οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5 as another non-Pauline interpolation (cf Gal 2:7b-8)

[robert j]

---
imho, these verbal echoes suggest that
the author of Acts probably knew this passage in Galatians,
and knew it in its original form (i.e. before οἷς οὐδὲ was added).

I just want to offer my 2-cents worth here, as I’m not likely to participate in further discussion for now.

Paul is clearly upset when writing the letter Galatians --- a letter almost entirely focused on the issue of circumcision. The dismayed Paul accuses the waffling Galatians of being bewitched (3:1), and he wishes that those bothering his group on the issue would not only remove the tip, but the whole works (5:12).

The Galatians are strongly focused on becoming heirs of Abraham, honorary sons of God, and full participants in the Israel of God. Paul had apparently led them to believe they could achieve those ends without the messy ritual of circumcision, but rather by faith in his now heavenly, spiritual son of the Jewish God as a redeemer from the law. Apparently after Paul had left, some had swayed the group --- likely by the extremely clear and unequivocal requirement for circumcision in the Jewish scriptures. So they really wouldn’t need Paul after all.

Nearly all of the letter Galatians is focused on the issue of circumcision, and on Paul’s authority. When Paul opens the letter with an accusation that the group is turning to a “different gospel” than what he had preached to them --- of course he is referring to their interest in getting circumcised.

For Paul to give-in on the question of circumcision for his partner Titus, even for a short period of time, so that “the truth of the gospel would be preserved” (Galatians 2:5), is contradictory in spades to the tone of the entire letter.

To summarize the claim that the οἷς οὐδὲ in the beginning of the verse was an interpolation ---

… to whom we did not yield in subjection even for a time, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you. (Galatians 2:5)

Originally read like this before being interpolated with the addition of οἷς οὐδὲ, as suggested ---

… we did yield in subjection even for a time, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you. (as suggested by some)

This suggested reading basically throws the core argument in the letter under the bus, and I think the suggestion of such an interpolation and interpretation reveals a misunderstanding of both Paul and of the letter Galatians.

On the other hand, for Paul to claim the leaders in Jerusalem did not require the Greek brother-in-the-faith Titus to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3), and that Paul did not yield to the pressure from the “false brothers” (2:4) --- all that makes perfect sense in the context of Paul’s letter so that “the truth of [Paul’s] gospel would be preserved” (Galatians 2:5).

The analysis cited in the post directly above (end of p. 1), to which I am only partially responding here, demonstrates once again the dangers of using the later legends in Acts to understand Paul.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

imho, these verbal echoes suggest that the author of Acts probably knew this passage in Galatians, and knew it in its original form (i.e. before οἷς οὐδὲ was added).

Nearly all of the letter Galatians is focused on the issue of circumcision, and on Paul’s authority. When Paul opens the letter with an accusation that the group is turning to a “different gospel” than what he had preached to them --- of course he is referring to their interest in getting circumcised.

The thread reminds me of the German grandmaster of mythicism, Hermann Detering. In 2000, Hermann wrote an essay on Paul's opponents in Galatians. In this essay he took the view - like some other radicals before him - that Galatians and Acts are dependent on each other and were successively redacted. He quoted Bruno Bauer:

The decades up to the first half of the reign of Marc Aurel were occupied with the progressive redaction of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles. Both circles had taken a close look at each other in their work. At the climax of this controversy, the Letter to the Galatians outlined a portrait of the apostle which, step by step, is directed against a redaction of Acts of the Apostles that came very close to the one we have now.

Hermann then wrote

Research has identified the following characteristics as essential features of the Lucanian image of Paul:

1. Luke paints the picture of the apostle as a typical representative of Judaism. Paul - in Acts of the Apostles - not only approves of circumcision, but actually practices it (Acts 16:3: the circumcision of Timothy)! This was the greatest stumbling block for the author of Galatians, who was acquainted, if not with Acts itself, at least with the image of Paul it represented.

2. According to Luke, Paul receives his gospel from the twelve and becomes subordinate to them.

Ultimately, Hermann came to the following verdict:

The (Marcionite) author of the Letter to the Galatians has apparently not only turned against the false appropriation of Paul by Catholic Christianity, but also against the complete rejection of the apostle by the extreme Judeo-Christian party.

I did not agree with him. But it was always really exciting to read what Hermann had come up with. I liked him.

[schillingklaus]

Detering came to the correct conclusion of the epistles as late forgeries, as opposed to uncritical people ( == historians) such as Carrier and Ehrman.

[gryan]

---
imho, these verbal echoes suggest that
the author of Acts probably knew this passage in Galatians,
and knew it in its original form (i.e. before οἷς οὐδὲ was added).

I just want to offer my 2-cents worth here, as I’m not likely to participate in further discussion for now.

Paul is clearly upset when writing the letter Galatians --- a letter almost entirely focused on the issue of circumcision. The dismayed Paul accuses the waffling Galatians of being bewitched (3:1), and he wishes that those bothering his group on the issue would not only remove the tip, but the whole works (5:12).

The Galatians are strongly focused on becoming heirs of Abraham, honorary sons of God, and full participants in the Israel of God. Paul had apparently led them to believe they could achieve those ends without the messy ritual of circumcision, but rather by faith in his now heavenly, spiritual son of the Jewish God as a redeemer from the law. Apparently after Paul had left, some had swayed the group --- likely by the extremely clear and unequivocal requirement for circumcision in the Jewish scriptures. So they really wouldn’t need Paul after all.

Nearly all of the letter Galatians is focused on the issue of circumcision, and on Paul’s authority. When Paul opens the letter with an accusation that the group is turning to a “different gospel” than what he had preached to them --- of course he is referring to their interest in getting circumcised.

For Paul to give-in on the question of circumcision for his partner Titus, even for a short period of time, so that “the truth of the gospel would be preserved” (Galatians 2:5), is contradictory in spades to the tone of the entire letter.

To summarize the claim that the οἷς οὐδὲ in the beginning of the verse was an interpolation ---

… to whom we did not yield in subjection even for a time, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you. (Galatians 2:5)

Originally read like this before being interpolated with the addition of οἷς οὐδὲ, as suggested ---

… we did yield in subjection even for a time, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you. (as suggested by some)

This suggested reading basically throws the core argument in the letter under the bus, and I think the suggestion of such an interpolation and interpretation reveals a misunderstanding of both Paul and of the letter Galatians.

On the other hand, for Paul to claim the leaders in Jerusalem did not require the Greek brother-in-the-faith Titus to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3), and that Paul did not yield to the pressure from the “false brothers” (2:4) --- all that makes perfect sense in the context of Paul’s letter so that “the truth of [Paul’s] gospel would be preserved” (Galatians 2:5).

The analysis cited in the post directly above (end of p. 1), to which I am only partially responding here, demonstrates once again the dangers of using the later legends in Acts to understand Paul.

Yes, this is the prevailing view, expressed in every commentary I know of!

From this point of view about Paul's point of view, it is odd to think that Paul also wrote this:

1 Cor 9:19-23
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.
To those under the law I became as one under the law
(though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law
(not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)
that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

----------

Paul's idea of what it meant to follow "the truth of the Gospel" was flexible: it depended to some degree on whether he was with law observant Jewish people ("Jews by birth", like himself), or weak, lawbreaking Gentiles ("Gentile sinners").

Titus was an in-between case: his mother was Jewish by birth, although probably not very law observant since Titus's father was Greek. I think Titus could easily have "yielded in submission for an hour" by voluntarily withdrawing and separating himself from the fellowship table "because of the false-brothers brought in secretly...". He may even have gotten circumcised, if not then, soon thereafter. In such a posture of situational "yielding in submission", the important sharing between Paul, Barnabas and the pillars could go on without disorderly disruption.

[gryan]

imho, these verbal echoes suggest that the author of Acts probably knew this passage in Galatians, and knew it in its original form (i.e. before οἷς οὐδὲ was added).

Nearly all of the letter Galatians is focused on the issue of circumcision, and on Paul’s authority. When Paul opens the letter with an accusation that the group is turning to a “different gospel” than what he had preached to them --- of course he is referring to their interest in getting circumcised.

The thread reminds me of the German grandmaster of mythicism, Hermann Detering. In 2000, Hermann wrote an essay on Paul's opponents in Galatians. In this essay he took the view - like some other radicals before him - that Galatians and Acts are dependent on each other and were successively redacted. He quoted Bruno Bauer:

The decades up to the first half of the reign of Marc Aurel were occupied with the progressive redaction of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles. Both circles had taken a close look at each other in their work. At the climax of this controversy, the Letter to the Galatians outlined a portrait of the apostle which, step by step, is directed against a redaction of Acts of the Apostles that came very close to the one we have now.

Hermann then wrote

Research has identified the following characteristics as essential features of the Lucanian image of Paul:

1. Luke paints the picture of the apostle as a typical representative of Judaism. Paul - in Acts of the Apostles - not only approves of circumcision, but actually practices it (Acts 16:3: the circumcision of Timothy)! This was the greatest stumbling block for the author of Galatians, who was acquainted, if not with Acts itself, at least with the image of Paul it represented.

2. According to Luke, Paul receives his gospel from the twelve and becomes subordinate to them.

Ultimately, Hermann came to the following verdict:

The (Marcionite) author of the Letter to the Galatians has apparently not only turned against the false appropriation of Paul by Catholic Christianity, but also against the complete rejection of the apostle by the extreme Judeo-Christian party.

I did not agree with him. But it was always really exciting to read what Hermann had come up with. I liked him.

Yes, you've conveyed the sense of excitement well, but I'm glad you did not agree with him because, at least with respect to οἷς οὐδὲ, there is a much simpler explanation.

As Victorinus suggests, οἷς οὐδὲ, can be explained as a scribe carrying forward the sense of οὐδὲ in Gal 2:3,

"But not even Titus (ἀλλ' οὐδὲ Τίτος), who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised". But because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us--to whom we did not (οἷς οὐδὲ) give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel (ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) would remain with you.

The result is a consistent, but unPauline, image of Paul resisting pressure to practice circumcision, and a very awkward syntax. Too awkward imho; given that, as Victorinus points out, Paul himself says:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."

But that's not even my main reason for getting into this question. I think Paul did consult with flesh and blood when he discerned James the Lord's brother to be the only "qualitatively different" apostle (i.e. preaching a "qualitatively different" Gospel). And I think Paul and Barnabas and James [son of Alphaeus] and Cephas and John all yielded in submission for an hour to the law observant Jewish "brothers" (called "false brothers" retrospectively, just as James the Lord's brother was called a "qualitatively different" apostle retrospectively). So then when Cephas came to Antioch, Cephas was still in the mode of submission to the "false brothers" i.e. "some from James [the Lord's brother, GMark's lesser James]", and it is not a surprise for Barnabas to join him in doing the same. The surprise is when Paul stopped people pleasing. He had consulted and submitted in the past, but in Antioch he decided it was time to resist. It is this moment of resistance that Paul was leading up to when he asserted that his Gospel did not come from a human source. His resistance came from the revelation of the one who said, "power is made perfect in weakness". And when he ate with the "weak" "law breaking" Gentiles, he was openly "law breaking with the law breaking to win the law breaking" rather than play acting the role of "Jew with the Jews". I doubt Cephas and Barnabas felt comfortable with that mode of operation--Too "weak" looking.

[schillingklaus]

Gryan is only spreading the usual apologistic propaganda of simpletonism, like all those who believe in authentic epistles.

[gryan]

He had consulted and submitted in the past, but in Antioch he decided it was time to resist. It is this moment of resistance that Paul was leading up to when he asserted that his Gospel did not come from a human source. His resistance came from the revelation of the one who said, "power is made perfect in weakness". And when he ate with the "weak" "law breaking" Gentiles, he was openly "law breaking with the law breaking to win the law breaking" rather than play acting the role of "Jew with the Jews". I doubt Cephas and Barnabas felt comfortable with that mode of operation--Too "weak" looking.

Parsing the three key three aorist verbs:
https://ginoskos.com/biblicka-rectina-z ... le-passive

προσανεθέμην
pros+ana+τίθημι
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%C ... E%BC%CE%B9
"I consulted (prosanethemēn | προσ-α-νε-θέ-μην | aor mid ind 1 sg), not immediately, with flesh and blood"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictio ... anatithemi

εἴξαμεν
"we yielded (eixamen | εἴξαμεν | aor act ind 1 pl) in submission for an hour"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/eiko

ἀντέστην
"I resisted (antestēn | ἀντέστην | aor act ind 1 sg) him to his face"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/anthistemi

[gryan]

εἴξαμεν
"we yielded (eixamen | εἴξαμεν | aor act ind 1 pl) in submission for an hour"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/eiko

Re: eikó: to yield vs eikó: be like.

The perfect form ἐοικα (from this same root-- eikó) functions as a present. See Jm 1:6, 23 (ερρ\οικεν, 3 sg). Strong's lists it as a separate word:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1503.htm

I think the use of the same root word by the author of James may be a commentary on the practice described in Galatians (as I read the text)-- "we yielded (eikó) in submission for an hour":

"To yield (eikó) in submission for an hour" is:
1) "like (eikó) a wave of [the] sea, blown and tossed by the wind... (James 1:6)"
2) "like (eikó) a man [who] looks at his face in a mirror, [and] after observing himself goes away and immediately forgets what he [looks] like... (James 1:23)"

I think the author of James was responding to Galatians in its authorial form--without οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5. I think he took a dim view of "yielding in submission for an hour"!

[gryan]

εἴξαμεν
"we yielded (eixamen | εἴξαμεν | aor act ind 1 pl) in submission for an hour"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/eiko

Re: eikó: to yield vs eikó: be like.

The perfect form ἐοικα (from this same root-- eikó) functions as a present. See Jm 1:6, 23 (ερρ\οικεν, 3 sg). Strong's lists it as a separate word:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1503.htm

I think the use of the same root word by the author of James may be a commentary on the practice described in Galatians (as I read the text)-- "we yielded (eikó) in submission for an hour":

"To yield (eikó) in submission for an hour" is:
1) "like (eikó) a wave of [the] sea, blown and tossed by the wind... (James 1:6)"
2) "like (eikó) a man [who] looks at his face in a mirror, [and] after observing himself goes away and immediately forgets what he [looks] like... (James 1:23)"

I think the author of James was responding to Galatians in its authorial form--without οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5. I think he took a dim view of "yielding in submission for an hour"!

Re: Another echo in James from Galatians (without οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5)

Note in Galatians
a form of the verb hupotagé: subjection Gal 2:5 in combination with
a form of the verb anthistémi: to set against, i.e. withstand in 2:11,

"we yielded in submission (ὑποταγῇ) for an hour...
I resisted (ἀντέστην) him to his face".

Note likewise in James
a form of the noun, hupotassó (to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey), and
a form of the verb, anthistémi: to set against, i.e. withstand

James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God, but resist the devil...
ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ Θεῷ· ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ

The moral of the saying from James seems imho critical of imitation of Paul's actions if indeed he submitted himself to the "false brothers" for an hour, and then resisted Cephas to his face.

If this echo works as a critical correction of Galatians, it works best if James read Galatians without οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5.

[gryan]

εἴξαμεν
"we yielded (eixamen | εἴξαμεν | aor act ind 1 pl) in submission for an hour"
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/eiko

Re: eikó: to yield vs eikó: be like.

The perfect form ἐοικα (from this same root-- eikó) functions as a present. See Jm 1:6, 23 (ερρ\οικεν, 3 sg). Strong's lists it as a separate word:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1503.htm

I think the use of the same root word by the author of James may be a commentary on the practice described in Galatians (as I read the text)-- "we yielded (eikó) in submission for an hour":

"To yield (eikó) in submission for an hour" is:
1) "like (eikó) a wave of [the] sea, blown and tossed by the wind... (James 1:6)"
2) "like (eikó) a man [who] looks at his face in a mirror, [and] after observing himself goes away and immediately forgets what he [looks] like... (James 1:23)"

Re: root word fallacy

Gal 2:3-6 (without οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5)

Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
But because of false brothers who came in secretly to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus,
in order to enslave us,
we yielded (εἴξαμεν)
to them in submission for an hour,
so that the truth of the gospel might continue towards you,
but from [i.e. by the agency of] those recognized to be something.

εἴξαμεν is the first person plural aorist indicative active form of εἴκω
Strongs says: "Apparently a primary verb; properly, to be weak, i.e. Yield -- give place."
https://biblehub.com/greek/1502.htm

Cf. Wiktionary, εἴκω, for conjugation of the aorist: εἶξᾰ
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B5%E ... e%E2%80%9D).




James 1:5-7
Now if any of you lacks wisdom,
he should ask God,
who gives generously to all without finding fault,
and it will be given to him.
But he must ask in faith, without doubting,
because he who doubts
is like (ἔοικεν)
a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

James 1:22-25
Be doers of the word, and not hearers only.
Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.
For anyone who hears the word but does not carry it out
is like (ἔοικεν)
a man who looks at his face in a mirror,
and after observing himself goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.
But the one who looks intently into the perfect law of freedom,
and continues to do so—
not being a forgetful hearer, but an effective doer—
he will be blessed in what he does.

wiktionary ἔοικεν, "third-person singular indicative of ἔοικᾰ... with movable nu"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%9 ... E%B5%CE%BD

Strongs says: "Apparently a primary verb (perhaps akin to εἴκω through the idea of faintness as a copy); to resemble -- be like."
https://biblehub.com/greek/1503.htm

----------

Is ἔοικᾰ akin to εἴκω? Strongs says "perhaps".

I think I made too much of the root word argument in the earlier post;
even so, "through the idea of faintness as a copy" it still seems to me that
the similes from James might be a fitting criticism of some who
"yielded (εἴξαμεν) in submission for an hour..."

"yielded (εἴξαμεν)... for an hour"...
"like (ἔοικεν) a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind."

"yielded (εἴξαμεν)... for an hour"...
"like (ἔοικεν) a man who looks at (κατενόησεν) his face in a mirror, and after observing himself
goes away (καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν) and
immediately (καὶ εὐθέως)
forgets what he looks like."

Cf. εὐθέως, "immediately", and ἀπέρχομαι, "to go away" in Gal 1:16-17 (Carlson's critical text)
εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
"I did not consult with flesh and blood immediately, nor did I go away to Jerusalem [immediately] to the apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia [immediately]; indeed, I returned back to Damascus [immediately]."

Such a criticism may have given rise to the defensive non-Pauline οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5.