No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 pm

To robert j
Based on Paul’s letters, it’s not clear exactly where his Galatian converts were located.
Galatians means Celts. They settled in the northern part of the Roman province of Galatia.
As for the southern parts, Acts (13-14) called their people being from Pisidia and Lycaonia and Pamphylia.
I think Paul ended-up preaching to his Galatians because he got sick and they cared for him. If Paul had a traveling companion, they could have found a cheap flop-house to lay low while Paul’s companion took care of him. But no, Paul seemed to be at the mercy of the kindness of strangers.
Yes, you are right. And Paul is not said to have companion(s) in Acts 18:23 (which is very explainable by his big split with Peter, Barnabas, the Churches of Antioch & Jerusalem in Antioch (of course not reported in Acts!).
To speculate here --- if you were a Jew, alone somewhere in Asia Minor in Paul’s day, and got sick, where would you go? I think Paul would have gone to the nearest town and looked for a synagogue --- Josephus, and especially Philo, wrote that Jews were numerous throughout Asia Minor. Paul’s own people would likely provide comfort to a fellow Jew in need. And it would make sense for Paul to have encountered Gentile God-fearers there who cared for him. And in turn, Paul gave them his “good news”.
Asia Minor is not (northern) Galatia. Furthermore there were very few cities (if any: Gordium, very much reduced from its heydays, might have been the only place considered city then) at the time in (northern) Galatia.
From my web page http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html:
"Galatia got its name from descendants of Celtic (Gaelic) tribes which migrated in the area around 278B.C.E (about twenty thousand of them). They were known to be, besides former barbaric warriors, pastoral people living in fortified villages. Cities which existed then suffered badly under their occupation. For example, Ancyra, a prosperous city before, was reduced to only a fortresss & village. It will become back a city later, around 150C.E. as related in this Encyclopedic website. Also, under 'Phrygia', from the same site:
"At last Attalus I settled the Gauls permanently in eastern Phrygia, and a large part of the country was henceforth known as Galatia. Strabo [19C.E.] mentions that the great cities of ancient Phrygia were in his time either deserted or marked by mere villages.""
From the same aforementioned web page, I got more arguments for "northern" Galatia. Look there under "Paul and Galatia".
Back to the evidence now --- there is no clear evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul himself ever made a second visit with his Galatians.
Yes, I think you are right. I also think that in Acts 16:23:
"And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples."
what I bolded is in error from "Luke". Paul seems to be the first Christian missionary to go in some villages of (northern) Galatia, according to his epistle.
Please note also that I place in time the council of Jerusalem at Acts 18:22, according to clues in Paul's Galatians, for reasons I already explained in a previous post to Michael BG on this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4964&start=50#p97056. "Luke" moved purposely the time earlier to have Paul having his gospel to the Gentiles (at least tolerated by the pillars in Galatians; but completely approved by the church of Jerusalem in Acts!) before going to Macedonia (especially Philippi).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

robert j
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:43 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 pm
To robert j
Based on Paul’s letters, it’s not clear exactly where his Galatian converts were located.
Galatians means Celts. They settled in the northern part of the Roman province of Galatia. As for the southern parts, Acts (13-14) called their people being from Pisidia and Lycaonia and Pamphylia.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:24 am
... Paul's converts were in Northern Galatia, the homeland of the (celtic) Galatians.
Celtic place names, Celtic archeological objects, and Celtic burial sites from well before Paul’s times have been found in Asia Minor in locations that were in Paul’s day within the Roman Provinces of Lycia and Cilicia in the south, Cappadocia in the east, Asia in the west, and Bithynia and Pontus in the north, in addition to locales in Galatia proper. The Celtic people dominated many portions of Asia Minor over various periods. For ethnic Galatians to have been scattered around over wide regions of Asia Minor in Paul’s day would not be unexpected. But for Paul’s coverts to be located somewhere within the relatively large Roman province of Galatia is certainly a distinct possibility, perhaps even most likely.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 pm
To robert j
... Acts (13-14) called their people...
... in Acts 18:23 (which is very explainable by ...
... I also think that in Acts 16:23 ...
... in time the council of Jerusalem at Acts 18:22 ...
..."Luke" moved purposely the time ...
... approved by the church of Jerusalem in Acts! ...
I don't think Acts provides any reliable interpretive value to what I posted.
Last edited by robert j on Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:53 pm

to robert j,
Yes, I remember reading these Gauls went into a rampage all over Asia Minor. But after they were finally defeated, well before Paul's time, their domain was only "northern" Galatia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia
Asia Minor means a large area covering a lot of today Asian Turkey (according to Wikipedia which I just checked). So I was wrong. I was thinking about the Roman province of Asia.

BTW, I don't have any sympathy for "Luke".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

robert j
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:08 pm

Deleted by the author.
Last edited by robert j on Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:17 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:50 pm
to Michael BG,
I always though Mark implies that Jesus’ ministry is one year and Luke just takes it over and adds a fictional year for it to happen in. The reason is because Luke’s wants his readers to think he is writing a history which has dates from known history.
"Mark" might have implied one year, but "Luke" was more precise for this one year because of Lk 4:19. Where did you see "Luke" added a fictional year?
Again your methodology is at fault. Lk 4:19
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.
“to proclaim year of the Lord acceptable”

Is 61:2
καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν καὶ
“to proclaim the year of the LORD acceptable and,

Do you really think Jesus said this verse to mean his ministry was only going to be one year long?

It is much more likely that Luke has put these verses on Jesus’ lips for religious reasons and to justify the claim that Jesus’ ministry was only a year long.

Lk 3:1
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiber'i-us Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturae'a and Trachoni'tis, and Lysa'ni-as tetrarch of Abile'ne”

There was no Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene at this time, however it is likely that Luke thought there was from his reading of Josephus! Therefore as Luke made up the last, it is likely he made up the time reference.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Your studies include believing that Luke, a known liar, can sometimes tell us about an event and link it to an historical event or figure and he didn’t make up the link.
"Luke" was no more of the liar that the other writers of the NT, including Paul. But that's no reason for accusing her on systematically lying on any data about the timing, sequencing (rather formal info with no religious connotations) and some events (some misplaced and often very much embellished because of religious consideration) of Paul's travels.
Indeed all gospel writers are lairs. This is why everything has to be questioned.

Bernard Muller wrote:
I think your methodology is faulty. You assume that because Luke and Paul don’t agree that Luke can’t have known Paul’s letters and changed things. I think this be like thinking that John couldn’t have known, Mark, Matthew and Luke because he radically changed what they wrote to suit his purposes. You need to consider why Luke could have made the changes rather than just create the stories out of nothing.
Well we cannot generalize. I got my reasons why I think "Luke" and her community did not have the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians & Galatians. See http://historical-jesus.info/75.html & http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
As for gJohn, I made an in-depth study, saying that the gospel is, along many years, the product of additions to the original one (when "John" knew only of gMark) made when gLuke became known, and then after, when Acts became known: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
I was addressing the reasons you set out in one of your earlier links so just posting the links again doesn’t engage with my counter-arguments. It is not really relevant if you just think John knew Mark and Luke and not Matthew (as the argument has few examples of knowledge of Matthean editorial work I can understand why you are not convinced assuming you know the detailed arguments).

Do you therefore accept the premise I set out (amended for you) – it would be wrong to think that John created his stories out of new cloth rather than concluding that he knew Mark and Luke when the gospel was completed?

The conclusion to draw is that John’s stories do not agree with Mark and Luke but this is not evidence that John didn’t know Mark and Luke. Therefore we cannot use the fact that Acts disagrees with Paul’s letters to conclude that Luke didn’t know Paul’s letters.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It seems you have not considered that you are in error and the three verses should be seen as an aside so it should be read:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
Then after three years I-came-up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
First, it's not three years, but fourteen years. (Gal 2:1). Shall I conclude from that you are a systematic liar? No, I won't. It is just a mistake.
The three verses in question must be Gal 1: 22, 23 & 24.
I see no reason to put Gal 23 aside. It seems to me you consider these verses against your point. And yes, it is.

BTW, do you know anybody else who concluded, from the above verses, that Paul preached for fourteen years in Syria & Cilicia?
I am sure that you cannot understand why you are in error, and verses 22-24 should be treated as aside. I am not even convinced you have considered it.

Are we conformists now? Can we not have independent views to all other scholars?
Bernard Muller wrote:
As I said you read this second section about being in Syria and Cilicia for 14 years in a different way to how you read the first section about being in Arabia and Damascus for three years.
Yes I read it a different way because of Gal 1:23.
And fourteen years is an abnormal long time for preaching in the cities of Syria & Cilicia. And no epistle addressed to Gentile Christians in these provinces during all that time!

Cordially, Bernard
Would you consider Patrick’s missionary work in Ireland to be too long a period?
Would you consider 7 years to do missionary work in the tiny kingdom of Kent too long a period?
Would you consider the 38 years that Boniface spent doing missionary work in Frisia and Germania too long a period?

What criteria do you use to determine how long Paul should stay in two provinces? From reading Paul’s letters it seems he spent years in Asia, Macedonia or Achaia.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:12 pm

to Michael BG,
It is much more likely that Luke has put these verses on Jesus’ lips for religious reasons and to justify the claim that Jesus’ ministry was only a year long.
Absolutely. That's what I always thought, Isaiah & all.
Indeed all gospel writers are lairs. This is why everything has to be questioned
Absolutely. I do that all the time.
Do you therefore accept the premise I set out (amended for you) – it would be wrong to think that John created his stories out of new cloth rather than concluding that he knew Mark and Luke when the gospel was completed?
That's what I said. "John" knew gMark, then gLuke, then Acts before the gospel was completed (http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html).
The conclusion to draw is that John’s stories do not agree with Mark and Luke but this is not evidence that John didn’t know Mark and Luke. Therefore we cannot use the fact that Acts disagrees with Paul’s letters to conclude that Luke didn’t know Paul’s letters.
Let's not generalize again: Acts is not gJohn. Every ancient Christian texts has their own particular make up.
About "Luke" not knowing the main Pauline epistles, I put forth my arguments in the two web pages I already posted earlier. And your so-called "evidence" is rather remote, peripheral, not direct, far from that.
The original John's gospel follows gMark fairly closely, at least in the sequence of events, except Jesus in Galilee is very much reduced; and Jesus in Judea (Jerusalem) is greatly expanded. But that's all explained on the web page I already indicated earlier on this post (jnintro). Then there was some reshuffling, additions at the end, insertions, etc. changing the outlook of the original gospel. etc., etc.
I am sure that you cannot understand why you are in error, and verses 22-24 should be treated as aside. I am not even convinced you have considered it.
Are we conformists now? Can we not have independent views to all other scholars?
I never cared much about the scholars' various opinions. That's why I did my own research and reached the conclusions I can stand by with. If you read my website, you would see that many times I am far from being a conformist, when at other times, I might look like one. This is my research, this is what I found, regardless if it conforms to a near-consensus or not.
But verses 22-24 exist. That cannot be ignored.
Would you consider Patrick’s missionary work in Ireland to be too long a period?
Would you consider 7 years to do missionary work in the tiny kingdom of Kent too long a period?
Would you consider the 38 years that Boniface spent doing missionary work in Frisia and Germania too long a period?
I don't care. I did not study that. And that depends of what evidence we have on these three cases.
For the 14 years of Paul's preaching in Syria & Cilicia, what you have for evidence your wish these three verses (Gal 1:22,23,24) should not be here or your consideration they are an aside.
If you want to see verses "aside", verse Gal 1:21 should be included, understanding that the events in Gal 1:21,22,23,24 are within the 14 years period but not necessarily populate the whole 14 years period.
What criteria do you use to determine how long Paul should stay in two provinces? From reading Paul’s letters it seems he spent years in Asia, Macedonia or Achaia.
According to my research, Paul spent about twelve years in Asia (Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Galatia (south and north), the province of Asia (adding time on his multiple travels and stays there); probably less than one year in Macedonia (even after multiple visits & stays there), and almost two years in Achaia, during three visits to mainly Corinth.
My criteria: the evidence & clues are in the Pauline epistles and Acts, plus some data from non-Christian sources, again, as explained on my web pages (appb & appp, see complete addresses below).
For Asia, Paul seems to have been based in Antioch, and from there, likely always with Barnabas, he traveled in multiple trips in Syria (other than Antioch), Cilicia, southern Galatia, Cyprus during a eight years period, from 42 to 49.
Paul's preaching in Syria & Cilicia, as in Gal 1:21, was before the so-called 1st journey In Cyprus & southern Galatia, as related in Acts. Again, that's all tabulated & explained in the my web pages I already posted (as a reminder http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html And http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html) and the conclusions as stated in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4964&p=97068&hilit=apollos#p97068.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

robert j
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:36 am

Highlighting mine ---
Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:58 am

And Paul never said he went ONLY in Syria and Cilicia during these 14 years.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:12 pm

... understanding that the events in Gal 1:21,22,23,24 are within the 14 years period ...
Edit Note: I withdrew my objection here.

The temporal sequence of the passage is demonstrated by the Greek term ἔπειτα. Certainly “then” is an appropriate translation. But “thereafter” or “afterwards” or “after that” provide a more accurate sense of the term in English. When used in a temporal sense, the term indicates a temporal sequence, and when used with past tenses, indicates an event or action strongly opposed (temporally) to the former act --- indicating what precedes as a necessary precursor.

I think the temporal intent of the wider passage is more clearly revealed by something like this ---

After that (ἔπειτα), after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to interview Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days … Now in what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie. After that (ἔπειτα), I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia … After that (ἔπειτα), after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas … (Galatians 1:18 – 2:1)

Last edited by robert j on Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:14 am

to robert j,
robert j wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:36 am
Highlighting mine ---
Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:58 am

And Paul never said he went ONLY in Syria and Cilicia during these 14 years.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:12 pm

... understanding that the events in Gal 1:21,22,23,24 are within the 14 years period ...
I think your interpretation that the visit to Syria and Cilicia are within the 14 year period is contradicted by the text of Galatians. I think the text of Galatians indicates that those events occurred before the 14 year period.

The temporal sequence of the passage is demonstrated by the Greek term ἔπειτα. Certainly “then” is an appropriate translation. But “thereafter” or “afterwards” or “after that” provide a more accurate sense of the term in English. When used in a temporal sense, the term indicates a temporal sequence, and when used with past tenses, indicates an event or action strongly opposed (temporally) to the former act --- indicating what precedes as a necessary precursor.

I think the temporal intent of the wider passage is more clearly revealed by something like this ---

After that (ἔπειτα), after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to interview Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days … Now in what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie. After that (ἔπειτα), I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia … After that (ἔπειτα), after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas … (Galatians 1:18 – 2:1)

I don't think so.
- At first, Paul is in Jerusalem, according to Acts 9:1.
- Soon after he gets converted, he stays in Arabia then Damascus (Gal 1:17).
- Then after three years from him either from departing from Jerusalem or his conversion (Gal 1:18), he goes to Jerusalem and see only Peter and James during fifteen days. So far no preaching in Syria & Cilicia.
- Then after 14 years (Gal 2:1) of his short visit to Jerusalem as a convert, he goes back to Jerusalem again (πάλιν). At that time, he is known to have preached a gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2:2).
Therefore Paul's preaching in Syria & Cilicia (Gal 1:21) had to happen during (parts of) these 14 years. I don't see how it can be understood otherwise.

Note: I put Paul's conversion in 35, his trip from Damascus to Jerusalem in 38, and in Jerusalem again in 52.

Tell me where do you think I went wrong?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

robert j
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:23 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:14 am
to robert j,

- At first, Paul is in Jerusalem, according to Acts 9:1.
IMO, not of historical interpretive value.
- Soon after he gets converted, he stays in Arabia then Damascus (Gal 1:17).
OK
- Then after three years from him either from departing from Jerusalem or his conversion (Gal 1:18), he goes to Jerusalem and see only Peter and James during fifteen days.
OK, three years from his conversion before making the first trip to visit Peter based on the evidence in Paul’s letters. There is nothing in Paul’s letters indicating an earlier trip to Jerusalem. Leave Acts out of this.
So far no preaching in Syria & Cilicia
OK
- Then after 14 years (Gal 2:1) of his short visit to Jerusalem as a convert, he goes back to Jerusalem again (πάλιν). At that time, he is known to have preached a gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2:2).
I don’t think that interpretation is necessarily excluded. But I think the text can be read as the “after 3 years” and the “after 14 years” both indicating the time elapsed from his revelation from God/visit to Arabia. I think that is the most likely interpretation.

That would put the 2nd trip to Jerusalem to meet with the three Pillars 14 years after the revelation and visit to Arabia, not 17 years.
Therefore Paul's preaching in Syria & Cilicia (Gal 1:21) had to happen during (parts of) these 14 years. I don't see how it can be understood otherwise.
OK, I think the text can be read that way. I’m going to modify my previous post to reflect that.
Note: I put Paul's conversion in 35 ... and in Jerusalem again in 52.

Tell me where do you think I went wrong?
That's a period of 17 years. On what basis should the “after 3 years” and the “after 14 years” clearly be seen as having a different starting point? I think they both start at the very significant turning point in Paul’s back-story --- his revelation from God and sojourn in Arabia.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8079
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:45 pm

robert j wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:23 pm
Note: I put Paul's conversion in 35 ... and in Jerusalem again in 52.

Tell me where do you think I went wrong?
That's a period of 17 years. On what basis should the “after 3 years” and the “after 14 years” clearly be seen as having a different starting point? I think they both start at the very significant turning point in Paul’s back-story --- his revelation from God and sojourn in Arabia.
Both interpretations (14 years or 17 years) are possible, as is a third:
  1. The 14 years begins with Paul's conversion event (= the most important event for Paul himself, presumably).
  2. The 14 years begins with the first visit to Jerusalem (= a most natural antecedent for the "again" in 2.1).
  3. The 14 years begins with the trip to Syria and Cilicia (= the most recent use of the coordinating ἔπειτα in 1.21).
Commentators are, in fact, quite divided between these three options, and the reason is obvious: all three are possible, and nothing in the grammar or the syntax of this section of Galatians eliminates or even really compromises any of the three. So we cannot assume that the 3 years and the 14 years share the same starting point; nor can we assume that they do not share the same starting point. No assumptions can be made at all on this point. Outside information is required in order to come to a decision.

ETA: For whatever it may be worth, I have always felt that option 2 above is the most natural, just from reading the passage as it stands (both in English and in Greek); your own feeling is obviously different than mine. It took a while for me even to realize that option 1 was possible. But I use that verb, "felt," very deliberately, because that is my entirely subjective impression, and I admit freely and cheerfully that both of the other options are entirely possible and even have things going for them in the text. When I step back from my first impression and read the text with fresh eyes, it is easy to see it falling into either of the other two options.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply