Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 8:05 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 2:51 pmPaul accuses him of hypocrisy to his face. What happens after that? Gal doesn't tell us. Perhaps Peter went right back to eating with gentiles again.

if that is the implication, that Peter was in good terms with Paul even after Antiochia, then there is few doubt that it is all a fiction (read: that Galatians is a forgery). In real history a similar outrage by Paul would have been never forgiven by Peter.

Your source for this claim please?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 8:05 pmHence, in the latter case, how could 1Clement, only a day after, tell that Peter and Paul are two examples of martyrdom for the same faith, ignoring the clash between the two?

Not sure what you mean by "only a day after", but Peter and Paul's clash in Gal 2 seems to be over the hypocrisy of Peter. We don't know if it carries on. Acts has Peter updating his views around eating non-kosher food, which was probably a story made up later to show them on the same page. Paul arguably won the argument in the eyes of gentile Christians, whom claimed both Paul and Peter.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 10:33 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 8:05 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 2:51 pmPaul accuses him of hypocrisy to his face. What happens after that? Gal doesn't tell us. Perhaps Peter went right back to eating with gentiles again.

if that is the implication, that Peter was in good terms with Paul even after Antiochia, then there is few doubt that it is all a fiction (read: that Galatians is a forgery). In real history a similar outrage by Paul would have been never forgiven by Peter.

Your source for this claim please?

human psychology is the same in any time. In addition to the fact that we have a narrative, Acts, that is notoriously interested to place both Paul and Peter on the same page, hence the suspicion that the outrage by Paul was never forgiven by Peter in the real history is fully justified (if we are talking about a real dispute, i.e. if Galatians is genuine).

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 10:33 pmWe don't know if it carries on.

I have expressed my judgement: if the dispute described in Galatians 2 was real, then a sign of authenticity for 1 Clement would be evidence of the continued conflict between Paulinists and Petrinists. Evidence that is not there. Therefore 1Clement can't count as evidence of a genuine Paul. You can't doubt that a real dispute was never resolved. Not when you have assumed already a narrative (Acts) designed to reassure all the world that any conflict (as that described in Galatians 2) ended.

Unless Acts precedes Galatians and after the facts of Antiochia both Paul and Peter (are supposed - by the original readers of Gal 2 - to have) lived happy and satisfied.