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.