viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8637
13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the assembly of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15 But when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.
All of the reconstructions of Marcion's letters include the statement that Paul was persecuting the assembly in v13.
On the face of it, this statement seems not to make much sense. Hence I've argued that v 13 should instead be read, "For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how fervently followed the assembly of God."
Most modern English Bibles translate this, "I was violently persecuting the church of God," but this is anachronistic, as there was no such thing as a "church" at this time and no word that distinguished between a body of "Christians" and "Jews", i.e. church vs synagogue, etc. The word used in Greek is ekklēsia, which is simply assembly. And the term "assembly of God" was used by Philo and other Jews to refer to bodies of Jewish worshipers of the Jewish God.
So anyone reading this letter in the 1st or 2nd century would have read this as Paul saying:
"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish assembly of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."
This is a very confusing statement. But the term "assembly of God" could be read here as the temple priesthood.
"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish priesthood and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."
This could mean that Paul was so zealous for his ancestral traditions that he rejected what the assembly or possibly Sanhedrin had become. He saw the Jewish leaders as traitors to Judaism.
Using a slightly different translation here (NASB vs NRSV):
"But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus."
The "mother's womb" is important here. Here I take "mother's womb" to be a metaphor for the Judaism of his youth. This could be read as saying, "God had separated me from the Jewish nation and made a separate covenant with me. When he was pleased with me he revealed His Son through me so that I could reveal him to the Gentiles."
The term "reveal" is also important here, because this indicates that Paul was the first person to know the Son. I'm not sure if the Greek supports this reading, but in this translation that's how I read it. "reveal His Son in me" indicates that it was through Paul that the Son was made known to the world.
But I will admit that not even this is fully satisfactory. I struggle really to find any reading of Gal 1:13-17 that is satisfactory. I see three possible readings, none of which are without some problem:
1) (Traditional reading)
You have heard that I was a devout Jew. I violently persecuted the followers of Jesus and tried to destroy them. I was more advanced in my Jewish studies than other youths because I yearned for the traditions of my ancestors. But God had a special plan for me from the time I was born, and once he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...
2) (Proposed misreading and interpolation)
You have heard that I was a devout Jew who I obsessively attended synagogue. I was more advanced in my Jewish studies than other youths because I yearned for the traditions of my ancestors. Once I advanced beyond the simple Judaism of my youth he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...
3) (Persecution of his own people)
You have heard of my conflicts with Jewish leadership. I was violently persecuting the Jewish priesthood and trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. God had separated me from the simple Judaism of my youth and made a separate covenant with me, and once he was pleased with me he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...
So I see these three possible readings. Each have their own problems. I'm not entirely satisfied with any of them.
IMO, v13 and v14 both imply that Paul is talking about his youth. Both options 1 and 3 imply, then, that Paul is talking about persecuting and trying to destroy something while a youth. This seems unlikely. V13a and v14 imply that Paul is talking about his religious studies as a youth. Here, it seems to me that reading #2 makes the most sense. "You heard I was a child prodigy of Jewish studies. I was extremely devoted to the synagogue. I advanced in my studies beyond my peers." That series of thoughts is coherent and perhaps sets up the next possible reading of, "Once I advanced beyond the simple Judaism of my youth he revealed his son Jesus to me." So here v13-14 would be used to establish why God revealed his son to him as opposed to anyone else. God revealed his son Jesus to Paul because he was so advanced in his studies of Judaism that he had gone beyond the traditional understanding of the scriptures. Here the assemblies that are "In Christ" can be understood as congregations of Jews who have taken to an "advanced reading" of the scriptures that goes beyond what was condoned by the temple priesthood.
That's all well and good and sounds like it makes sense, BUT it requires that several parts of Galatians 1, including parts of v13, be interpolations.
But what about reading #3? This provides a more coherent reading of v13 and seems to make several other aspects of Paul's biography make sense, but it doesn't fit well with v14. The term "assembly of God" would absolutely have been read by Jews at the time as meaning Jewish worshipers, not "Christians". The "assembly of God" could mean "Jewish nation", "the Jewish priesthood", a specific Jewish congregation. But in no way does the term "assembly of God" have a distinction that would have meant "Christians". So maybe Paul is talking about his opposition to the Jewish priesthood. This would explain why he was constantly in conflict with various leaders. It would also explain why he didn't do immediately to Jerusalem. He avoided Jerusalem for some time because he was unwelcome there due to his reputation as a trouble maker. He didn't show his face there for three years to let things settle down.
Such a reading would not be out of line with much of the Qumranic material. The DSS contains many works by devout Jews who see themselves as in conflict with the Jewish priesthood. And clearly Paul's teachings are in conflict with the Jewish priesthood. He opposes circumcision and the law. The revelation of Jesus to Paul then seems to have brought Paul around to accepting "a truce" with Jewish leadership, though he maintained disagreements. This does seem to make several other elements of Galatians make more sense.
But what about going back to #1? Here, v13b seems to be entirely out of context. What does it have to do with any of the surrounding material? And why would anyone have read "assembly of God" to mean "Jesus worshipers"? In no way was that term uniquely identified with the worship of Jesus. It also seems that the traditional reading of v13 is entirely reliant upon assumptions about the state of Jesus worship during Paul's time that are absolutely not in evidence. This implies a state of affairs in which Jews were at that time involved in some kind of open repressions against followers of Jesus. It imagines an environment conjured by the Gospels, in which Jesus was crucified in a big public spectacle that was widely known and that following his death there was some sort of widespread manhunt going on directed by Jewish leaders to hunt down all of the threatening followers of this popular messiah, and that Paul had been caught up in this and was a part of it. But, such a scenario is entirely unsupported by anything other than Christian fantasy. So barring that delusion, how could this reading make any sense?
So anyway, I'm not at three possible readings of this passage, but I don't find any of them entirely satisfactory.