But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
How could the author of the epistle call Peter and Paul as 'Pillars' when only the three men in Jerusalem were Pillars?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:00 am
1Clem 5:1-2:
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
How could the author of the epistle call Peter and Paul as 'Pillars' when only the three men in Jerusalem were Pillars?
Because nobody owns the patent on the word "pillars."
Perfect example of Giuseppe wanting to find evidence of something and ignoring all other possibilities.
“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
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:00 am
1Clem 5:1-2:
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
How could the author of the epistle call Peter and Paul as 'Pillars' when only the three men in Jerusalem were Pillars?
Because nobody owns the patent on the word "pillars."
Even when Paul himself didn't like the use the term for any person, especially if the term came from men and not from God?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:00 am
1Clem 5:1-2:
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
How could the author of the epistle call Peter and Paul as 'Pillars' when only the three men in Jerusalem were Pillars?
Because nobody owns the patent on the word "pillars."
Even when Paul himself didn't like the use the term for any person, especially if the term came from men and not from God?
Yes, of course. Clement is allowed to differ from Paul in his appreciation of such terms.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:40 am
Yes, of course. Clement is allowed to differ from Paul in his appreciation of such terms.
But then Clement couldn't be called a Pauline.
I do not know what you mean by "a Pauline," but Clement is still an admirer of Paul.
There have been religious leaders who insisted they were not divine, yet their followers worshiped them as gods anyway.
In our case, Paul nowhere even explicitly denies being a pillar. Your interpretation is that he would eschew that title, and you may be right. But no way would that stop an admirer of Paul from calling him a pillar, should the mood strike. One could even interpret Paul's words in Galatians as implying that "they are not pillars... but I am; listen to me instead." I am not inclined to interpret him that way myself, but there is nothing to say that others might not.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:54 am
But no way would that stop an admirer of Paul from calling him a pillar, should the mood strike.
I am not denying that Clement was, in the his own way, an 'admirer' of Paul (to be sure, I woul call him a 'co-opter' of Paul).
I am saying that an 'admirer' who betrayes the thought itself of Paul (under the my and your hypothesis that he didn't want that any man was called Pillar, given the fact that God doesn't preferences etc) couldn't be a his real follower.
And therefore his epistle is false as false is the his claim of being a real follower of Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:54 am
But no way would that stop an admirer of Paul from calling him a pillar, should the mood strike.
I am not denying that Clement was, in the his own way, an 'admirer' of Paul (to be sure, I woul call him a 'co-opter' of Paul).
I am saying that an 'admirer' who betrayes the thought itself of Paul (under the my and your hypothesis that he didn't want that any man was called Pillar, given the fact that God doesn't preferences etc) couldn't be a his real follower.
And therefore his epistle is false as false is the his claim of being a real follower of Paul.
I am not completely sure what your last sentence means, or how, if it means what it seems most likely to mean, it follows logically from the other sentences.
There is no indication in Galatians that Paul intended the term “pillars” in a negative sense. Just the opposite, I think.
Paul’s casting sly aspersions, or at least doubt on the authority of the triumvirate, comes from the term “seems”, or “esteemed”, or “reputed to be” (forms of δοκοῦντες). Paul used that term 4 times in verses 2:2 – 2:9 to describe the three. The term carries the clear sense of subjectivity, of a matter of opinion. See also Galatians 6:3.
I think Paul’s intention was to cast doubt, to leave the question open, on whether the triumvirate were really “pillars”, or just that to some they only seemed to be.
