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.
perseusomega9
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

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

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:07 pm

How's that arguing with Giuseppe going for you Paul?

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 770
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 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:31 pm

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:42 am
@GakuseiDon

Yes, I did have 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 in mind as I was thinking about the term apostles. Based on the plain meaning of the term, apostles would seem to go away from their homes on missions to recruit converts and advise the already converted. That agrees with what Paul depicts apostles doing, including himself, throughout the letters. Reputed pillar James in Galatians 2 evidently dispatches other people as apostles, and that "executive" activity, too, is plausibly an aspect of the apostolic function.
It's entirely my own view, but I think Paul meant more by "apostle" than just being sent out to preach. For example:

2 Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

My own personal idea is that the early apostles, probably Jesus himself, were part of travelling 'miracle' shows, much like the shows put on by preaching faith healers in the last few centuries. Apostles were sent out to preach their gospel message, and were expected to show fantastic abilities as proof of their 'in' with the heavenly Jesus.

Perhaps Paul's reputation as a travelling 'miracle worker' preacher cast suspicion over his role within the early church, so that Second Century writers like Justin Martyr who stressed Christianity's philosophical roots, made him unpopular with some Christians, while popular with the more mystic-minded groups.
Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:42 am
While I agree with that overall, I think the model may be more like "reputation" online or "endorsements" or "likes." That is, it enhances your credibility to be associated with established opinion leaders.
Sure, I don't want it to sound as that there was some kind of official organization at that time. Just that there were known to be church pillars, whose tick of approval was important to gain for self-declared apostles like Paul.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Giuseppe
Posts: 5785
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 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:49 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:15 pm
@Giuseppe

It's not unusual in the real world for some participants in a meeting to have private exchanges which they'd prefer not to share with others at the same meeting. They can excuse themselves and meet more privately (caucus), resuming the larger meeting when they're done. Alternatively, they can send the lower-status third party (by hypothesis) on some errand, and continue the meeting without him.

Paul makes no claim that James is ever present when he's meeting with Peter. Even if Mere James was "in attendance," nothing prevents him from having missed any confidential parts over those two weeks. It's not as if we (including the Galatians) are ever going to hear about any of this from him.
In my view, you are clearly ignoring the real force of the my argument. You are seeing “the trees” while ignoring the “forest”.

The ''forest'' is the more than evident goal of Paul: Paul wants to persuade the Galatians that he didn't “copy and paste” from any apostle on the earth, even from the only apostle by him met (Peter).

The absence of apostles in Jerusalem (real or fictional) helps a lot the Paul's claims, but not totally: he has still to prove that the apostle Peter didn't reveal secret gnosis to him. So also the presence of Mere James proves that Peter talked only about things that even a mere brother could listen. Any Galatian brother could equally be in the meeting, and accordingly he would have realized the honesty of Paul.

This (mere ''trees'') is 100% what is expected given the premise (the ''forest'' or goal of Paul about which you seem to agree).

Your objections, insofar you don't prove that these are what is 100% expected given the premise (the goal of Paul), are confuted. My solution explains in the same time the presence of a Mere James and the absence of the other apostles.

At contrary, you are only appealing to mere casual meetings. Without to be able to give a plausible reason about how and why the casual meetings should help the Goal of Paul: to persuade the Galatians that he didn't ''copy and paste'' even from Peter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 320
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 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:13 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:07 pm
How's that arguing with Giuseppe going for you Paul?
8-)

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 320
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 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:00 am

@GakuseiDon
It's entirely my own view, but I think Paul meant more by "apostle" than just being sent out to preach.
I think Paul uses apostle in two senses, to be disambiguated by context. "Major apostles," if you will, are people like Paul who've seen the risen Jesus and have received some kind of preaching commision from him. "Just plain apostles" are people sent out and materially supported by churches to spread the good word. Galataians 1:1 seems to suggest that distinction, with Paul claiming to be the better kind, and 2 Corinthians 8:23 refers to "apostles of the assemblies," which I think are the other and more numerous kind.

I don't know how the churches would have picked their apostles; maybe they're folks who can work signs, too. It's an interesting point you raise about later, more "philosphical" Christians. Of course, it's easier to be philosophical when you can't do magic anymore :) .

@Giuseppe

I don't see anything in this most recent post that I haven't seen before, whether forest or trees.

IMO, Mere James is unsuitable as a "witness" to just about anything Paul might have in mind, and Paul does nothing on the page to qualify Mere James to testify about anything plausibly in dispute. The simple presence of a third party doesn't constrain what transpired over two weeks of meetings between Peter and Paul, nor does Paul develop any argument that it did, or even establish that James was present when he met with Peter.

From that I would conclude not so much that Carrier's hypothesis is to be dismissed, but rather that his confidence in it, to the exclusion of so many other tenable and seriously possible hypotheses, is remarkably greater than other persons might justifiably estimate.

Worst of all, there is nothing in any of that which "confutes" the naive reading that Paul says that he met somebody who shared one or both parents with Jesus. That isn't my favorite reading, but it's the one that most needs "confuting," because if it's correct, then the game is pretty much over. You have shown that there is no fewer than one tenable alternative to the naive reading. Since I don't dispute that, let us sing Kumbaya and each be off on other errands.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5785
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 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:33 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:00 am
From that I would conclude not so much that Carrier's hypothesis is to be dismissed, but rather that his confidence in it, to the exclusion of so many other tenable and seriously possible hypotheses, is remarkably greater than other persons might justifiably estimate.
The great force of the Carrier's argument, in my view, is to make any detail of the meeting with Peter, etc - precisely any possible detail that is in evidence - a mere function of the great rethorical argument Paul is building in order to persuade the Galatians that the origin of the his Gospel is not the mere fruit of a ''copy and paste''.

Something as:
I didn't meet any apostle, and if just I met an apostle only, be sure that I met also brother James.



In this proposition there is anything that is necessary for Paul's goal. The Galatians would have realized too much easily the his point: in primis, that a mere brother was a direct witness of the meeting of Paul with Peter. Corollary: no exchange of secret gnosis via Peter.

Any other solution that assumes a carnal brother James implies the direct confutation of the entire Paul's argument: the Galatians wanted a prove that Paul didn't ''copy and paste'', and at contrary they have further reasons to raise suspects against Paul's honesty: could he have made ''copy and paste'' from Peter? could he have made ''copy and paste'' from James the carnal brother of Jesus? could he have made ''copy and paste'' from both them?

The doubt is even more raised after the reading of Gal 2: if James the carnal brother of Jesus is now a mortal enemy of Paul (per Gal 2 and Antioch), then how can this James confirm, now, that when Paul met him, they didn' talk about secret apostolic gnosis?

Even if Paul was SAINT Paul (the more honest person in the ancient world), he may be accused as liar by James. Now.


Paul would be giving to his enemy James the same smoking gun to kill him, Paul!!!

Was Paul so stupid and idiot?

Hence: Carrier is a Genius.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply