Re: Gal 1:19 : What if Paul didn't want to meet the other apostles?
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:07 pm
How's that arguing with Giuseppe going for you Paul?
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
It's entirely my own view, but I think Paul meant more by "apostle" than just being sent out to preach. For example: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.
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.Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:42 amWhile 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.
In my view, you are clearly ignoring the real force of the my argument. You are seeing “the trees” while ignoring the “forest”.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.
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.It's entirely my own view, but I think Paul meant more by "apostle" than just being sent out to preach.
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''.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.