Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Michael BG wrote:We have evidence that Peter preached in both Antioch and Corinth

.

Please provide it. The textual evidence is named to Peter but it is not certain or even accepted he was the author.

It was common to attribute text to famous names that had no connection to the text, that is how the authors were trained to write.

SO no you do not have any evidence a Galilean Peter preached there.

Michael BG wrote: I have already questioned the translation of Gal 1:13. It might be possible to go further and see “ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, καὶ” as an interpolation.

.

That is not settled.

Christians were persecuted from the beginning historically speaking. Its not up for debate. It is the rule not an exception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

Christian missionaries as well as converts to Christianity have been the targets of persecution ever since the emergence of Christianity, sometimes to the point of being martyred for their faith.

Michael BG wrote:Please see my comments above. “Cephas” is Aramaic therefore Paul must be referring to an Aramaic Jew!

.

That id not evidence of Christian Peter.

That is ONLY evidence Paul knew Peter was an Aramaic Jew

Michael BG wrote: . I am not sure I agree with the idea that in the first century Jews still saw Yahweh as one god and El as another.
.

That was before King Josiahs reforms, and after.

Monotheism was not held until 200-400 BC in Israelite cultures.

I never stated that was during jesus time, your being dishonest

robert j wrote:

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: (referring to some translations of Gal 1:13) where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text

I don't think any persecutions have ever been listed that were not violent.

DO YOU have any examples of literary persecutions???

Yes, Galatians 1:13 describes Paul's pursuing as extreme, and he claims that he was "endeavoring to destroy", but that does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric. That could include impassioned arguments or casting aspersions --- but physical violence is not specified.

Your comment and question here focus on the "persecution". The Greek word Paul uses here is ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/to pursue or to persecute). The term itself as used by Paul does not necessarily imply violence. For examples ---

See that no one has repaid to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue (διώκετε) the good also toward one another and toward all. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

Earnestly pursue (διώκετε) love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you might prophesy. (1 Cor 14:1)

So the word itself can be used to pursue love, or to pursue a faith and try to destroy it. But the concept of violence is not inherent.

Without the "traditions" in Acts in mind, there is no real justification for inserting the word "violently" into the translation of Galatians 1:13.

Do you have any examples of persecutions done to Christians that were not violent ???


Al listed were are generally VERY violent when the term persecuted is used during this period.


Why you want to portray Paul as non violent is beyond me. He goes out of his way to sell how bad he treated these people and the CONTEXT of bad here is violent.

Galatians 1:13
13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Galatians+1

13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God."
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

robert j wrote:Yes, Galatians 1:13 describes Paul's pursuing as extreme, and he claims that he was "endeavoring to destroy", but that does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric. That could include impassioned arguments or casting aspersions --- but physical violence is not specified.

Your comment and question here focus on the "persecution". The Greek word Paul uses here is ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/to pursue or to persecute). The term itself as used by Paul does not necessarily imply violence. For examples ---

See that no one has repaid to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue (διώκετε) the good also toward one another and toward all. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

Earnestly pursue (διώκετε) love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you might prophesy. (1 Cor 14:1)

So the word itself can be used to pursue love, or to pursue a faith and try to destroy it. But the concept of violence is not inherent.

Without the "traditions" in Acts in mind, there is no real justification for inserting the word "violently" into the translation of Galatians 1:13.

outhouse wrote:Do you have any examples of persecutions done to Christians that were not violent ???


Al listed were are generally VERY violent when the term persecuted is used during this period.


Why you want to portray Paul as non violent is beyond me. He goes out of his way to sell how bad he treated these people and the CONTEXT of bad here is violent.

More bobbing and weaving.

"This period"? The challenge that has been posed to you is to provide evidence from Paul's (seven) letters that his persecution of early believers in Jesus Christ involved violence --- without resorting to some translations of Galatians 1:13 that add the word "violently" when the word does not occur in the Greek text.

So far, you have not done so. I'm on the verge of accepting your incorrigibility on the issue, and moving on to just about anything else.

iskander wrote:Galatians 1:13
13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Galatians+1

13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God."
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

Oremus uses the word " violently" to convey the true meaning of the Greek text in an English translation.

Lightfoot explains the same true meaning of the Greek text without using the word " violently" to keep one like you happy.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: "I was endeavoring to destroy") does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric.

Really that takes it out of context

It is hinged on more then the words you stated. I agree with your translation and possible interpolation based on a total package using Acts.

I am glad we both think that it is possible that “persecute/chase/harass” in Gal 1:13 is an interpolation. I think that if the text as I already suggested is removed what remains in verses 13 and 14 makes sense and is therefore plausible.

However there are other places where Paul talks of his previous conduct. 1 Cor. 15:9 I think is part of a larger interpolation 15:3-11 so I don’t think we need to consider it.

Gal 1:23

μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει,

Only yet hearing they-were that the one-chasing us once now is evangelizing the faith which once he-harassed.

If this verse and verse 22 were removed what is left would make sense:
“Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And they glorified God because of me.”

I think the only other place that the word “evangelizing” is used is in Gal 1:16.

outhouse wrote: Philippians 3:6New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

I think this is the only other place where Paul in his letters states he persecutes the church.

I looked up Paul’s use of εκκλησιαν (assembly/church) and the only other places I could find it apart from 1 Cor 15:9, Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:6 were:
Rom 16:5 the assembly at their (Prisca and Aquilla’s) house
1 Cor. 14:4 he who is prophesying is edifying the assembly (i.e. a local Christian meeting).

This I think opens up the possibility that “in relation to zeal persecuting the assembly” is an interpolation as well. I don’t think it really fits the list:
“[5] in circumcision on the eighth day,
out the race of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew out-of Hebrews;
as to the law a Pharisee,
[6]as to righteousness under the law blameless.”
All these fit the requirement of verse 4 as being part of what being Jewish is.
While being zealous would fit I don’t think persecuting the church would fit.
Similar wording to Gal. 1:14 might fit
“zealous for the traditions of my fathers”.

outhouse wrote: In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul indicates several times that the Jews have persecuted Christians, beginning with his admission of his own persecution of the Christians prior to his conversion (Gal 4:29) and ending with his suggestion that he is presently being persecuted because he no longer preaches circumcision (Gal 5:11).

I think both references are to Paul being harassed by the “circumcision party”. 4:29 those born under the flesh are those who follow the law and those born according to the spirit are those Christians who do not live under the law. In 5.13 Paul talks of those who are unsettling the Galatian Christians and these are the Christians who are telling them they should live according to the law, the same people who are harassing him in 5:11. The same “circumcision party” of Antioch – James, Peter and Barnabas.

outhouse wrote:Fair enough.

Changes nothing that the current academic status is that Paul did terrible things to Christians. Very terrible.

Marvin Meyer stated the Pauline evidence alone means admitting this was to address the rhetoric against Paul, and that Pauls own admission downplays his actual role.

Again police action was brutal during this period, no ones hands were slapped

Where does Meyer write this? Please give the title of the book, page number and if possible an internet link.

Douglas R Hare in The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew writes, “the verb ἐδίωκω, rendered in English by ‘pursue’ or ‘persecute’ need mean nothing more than ‘annoy’ or ‘harass verbally’”(p 60).

Earlier he writes, "Paul gives us no indication of the kind of action he employed as persecutor of the Church. … it seems highly probably that this activity was primarily verbal. … We can picture him presenting stinging rebuttals … It is probable that he employed strong language …” (p 59-60).

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0nk ... &q&f=false

(Outhouse
I’ll have to respond to your later comments tomorrow.)

Michael BG wrote:

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: "I was endeavoring to destroy") does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric.

Really that takes it out of context

It is hinged on more then the words you stated. I agree with your translation and possible interpolation based on a total package using Acts.

I am glad we both think that it is possible that “persecute/chase/harass” in Gal 1:13 is an interpolation. I think that if the text as I already suggested is removed what remains in verses 13 and 14 makes sense and is therefore plausible.

Just for the record, as Michael clarifies here, the comment by outhouse that "I agree with your ... possible interpolation" in Gal 1:13 is directed at a suggestion made by Michael BG, not by me.