Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
And as I expected you really have no historical evidence for "Greek speaking proto-Christian Jews".
My main evidence comes from Acts but also from other sources. Just read the beginning of http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html.
There was no known Jew who was a Christian, fluent in Greek or not, worshiping a man as a God in the history of the Jews
When Jesus started to be worshipped, it was as the heavenly Savior, as "promoted" after the crucifixion.
Origen in "Against Celsus" did say that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in his "True Discourse" against Christianity.
Argument from silence. A positive argument, backed by evidence (if it can be found), would be Celsus did not know about Paul.
Just being silent about Paul (as in the surviving writings of Aristides and Justin) does not mean these authors did not know about Paul.
Earlier than Justin and Celsus, Papias wrote, quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians: it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote: And as I expected you really have no historical evidence for "Greek speaking proto-Christian Jews".
Bernard Muller wrote:My main evidence comes from Acts but also from other sources. Just read the beginning of http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html.
But you just previously stated that you "see the Pentecost event as a complete fiction" so I don't how you can use Acts as your main evidence. There were no Christians, no tongue-talking apostles and no persecutor called Saul or Paul since the Pentecost event is complete fiction.
hakeem wrote:There was no known Jew who was a Christian, fluent in Greek or not, worshiping a man as a God in the history of the Jews
hakeem wrote:When Jesus started to be worshipped, it was as the heavenly Savior, as "promoted" after the crucifixion.
Christian writings state that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a virgin on earth, in Bethlehem and lived in Galilee. The preaching of the Gospel began on the day of Pentecost after the disciples remained in Jerusalem as commanded by the resurrected Jesus, were filled with a Ghost and began speaking in tongues. If the disciples did not remain in Jerusalem to get power from the Ghost to talk in tongues there could never be any converts because the disciples would be powerless to preach the Gospel.

In effect, the supposed Christians were worshiping a character who appeared as a man living in Galilee after he was raised from the dead, ate fish and bread, commanded his disciples to wait in Jerusalem to get filled with a Ghost and ascended in a cloud. NT Jesus was God in the flesh.
hakeem wrote:Origen in "Against Celsus" did say that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in his "True Discourse" against Christianity.
Bernard Muller wrote:Argument from silence. A positive argument, backed by evidence (if it can be found), would be Celsus did not know about Paul.
Just being silent about Paul (as in the surviving writings of Aristides and Justin) does not mean these authors did not know about Paul.
Earlier than Justin and Celsus, Papias wrote, quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians: it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

Cordially, Bernard
It is most ironic that you accuse me of making an argument from silence and then immediately make your own.

You very well know that the existing fragments of Papias do not identify an apostle called Saul or Paul and do not claim an apostle Saul/Paul wrote any letter to Corinthians.
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by rgprice »

Another question to be raised is: Why did Paul feel the need to go to Jerusalem to get his gospel approved anyway?

He tells us in Gal 2 that he went to Jerusalem about 14 to 17 (or maybe more) years after his conversion, after he had engaged in an extensive ministry. Then, he tells us that he didn't really care about the authority of these figure anyway.

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

So, Paul says that he wanted to check with the leaders (leaders of what exactly is not clear). However, Paul then says that he doesn't really care about their leadership and they contributed nothing to him. The only advice they gave him was something they already was doing.

So what's the point of this meeting again? Why would Paul meet with "leaders" whose positions he has no respect for in order to get approval? He acts as if he is seeking their counsel, then says he cares nothing of their opinion. Of course, there could be interpolation and redaction playing a role here.

Its not clear what these leaders are really leaders of. Virtually everyone assumes that this is leaders of some Jesus movement, but that's not actually evident. Paul expresses surprise that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It's also not clear what this organizations standing was in Jerusalem.
Last edited by rgprice on Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by gryan »

Re: Gal 2:6, King James Bible, But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο)

I'm wondering if that last part might be better translated something like this: "...those esteemed leaders did not consult me."

Paul did not judge them because they had not ask him to do so. He was saying that it was none of his business to judge.

This lack of consultation, in contrast to Paul who did "consult with flesh and blood" when he saw "James, the Lord's brother." The word "consult" implies that he went to James to get an authoritative opinion about his revelation of Jesus as "Lord"--Is it authentic?

We are told how James (the Lord's flesh-and-blood brother) responded somewhat indirectly. "Those from James" i.e. "the circumcision", were the "false brothers" came in uninvited to spy out their freedom and make them slaves. That had happened in Jerusalem. In Antioch, Paul said he wanted Peter to not be afraid of them any more.

This reading is based on reading NT Galatians as a whole document in NT canonical context (which is what mainstream NT scholars say they are doing, although with differing results).
robert j
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by robert j »

cora wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:29 pm
Jews writing about numbers cannot be trusted ...
Tipping your hand here?

Along with these few examples among many others ---
cora wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:07 pm
As long as someone is seriously (from the letters) is saying that Paul is a jew ... Such total BS I have not heard in a long time.

... Paul is not a jew, Paul is not preaching Jahweh ...
cora wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:31 pm
Paul ... is not a jew, not by nation and not by religion. And all that BS about it is FAKE.

... You know absolutely nothing about jews, only about Christian writings and books. More prejudice you cannot get together. Keep on fantasising and guessing.
"More prejudice you cannot get together"

Perhaps that much is accurate.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by hakeem »

rgprice wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:25 am Another question to be raised is: Why did Paul feel the need to go to Jerusalem to get his gospel approved anyway?

He tells us in Gal 2 that he went to Jerusalem about 14 to 17 (or maybe more) years after his conversion, after he had engaged in an extensive ministry. Then, he tells us that he didn't really care about the authority of these figure anyway.
What is very important to note is that in Galatians 1.18-19 the writer claimed to have gone to Jerusalem, abode with apostle Peter for 15 days and also met an apostle named James, the Lord's brother and yet after 14 years of the writer preaching the Gospel the apostles Peter and James are still in Jerusalem.

The so-called Pauline writer seems to imply that he was the one with his companion who really preached the Gospel outside Jerusalem and not the twelve apostles.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
But you just previously stated that you "see the Pentecost event as a complete fiction" so I don't how you can use Acts as your main evidence. There were no Christians, no tongue-talking apostles and no persecutor called Saul or Paul since the Pentecost event is complete fiction.
What does Paul has to do with the Pentecost event?
You very well know that the existing fragments of Papias do not identify an apostle called Saul or Paul and do not claim an apostle Saul/Paul wrote any letter to Corinthians.
So who would be "the apostle" who said a passage from 1 Corinthians?

And what do you get from Marcion, who before Celsus, in the Apostolikon, put Paul, and his epistles, front and center?

Cordially, Bernard
andrewcriddle
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:43 am
rgprice wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:27 amI guess the question is, what is the history of the translation of ekklēsia? At what point was it translated as something other than simply an assembly? Did it happen in Latin, or was it later?
The Latin Vulgate has ecclesia, taken directly from the Greek, so that is not it. I am no expert on English Bibles, but I imagine "church" came into play with them. Tyndale has congregacion. Wycliffe, Geneva, and the KJV have church.
Tyndale deliberately avoided technical religious language when translating the Bible. He was bitterly attacked by Thomas More on this issue. Later translators moved away from Tyndale's position.

Andrew Criddle
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by Bernard Muller »

to rgprice,
So, Paul says that he wanted to check with the leaders (leaders of what exactly is not clear). However, Paul then says that he doesn't really care about their leadership and they contributed nothing to him. The only advice they gave him was something they already was doing.

So what's the point of this meeting again? Why would Paul meet with "leaders" whose positions he has no respect for in order to get approval?
Even if Paul had a low opinion of the leaders of the church of Jerusalem, those had a lot of influence and could have torpedoed Paul's gospel. See what happened in Antioch: because of James' men/man, the leadership of the church there had to change their way regarding the Gentiles (but Paul opposed that).
Its not clear what these leaders are really leaders of. Virtually everyone assumes that this is leaders of some Jesus movement, but that's not actually evident. Paul expresses surprise that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It's also not clear what this organizations standing was in Jerusalem.
Earlier, Paul sejourned for 2 weeks with Peter, one of the pillars. That would not happen if there was anything common between the two, such as foremost, Jesus.
And the pillars never asked that Paul circumcised his Gentiles, even he was expecting just that.
And later in Antioch, circumcision of Gentiles was not called, just that the Gentile Christians should adopt Jewish customs and tradition.
Also in Galatians, Paul never said these Judaizers were circumcising the ex-converts of Paul going to them.

BTW, through many clues in early Christian writings, I determined the Church of Jerusalem was not per say Christian, only that Jesus, as a dead prophet, showed the way to salvation: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Cordially, Bernard
robert j
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

Post by robert j »

I don’t doubt that most would disagree with my approach. We’ve all taken different journeys. After spending way too many hours, days, and years struggling with Paul’s letters, I can only relate my own experiences that I believe to have helped me gain more confidence in my own understanding of Paul.

I even went over to the “dark side” for a period of time, embracing the kinds of solutions later promoted by R. M. Price in his The Amazing Colossal Apostle. But I came to realize, at least for me, that such solutions offered inferior explanatory power compared to a handful of reasonably intact, occasional letters from an independent, itinerant, entrepreneurial Jewish missionary promoting a short-cut for Gentiles to full participation with the chosen people of the God of Israel.

Paul was clearly a flawed person, as we all are. He hungered for authority, and is rife with contradictions. I’m still ambivalent regarding his primary goal, was it to bring Gentiles into the favor of his God, or to make money?

But I have found it to be very helpful, when trying to sort through Paul’s rhetoric, to imagine bright red lines. There are many portions of his letters for which there were independent witnesses of sorts. For much of the material, the audiences of the letters would know what he was writing about through shared experiences such as questions they had raised, getting sick among the Galatians, the roguish rascal among the Corinthians involved with his father’s woman, the multiple monetary collections the Philippians had provided to Paul, various point of contention, and such.

But then there are also claims by Paul on the other side of those red lines. Things that the audiences would have had knowledge about only because of what Paul had told them. For example, Paul claimed there were Judean assemblies and a leadership group in far-away Jerusalem. Those provided Paul with the perception of tradition, and for a wider spiritual movement underlying his teachings. Paul also subsequently used and abused those purported leaders to provide very useful points in his favor when it suited his purposes (i.e., Galatians chapter 2).

Were there Judean assemblies of Christ? A leadership group in far-away Jerusalem? Did Paul actually participate in a private meeting with some “Pillars” as he claimed? I am not aware of reasonably adequate evidence, beyond Paul’s own very self-serving claims, that would lift what I see as a healthy dose of skepticism.

I can’t ignore how the sophisticated Corinthians reacted to Paul in what is most likely the last correspondence to them. After Titus returned from his second unsuccessful attempt to obtain a collection for the ‘saints in Jerusalem’, some among the Corinthians were apparently accusing Paul and Titus of trying to take advantage of them, and of being crafty and taking them by deceit. (2 Corinthians 12:16-17).
Post Reply