"Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:29 pm James of Alphaeus. if the theory is right that says Alphaeus is Clopas
How similar Klopa and Kepa sound in Aramaic

Not that i'm saying this James could be the son of Peter (Simon Cepha), i thought Clopa might mean something else entirely
Experts have looked into that sort of thing and to my knowledge the etymological argument is not very convincing. Jerome argued that the mother of James son of Alphaeus was Mary of Clopas, but he did not base it on etymology:

From The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
"The only conclusion is that the Mary who... was the wife of Alphæus... the one who is called by John the Evangelist Mary of Clopas, whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason... you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Jerome thought of the Alphaeus and Clopas as two different names for the same Mary. I'm inclined to agree with Jerome on that. I base my argument on the narrative world of Mark, primarily. The fit with GJohn is secondary, and not essential. It is a definite maybe.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Post by gryan »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:04 pm But in any event, I don't see why Peter, as a pillar, and all the other Jews in the Antioch church would be afraid or respectful of the opinion of a non-pillar (i.e., James the brother of the Lord according to your scenario), all the more so given that Peter wasn't swayed by the "false brothers" when Paul was in Jerusalem.
@John2

Your making me think about it in a fresh way. Thanks for the input.

Of course, you are probably aware that I think Paul, Barnabas and the pillars all "gave place in submission" to the false brothers for what Paul thought was "an hour" (i.e. Titus was ushered out of the table fellowship for the sake of keeping an orderly gathering).

As far as Paul was concerned, in Antioch, the hour for submission was past. I think this is because he submitted for an hour for the purpose: that of "the truth of the Gospel" not only be delivered to the Gentiles, but that it be expressed through "the ones recognized to be pillars". He exposed Peter as a hypocrite so that his readers would know that, at heart, Peter knew he should go on eating with such uncircumcised Gentiles as the Galatians audience.

The main theme of this thread that I want to come back to is the 14 years. I'm curious, do you think the fourteen years in 2 Cor 12:1 should be measured from the point of Paul's initial revelation or from the point his prior visit to Jerusalem (three years after the revelation)? If you have an opinion, why so?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: "Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Post by John2 »

gryan wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:40 pm
The main theme of this thread that I want to come back to is the 14 years. I'm curious, do you think the fourteen years in 2 Cor 12:1 should be measured from the point of Paul's initial revelation or from the point his prior visit to Jerusalem (three years after the revelation)? If you have an opinion, why so?

I don't agree with the idea that Paul is referring to James the brother of the Lord as a messenger of Satan or that James physically assaulted Paul (though I appreciate your effort), so for me the fourteen years issue isn't pertinent.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Post by gryan »

@John2

Re: "issue isn't pertinent"

When I saw the word "pertinent" I had a wow, synchronicity moment. A variation on that word--"impertinent"--had been on my mind repeatedly of late, but I have not chosen to use it.

That said, point well taken. As I have reviewed various commentaries on the question of when the "fourteen years" is measured from, it is often argued that the decision has to do not so much with grammar as with perceived broader context. That said, I doubt it is so. I think grammar does offer significant clues. More on that later.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

Post by gryan »

Re: "I think grammar does offer significant clues."

Gal 2:1
"Then after (διὰ) fourteen years, I went back/again (πάλιν) to Jerusalem..."

I'm hearing πάλιν as "back"-- a "REVERSE-CHANGE, for a change back to a prior location..." as in 1:17,
Gal 1:17 καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
Gal 2:1 πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα

On the other hand, there is an echo of the activity verb in 1:18, and so I'm also hearing πάλιν as "again"--a repetition of an action that occurred before:
Gal 1:18 Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρίας ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (accusative).
Gal 2:1 Ἔπειτα διὰ ιδ΄ ἐτῶν, πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (accusative)

Witherington argued in his commentary on Galatians:
"The word 'again' would seem to support the view that the fourteen years is since Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, a view which would also also be supported by the fact that the main issue in both the preceding and present paragraph is the duration and nature of Paul's visits to Jerusalem. Dunn points out that the διὰ here probably also favors the view that the starting point was Paul's last visit to Jerusalem. Paul would be saying that throughout or during the fourteen years following his first visit to Jerusalem he was absent from there."

Campbell wrote, in Framing Paul p. 174
“Paul’s language in 1:18 and 2:1 is accusative [not dative] and so most likely simply denotes periods of temporal extent using the metaphor of space and time; hence, the intervals extend for 2.x and 13.x years respectively [i.e. not 'a concurrent', but rather, 'a consecutive reckoning of Paul's intervals'].”

----------

My proposed reading of the chronology agrees with Witherington's and Campbell's.

As far as I can tell, they are unaware that in their chronology, 2 Cor 12:7 Paul's thorn the flesh (sent to buffet him to keep him humble about his visions and revelations) potentially coincides with Gal 1:18 seeing James the Lord's brother (in my reading, a consultation in the sphere of Jesus' 'flesh and blood' relatives).
Post Reply