
Carrier is entitled to explain his hypothesis.

Against which, if James is nobody special, then how are the Galatians to know what this hypothetical witness' testimony would be if they could ask him, which they can't? And why would Paul need a witness to the first meeting? His public quarrel with Peter in Antioch years later is what shows that Peter isn't a plausible source for Paul's gospel.

(At another level of discourse, Mere James, let's call him, is by hypothesis not an expert in the composition, presentation or analysis of gospels. Any testimony he might give about Peter and Paul's conversations, assuming he'd have been there throughout, would call for a conclusion on his part. That is, "In Mere James' opinion, Peter didn't give Paul any element of Paul's gospel." Who would care what a nobody thinks about that highly technical question, in a specialty which challenges living scholars who've devoted their whole careers to understanding Paul's gospel and its sources?)
If James was not a mere Christian but a Pillar, then the his presence there is not explained by Paul. Hence the strangeness of the his mention remains.
If you say it's strange to you or Carrier says it's strange to him, then the argument from incredulity is noted with thanks, and I am delighted to afford it all the weight such an argument customarily earns.
I prefer the solution that explains the higher number of things, and not a solution that leaves unexplained something.
That's great. I'm sure you've noticed that other people with the same aspiration may question how many things a proposed solution explains and how well. And as we just saw, such people may even differ whether a thing demands expanation.

Example: I went to see the president of the bank downtown, and the vice president for commerical lending stopped by while we were meeting. Those were the only bank officers whom I met on that visit. I hear and read things like that every day; seriously, I'm supposed to question the vice president stopping by?
Carrier's solution explains why a mere Christian is mentioned there,
Which would be even more impressive had it been established that a mere Christian is mentioned there. As part of an argument to establish that interpretation, however, it fails to explain why Paul expresses concern about meeting other apostles, then lists someone who isn't, without explaining why he lists this person who is supposedly unknown to his audience. All that, while using a noun phrase Paul uses at most one other time in the entire extant body of his work, but it's supposedly an ordinary and usual designation of a "mere Christian." Uh, huh. Needs work, Giuseppe.
the Galatians have two good witnesses of the happened meeting of Paul with Peter: Paul himself, and the mere Christian James.
As noted above, the Galatians have no access to this witness' testimony, and by hypothesis no identification of him except that he's a Jewish Christian with a common Jewish name who lacks any visible qualifications to offer an opinion relevant to the question at hand. Injecting him into the story raises the unrebutted possibility that he's the source of Paul's gospel, where the entire point of the recitation is to rebut the accusation that anybody with a pulse is the source of Paul's gospel.
You are not correct here. James the Pillar is an apostle, since he is probably the same person who saw the Risen Christ, after Peter. Therefore it is impossible that Paul didn't see apostles, while he saw James who is an apostle.
On your interpretation. On mine, Paul said that he met two apostles.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:42 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:15 am
@Giuseppe
if Paul has to list any person met by him
But he doesn't have to list any and all persons he met. He chooses whom he lists. It's his argument, and he chooses to list apostle(s)
It is not sure that James is just the same James the Pillar and Apostle of Gal 2.



According to Carrier, the function of this James, meant as a mere Christian, was to witness the happened meeting between Paul and Peter (so the Galatians can verify independently about it).
Carrier is entitled to explain his hypothesis.
Of grace, how can you say so when Carrier has already explained perfectly well the his hypothesis? Really, it is the part of the his book that signs a real progress in comparison to Doherty's books.


Carrier's argument in short:

1) Paul wants to secure the Galatians that he met only Peter, and no other apostles.

2) Consequently, Paul met only Peter, and only a witness of the meeting: the mere Christian James.

3) So, he calls him “brother OF THE LORD” (and not simply "brother") to specify fully that he is a mere brother, in opposition to the his being an apostle. So “of the Lord” serves to mark the difference versus a brother who is also apostle.



Against which, if James is nobody special, then how are the Galatians to know what this hypothetical witness' testimony would be if they could ask him, which they can't?
I don't understand your point, here.

And why would Paul need a witness to the first meeting?
To persuade the Galatians that he, Paul, met really Peter. And not other apostle.
So there is a witness, one derived from the same lower rank Christians (as the Galatians were) of the happened meeting Paul-Peter, in the absence of any other person.

The importance of this mere James, as only witness of the meeting, increases paradoxically: a mere Christian bears a more great witness than the same so-called Pillars.
His public quarrel with Peter in Antioch years later is what shows that Peter isn't a plausible source for Paul's gospel.
But the Galatians knew that Peter was the founder of the cult.
(At another level of discourse, Mere James, let's call him, is by hypothesis not an expert in the composition, presentation or analysis of gospels. Any testimony he might give about Peter and Paul's conversations, assuming he'd have been there throughout, would call for a conclusion on his part. That is, "In Mere James' opinion, Peter didn't give Paul any element of Paul's gospel." Who would care what a nobody thinks about that highly technical question, in a specialty which challenges living scholars who've devoted their whole careers to understanding Paul's gospel and its sources?)
I don't understand your point, here.
If James was not a mere Christian but a Pillar, then the his presence there is not explained by Paul. Hence the strangeness of the his mention remains.
If you say it's strange to you or Carrier says it's strange to him, then the argument from incredulity is noted with thanks, and I am delighted to afford it all the weight such an argument customarily earns.
I don't understand your point, here.


Example: I went to see the president of the bank downtown, and the vice president for commerical lending stopped by while we were meeting. Those were the only bank officers whom I met on that visit. I hear and read things like that every day; seriously, I'm supposed to question the vice president stopping by?
yes, if your goal is to persuade the people that you have met only the president (person of absolute consideration among the same people) and no other people.
Carrier's solution explains why a mere Christian is mentioned there,
Which would be even more impressive had it been established that a mere Christian is mentioned there. As part of an argument to establish that interpretation, however, it fails to explain why Paul expresses concern about meeting other apostles,
How does it fail, of grace? In the eyes of Galatians, more apostles Paul met, more the suspicion becomes high that Paul did “copy and paste” from them (about the Gospel he preached). So Paul has absolute interest to prove that he met only an Apostle: the Founder himself of the Cult. Peter.

Think about this comparison: a pedophile wants to convince his accusers that he did not rape any child. Do you think the suspects would decrease if he said that he had met a lot of children ? So he secures that he met only a child, in presence of an adult who is not a child.


Richard Carrier is a genius.
then lists someone who isn't, without explaining why he lists this person who is supposedly unknown to his audience.
No, he explains: that person is unknown deliberately, he is a perfect not-apostle, since the his only presence, on the background of the absence (that is claimed by Paul) of other apostles, confirms again and again that there were not apostles during the meeting.
All that,
No, I can't concede you that ''All that''.
while using a noun phrase Paul uses at most one other time in the entire extant body of his work, but it's supposedly an ordinary and usual designation of a "mere Christian." Uh, huh. Needs work, Giuseppe.
Really there is a slight difference, in the use of the same term. Paul used 'brother OF THE LORD' and not 'brother IN Jesus', for example, because here the his tone is not mystical. He isn't addressing James. He means to specify the feature of James that serves more as contrast against the status of apostles: being a mere Christian.
the Galatians have two good witnesses of the happened meeting of Paul with Peter: Paul himself, and the mere Christian James.
As noted above, the Galatians have no access to this witness' testimony, and by hypothesis no identification of him except that he's a Jewish Christian with a common Jewish name who lacks any visible qualifications to offer an opinion relevant to the question at hand. Injecting him into the story raises the unrebutted possibility that he's the source of Paul's gospel, where the entire point of the recitation is to rebut the accusation that anybody with a pulse is the source of Paul's gospel.
what would have rebutted Paul's claims is to have done ''copy and paste'' from other apostles, not from a mere Christian.

In the metaphor of the pedophile, what increases the suspects about the his having raped at least a child is precisely to have met a lot of children. Less children met by him, more innocence of the presumed pedophile. More children met by him, more guiltiness of the presumed pedophile.

I think that you would be safer, if you entrusted your child to a presumed pedophile, but in the company of an adult, not (absolutely not!) of another child.

At least, I would be safer.
You are not correct here. James the Pillar is an apostle, since he is probably the same person who saw the Risen Christ, after Peter. Therefore it is impossible that Paul didn't see apostles, while he saw James who is an apostle.
On your interpretation. On mine, Paul said that he met two apostles.
well. So according to your strange “logic”, the Galatians would be safer about the Paul's innocence, after having known that he met two apostles, and not only the Founder plus a mere Christian.

Accordingly, according to your strange “logic”, a father of a child would be safer if he delivers in custody the his child in the hands of a presumed pedophile, in company not of an adult, but only of another child.


After this discussion with you, I am even more persuaded that dr. Carrier is really a Genius.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:17 pm

@Giuseppe
It is not sure that James is just the same James the Pillar and Apostle of Gal 2.
Agreed; I was just working though one line of possibility, simpler case first (i.e., assuming there is only one James throughout).
Of grace, how can you say so when Carrier has already explained perfectly well the his hypothesis? Really, it is the part of the his book that signs a real progress in comparison to Doherty's books.
I am not following your objection. What's so bad about somebody explaining a hypothesis which they're advancing, or my saying that that is what they've done, to introduce my own comments on the explanation?

I'm reasonably sure that you and I are in agreement what Carrier's argument is.
I don't understand your point, here.
I'll try to consolidate the several instances, since they mostly seem to turn on what is required for any person to testify credibly. First, the witness must be available in order to give the testimony. Then, what they testify to must be within their own knowledge, that is, either things that they personally observed or what they are qualified to give an opinion about.

Is Mere James available to give his testimony, or can he be found for that purpose? By hypothesis, he's not distinguished from any other Jewish Christian named James, of which there seems to be no shortage. Only his whereabouts more than fourteen years ago are mentioned, and that wasn't Galatia.

And what can he credibly testify about?

By hypothesis, James is unqualified to comment on what Paul might have been able to use in composing his own gospel from what Peter said to him.

It's unlikely that James shadowed Paul 24/7 during those two weeks, so he probably can't testify that Paul didn't meet with anybody else during that time. If he did shadow Paul, then why doesn't Paul qualify his supposed witness and say that James was always with him?

James can testify that Paul and Peter did meet, but only if he was there with both of them. Paul doesn't say whether he met with Peter and James at the same time and place.
To persuade the Galatians that he, Paul, met really Peter. And not other apostle.
Why would Mere James be an authority for whether the person Paul met with was Peter any more than Paul himself was? Also see above, about difficulties for Mere James to testify whether Paul met with anybody besides James himself.
as only witness of the meeting
Paul doesn't say that James was a witness of any meeting with Peter. If that was Paul's purpose for introducing Mere James, then why didn't Paul say James was there when he met Peter?

On other matters
yes, if your goal is to persuade the people that you have met only the president
Obviously that isn't my goal if I've told you that I met with the president and somebody else, too.

Paul's goal is not to convey that he met only with Peter, but rather that he met with nobody who gave him his gospel. Peter's stance towards Paul's gospel is what Paul addresses in the Antioch affair. James is a wildcard. Either he is distinguished enough that the Galatians already know that he isn't the source of Paul's gospel, or else Paul needs to tell them. Paul doesn't tell them anything about Mere James, by hypothesis.
So Paul has absolute interest to prove that he met only an Apostle:
Not if he met two of them. And if he met two people and one wasn't an apostle, then "Paul has absolute interest to prove" that the non-apostle wasn't a gospel source.
in presence of an adult who is not a child.
So, why does the accused tell the police only that he saw another person, rather than also telling the police something about the person and the circumstances relevant to the accusation, e.g. that the other person was an adult, and that. ..?
during the meeting
... Paul says nothing about any "the meeting." Continuing your hypothetical, why doesn't the accused tell the police that this adult was present when the accused and the victim were together? A helpful hint to the police about how to find this other adult would also be a good idea. "His name was Jimmy, a Jewish fellow who found Jesus" probably won't cut it.
No, I can't concede you that ''All that''.

What part of "Paul expresses concern about meeting other apostles, then lists someone who isn't, without explaining why he lists this person who is supposedly unknown to his audience." do you deny? The last two parts are your hypothesis.
Really there is a slight difference
I understand that that is your view, but I do not share it.
what would have rebutted Paul's claims is to have done ''copy and paste'' from other apostles, not from a mere Christian.
No. Paul's claim is that he didn't get it from any man; James is a man.
the Galatians would be safer about the Paul's innocence, after having known that he met two apostles, and not only the Founder plus a mere Christian.
If Paul met two apostles who opposed him publicly, then the Galatians are safer (?) than if he met one such apostle and one man whose views they don't know and Paul doesn't tell them.
After this discussion with you, I am even more persuaded that dr. Carrier is really a Genius.
What has that to do with anything we've been discussing?

That is a direct question. A responsive and satisfactory answer to it is a prerequisite to further discussion betwen us on this matter. A withdrawal of the comment will suffice.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:33 pm

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:17 pm
.

And what can he credibly testify about?

By hypothesis, James is unqualified to comment on what Paul might have been able to use in composing his own gospel from what Peter said to him.

It's unlikely that James shadowed Paul 24/7 during those two weeks, so he probably can't testify that Paul didn't meet with anybody else during that time. If he did shadow Paul, then why doesn't Paul qualify his supposed witness and say that James was always with him?

James can testify that Paul and Peter did meet, but only if he was there with both of them. Paul doesn't say whether he met with Peter and James at the same time and place.
To persuade the Galatians that he, Paul, met really Peter. And not other apostle.
Why would Mere James be an authority for whether the person Paul met with was Peter any more than Paul himself was? Also see above, about difficulties for Mere James to testify whether Paul met with anybody besides James himself.


as only witness of the meeting
Paul doesn't say that James was a witness of any meeting with Peter. If that was Paul's purpose for introducing Mere James, then why didn't Paul say James was there when he met Peter?
no, he seems to mean it. IMHO.

Paul's goal is not to convey that he met only with Peter, but rather that he met with nobody who gave him his gospel
. But there is not practical difference between these two goals. See below.

Peter's stance towards Paul's gospel is what Paul addresses in the Antioch affair. James is a wildcard. Either he is distinguished enough that the Galatians already know that he isn't the source of Paul's gospel, or else Paul needs to tell them. Paul doesn't tell them anything about Mere James, by hypothesis.
see below.
in presence of an adult who is not a child.
So, why does the accused tell the police only that he saw another person, rather than also telling the police something about the person and the circumstances relevant to the accusation, e.g. that the other person was an adult, and that. ..?
here you do an error. In the my metaphor, the presumed pedophile secures that the other person was an adult and not a child. Paul secures that James is a mere brother and not an apostle.
Hence the stress on "OF THE LORD".
... Paul says nothing about any "the meeting." Continuing your hypothetical, why doesn't the accused tell the police that this adult was present when the accused and the victim were together?
it is clear that he meant so.
A helpful hint to the police about how to find this other adult would also be a good idea. "His name was Jimmy, a Jewish fellow who found Jesus" probably won't cut it.
See below.
No, I can't concede you that ''All that''.

What part of "Paul expresses concern about meeting other apostles, then lists someone who isn't, without explaining why he lists this person who is supposedly unknown to his audience." do you deny? The last two parts are your hypothesis.
see below.

what would have rebutted Paul's claims is to have done ''copy and paste'' from other apostles, not from a mere Christian.
No. Paul's claim is that he didn't get it from any man; James is a man.
According to your objection, any Pagan who met a mere Christian could show himself as an Apostle. By doing simply "copy and paste". I don't think so. The apostles knew more things about how the sect worked. They knew the way to persuade the mere Christians. They had secret gnosis. A mere Christian could only say you: I believe in a crucified Christ. Even Tacitus knew it. But Tacitus didn't use that little knowledge to pass as apostle. Peregrinus did. For that time there was not more secrets about who should be the Christ.
In the time of Paul, only the apostles KNEW.

A mere James is useful precisely for the his ignorance. And irrilevance.


After this discussion with you, I am even more persuaded that dr. Carrier is really a Genius.
What has that to do with anything we've been discussing?

That is a direct question. A responsive and satisfactory answer to it is a prerequisite to further discussion betwen us on this matter. A withdrawal of the comment will suffice.
Carrier is a Genius because he has nailed the point about Gal 1:19, in my view.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:38 pm

@Giuseppe

Bottom first:
Carrier is a Genius because he has nailed the point about Gal 1:19, in my view.
Thank you for your candor.

Back to the top and then down a ways, through the various see belows; I think this is the new stuff:
it is clear that he meant so.
I looked at the Greek quickly online. I don't see anything at 1:18-19 that places Paul, Peter and James in the same room at the same time. Perhaps you could point it out to me, so it can be clear to me, too, as clear as it would need to be for Paul's audience to understand Mere James' role.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/1.htm
According to your objection, any Pagan who met a mere Christian could show himself as an Apostle. By doing simply "copy and paste". I don't think so.
I'm unsure that I'm parsing your first sentence correctly. Paul's claim does imply that he didn't get it from a pagan, but would anybody accuse him of getting it from a pagan? Nothing on the page suggests that Paul was rebutting that kind of accusation.

Would anybody accuse Paul of getting it from a fellow Jewish Christian, somebody who could easily have heard several Jerusalem apostles preach? Sure. Even assuming brother of the Lord in that context says no more than that, "no more than that" doesn't exclude being able to come up with or recall sermon topics.

Paul writes that he'd been far away from Jerusalem for years, and he apparently had had only hostile contact with the Jerusalem church before then. Any typical Jerusalem Jewish Christian could easily know more about the ideas circulating among the Jerusalem based apostles than Paul did at the time of his first meeting with Peter.

This hypothetical Mere James doesn't have to understand what the apostles preach as well as an apostle would, he just has to know what the different Jerusalem apostles preach. Paul is a sophisticated religious thinker. If Mere James hummed a few bars of any melody Paul enjoyed, then Paul could plausibly fill in the orchestration.

Paul needs to eliminate, at a minimum, everybody he mentions from the set of his possible informants about any Jerusalem apostolic teachings congruent with what became his gospel. He doesn't do that with James. James cannot help Paul as a potential witness if Paul doesn't, at a minimum, establish what James would testify and why James is qualified to give that testimony. Paul doesn't do that with James, either.

This would be a good time to say that I'm not an adherent of the polar opposite view, that brother of the Lord ought to be read at face value, as some apologists happily do, that Paul says he met a kinsman of Jesus. There are a lot of possible interpetations between "any old Christian" and "another of Mary's boys." Maybe they each have their plusses and minuses.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10260
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:08 pm

Carrier is a Genius
Do you ever notice people never think that those who disagree with them are geniuses? So what's the upshot? Whenever someone declares that those who agree with them are geniuses what they are really saying is - "I am a genius too - it just isn't as widely recognized!" Vanity, vanity all is vanity.
“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

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?

Post by GakuseiDon » Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:26 pm

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:18 pm
As I wrote in my first reply, I doubt that Peter and James were the only two people of repute whom Paul literally "saw" in Jerusalem, but if he's only interested in meeting one person, then meeting with a small number of close associates isn't "strange" in any obvious way. Particularly if Paul himself isn't a big deal yet, and wouldn't draw a crowd simply by showing up and hanging with Peter.
I wonder if the significance of Paul's use of "apostles" there is being overlooked, when he writes "I saw none of the other apostles", by Giuseppe as implying he meant something general like "Christian" rather than apostle.

The word "apostle" means someone sent out. According to Wiki, the equivalent Latin word "missio" is the root of our word "missionary". If so, the apostle Peter might really have been the only apostle available in Jerusalem at the time, the rest having been sent out throughout Judea and the wider world.

Paul describes various Christians in 1 Cor 12:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Apostles would then be people who spread the 'good news' of the Gospels. My guess is that there would be leaders who can give an official blue tick of verification to them, thus Paul's need to gain the leaders' approval for his own particular Gospel.

Paul lists "apostles" as first in his list of groups above. How many were out on the road 'apostling' we don't know, but I wonder about taking it to mean that Paul didn't meet any other Christians, as Giuseppe (if I am reading him correctly) is implying.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Post Reply