Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
You're asking a very interesting question here. I certainly don't have a definitive answer, but I would offer this in relation to your exegesis of Galatians 1:22 ("I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ"). You take that to mean that Paul was unknown to those congregations because they didn't exist at the time of Paul's persecutions. Now, it has been a looooong time since I studied Greek, and I would certainly yield to others who would offer a different translation than the one that follows, but my reading of vs. 22 would be something like, "I was unknown by sight to the churches in Judea", or "they didn't know what I looked like" (agnooumenos to prosoko). So I think in vs 22 Paul is saying those churches existed during his persecutions, but that no one in them could have recognized him. So, while I'm not convinced that Paul was persecuting Jesus or hisfollowers during Jesus' lifetime (there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this in the Gospel texts), I do think it's very possible that he was opposing them as many Pharisees did. I hope you will only take my comment as an observation and continue researching your theory because I find it very compelling.
All the best to you.
All the best to you.
I deleted it for no particular reason.DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:49 pmDont know what happened to your original message above. Maybe you pulled it once you realized this was a can of worms.arnoldo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:33 amNo, it is an interesting theory. Along this lines it would be possible Paul didn't also know Cephas, no?DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:03 amWhat this has-to-be-wrong hypothesis does is bracket off material that relate to Christ myth theology. The verses under scrutiny in this thread (1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:16) have been underlined (for whatever reason I cannot select a color). What this demonstrates is that the Christ myth interpolator had his own POV quite different from the POV of the writer of the original letters as read by the interpolator. The dynamics of an interpolator introducing Christ myth theology into an original letter that knew nothing of Jesus as the expected Judean messiah, much less Jesus as a semi-divine savior figure, demonstrates that the proponents of the Christ myth found communities that read letters of Paul that dealt with ways that gentiles who trusted in the Judean god could co-inherit the fruitful land promised by God to Abraham's offspring.
This is similar to scholars on Marcion proposing that Marcion had read ur-texts of one or more collections of letters of Paul, then proposed what he thought was genuine, and what he imagined were Judaic adulterations interpolated into the original letters of Paul. While my hypothesis takes the opposite approach (letters by a Judean who was within the fringes of mainstream of the accepted practices of Diaspora Judeans, which were interpolated by Christ-myth theology).
... But, what do I know anyhow, eh?
I appreciate your analysis why an interpolator would alter the earlier pauline extant texts. It would be nice to find early unaltered fragments of pauline writings to back up your theory. Who knows, maybe Papyrus 46 has indications of a scribe altering the writings.DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:49 pmThe way I figure it, Paul knew a Cephas, a John and a James (Jacob). Paul, to legitimatize his theological stance that gentiles who trust in the Judean God should be accepted as co-heirs to the promises God had made to Abraham, he had lined up priests among the Temple apparatus who would accept these as if from Judeans in the diaspora. These three were likely his priestly contacts.
The interpolator him/herself had known of disciples of Jesus, one Simon aka Peter, one named John, and Jesus' brother James/Jacob. These figures who surrounded Jesus functioned as leaders of his movement after his death, at least until the utter obliteration of Judean society and culture due to Roman response to the Judean rebellion of 66-74 CE.
Of these particular names, James/Jacob and John were exceptionally common in that era, especially in Judean dominated areas. Cephas is a Greek variant of a Hebrew/Aramaic name that is translated Caiaphas in the NT and slightly different in Josephus, although not necessarily the HP by that name in the NT). Peter as a name is not well attested but would be suitable for someone's nick-name if he was known as laying a foundation for something.
My guess would be that Peter represented the Gentile followers of Jesus (who they venerated as a divinely appointed ruler of the future messianic kingdom), primarily resident in Judea, Galilee/Transjordan, Trachonitis, Samaria and Southern Syria up to Antioch. James seemed to have this same role among native born Judeans in these same areas. John, my guess is, was interested in the Hellenized Judeans of the Diaspora who were re-settling in Judea, but not those actually living in the Greek speaking areas.
Paul, for his part, may have worked with Greek speaking households of one of the branches of the Herodian family (possibly one of the princes appointed as client kings of a buffer state against the Parthian empire.
When I did my thing with Galatians, I came up with the following:
Recovered "original" text read by interpolator:
The interpolator's introduced Christ myth theology:
Recovered "original" letter read by the interpolator:
Christ myth theology introduced into original text by the interpolator:
IMHO, this interpolator was trying to harmonize these differing traditions, by equating Paul's Cephas with the interpolator's Peter, Paul's Jacob (the priest) with Jesus' "brother" Jacob (who was probably not really a priest but a Rechabite), and Paul's John (the priest) with John the disciple of Jesus (probably not a priest). At a much later time, whoever organized the distribution of approved NT manuscripts, added "wh is also Cephas" to John 1:42 "You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)." Nowhere else in the Gospels or Acts speaks of Cephas, only Peter, except in the Pauline corpus letters to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians.
This might be a good place to offer up this table of the readings for Cephas as opposed to Peter in this block of text:
- 220px-P46.jpg (31.33 KiB) Viewed 95 times
Ahh, no sweat. I can be wordy, but a lot of that had been created around 1997 and updated in 2003, and again parts have been periodically updated using Unicode Greek starting 2011. Maybe its my own sabbatical cycle. Anyhow, I can quickly copy and paste from those early files for use in discussions like this, but I have never had the luxury of time and resources to fully think about the likely sources and their relationships one to another. I have then to relate it to modern research, such as textual criticism, hypotheses about Marcion's texts, Q studies, and so on. I do try to format it to craftily make the points "pop" but I think so out of the box that most folks cannot appreciate it, like you, if only on a theoretical level.arnoldo wrote:I deleted it for no particular reason.DCH wrote:Dont know what happened to your original message above. Maybe you pulled it once you realized this was a can of worms.
arnoldo wrote:I appreciate your analysis why an interpolator would alter the earlier pauline extant texts. It would be nice to find early unaltered fragments of pauline writings to back up your theory. Who knows, maybe Papyrus 46 has indications of a scribe altering the writings.
I recall reading somewhere that among all the documents and fragments recovered to date, few if any show markings to suggest that segments were being marked to allow copying into another document, but I have to assume that any writer who used sources, such as historians, would have had to find and copy key passages. I'll assume that by a mixture of his memory and access to manuscripts s/he compiled pericopes which could be used to make access to sources much easier. I think we do have examples of texts being copied more or less randomly on things like the backs of out of use rolls that can range from business account information to out of vogue or book-trade copies flawed enough to be useless literary writers.
David Trobisch proposed that all copies of NT books came from a standard edition, and only a few "non-standard" books continued to be preserved, but eventually died out. These had to have been edited into their present form, for some books several times, in ways similar to the way elite authors or their freedmen "published" collected letters or memoirs or treatises. We have absolutely no hard evidence for them doing it, but we can be fairly certain it happened.
If we go by Acts (which sounds weird to me to say given how much I used to dislike it), even if only for the assumption that it was aware of Galatians, I get the impression that the Judean churches did not exist until after Paul (as Saul) persecuted Christians in Jerusalem. In 8:1-4 the context is the day of the stoning of Stephen in the early 30's CE.jude77 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:53 pmYou're asking a very interesting question here. I certainly don't have a definitive answer, but I would offer this in relation to your exegesis of Galatians 1:22 ("I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ"). You take that to mean that Paul was unknown to those congregations because they didn't exist at the time of Paul's persecutions. Now, it has been a looooong time since I studied Greek, and I would certainly yield to others who would offer a different translation than the one that follows, but my reading of vs. 22 would be something like, "I was unknown by sight to the churches in Judea", or "they didn't know what I looked like" (agnooumenos to prosoko). So I think in vs 22 Paul is saying those churches existed during his persecutions, but that no one in them could have recognized him. So, while I'm not convinced that Paul was persecuting Jesus or hisfollowers during Jesus' lifetime (there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this in the Gospel texts), I do think it's very possible that he was opposing them as many Pharisees did. I hope you will only take my comment as an observation and continue researching your theory because I find it very compelling.
All the best to you.
And Saul was there, giving approval to Stephen’s death.
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. God-fearing men buried Stephen and mourned deeply over him. But Saul was ravaging the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
It sounds to me as if the Judean churches had not been established yet, since "those who had been scattered" from Jerusalem had just begun to preach there. Notice the parallel in 8:14-17 regarding Samaria; would Judea at this point not have also been in a pre-established state?
And according to 9:1-2, Paul (as Saul) is still in Jerusalem:When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. On their arrival, they prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
So if nothing else, perhaps the author of Acts read Gal. 1:22 the same way I do.Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out threats of murder against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest to ask for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
May the four winds blow you safely home.
2 Cor 5:16; So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more
if anyone know about somebody or something from the past does not necessarily mean he/she had to be an eyewitness.
Paul (and his converts in Corinth) had the opportunity to know about Jesus and his crucifixion as Christ (king of the Jews) first hand from eyewitnesses still alive (such as James, his brother and/or some of Jesus Galileans followers, and/or proto-Christians, all of them in Jerusalem, etc).
Even if Paul is silent about a historic Jesus (for good reason: Jesus was not really "historic" during his lifetime), he indicated, in passing, some characteristics about the historical (somebody/something existing in the past) Jesus: he was a Jew from Zion, humble, not looking like a Son of God, poor, servant of the Jews, having blood brothers, one being James, and crucified in Zion (= heartland of the Jews). So Paul knew about the earthly human Jesus, even if he claimed he did not know him (or rather was not interested in that Jesus, because detrimental to his teachings, except for his crucifixion as Christ, at first a controversial divine mystery, which eventually he learned to explain later (as the salvatic sacrifice)).
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed