Paul couldn't find none in Jerusalem, not even Peter and James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Paul couldn't find none in Jerusalem, not even Peter and James

Post by Giuseppe »

Another argument for considering the first visit of Paul in Jerusalem a late interpolation is the fact that the emphasis on the absence of apostles in Jerusalem could well be what a Proto-Catholic interpolator wanted to introduce in order to explain why there were no Christians at all in Jerusalem at the Origins.

Sure, Carrier says that the absence of apostles in Jerusalem is part and parcel of the Paul's apology of himself, an expedient to reiterate that Paul had not derived his gospel from other apostles before him. But if that was the reason of the emphasis on the absence of apostles in Jerusalem, then how can Paul introduce Peter and James without exorcizing the suspicion that he could have derived the gospel precisely from them two?

Carrier's solution is to have James mentioned only as a mere 'brother of the Lord', a mere Christian of low rank who could't advance claims to authority over Paul: Paul mentioned him to insist on his [of Paul] independance from other apostles.

But even Carrier is obliged to recognize that his argument has to have only an assumption: that Paul didn't receive his gospel from Peter, i.e. that Paul was not indebted at all to Peter.

In addition, another clue points to a total absence of Christians in Jerusalem: the need of money for the 'Saints' of Jerusalem. If the 'Saints' had economical problems, the reason is that they couldn't survive alone in a city that was NOT their city: Jerusalem.
If there was really a church of Jerusalem, then that church would have had enough money to survive in that city.

So, while the details of the second visit can be explained by an absence of Pillars in Jerusalem before the revelation of Paul, the first visit, considered as an interpolation, fits a scenario where a late interpolator wanted to introduce in Jerusalem what was missing before Paul: a community lead by Pillars.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul couldn't find none in Jerusalem, not even Peter and James

Post by Giuseppe »

Hence, assuming only the authenticity of the second visit, the chronology of the events is the following:
  • Paul has a revelation of Jesus
  • Paul preaches in the Diaspora
  • in whiletime, other Christians from the Diaspora go to Jerusalem: the so-called Pillars
  • When Paul has news about their presence in Jerusalem, he goes to Jerusalem
  • given the hostility against the Christians, Paul has to reveal privately his gospel to the Pillars
  • Paul finds that the Pillars are obliged to judaize for the mere reason that they are in Jerusalem
  • Paul realizes that the community could survive in Jerusalem only if the latter had continued to judaize and had received enough money from the diaspora.
  • Antiochia signals a capital event: the judaizers are not more in Jerusalem, but also in the Diaspora. This means that the observance of the Torah ceases to be a mere way of survival in Judea, but it becomes object of propaganda by real Judaizers in the diaspora.
In definitive, the early Christians before Paul worked already, and only, in the Diaspora. The community of Jerusalem was a colony founded after the action of Paul, not before.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul couldn't find none in Jerusalem, not even Peter and James

Post by Giuseppe »

This scenario may explain why Paul calls Peter, James and John 'so-called' Pillars: they alone couldn't support the first Christian colony in Jerusalem, since they had economical needs, being not really from Jerusalem or Judea.
Post Reply