The Letter of Paul to the Galatians Online Commentary (6)

http://americamagazine.org/content/good-word/letter-paul-galatians-online-commentary-6

English: Map of the Letters of Galatia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on Galatians, I discussed introductory matters concerning the founding of the churches to the Galatians, the situation when Paul wrote to them, when the letter might have been written and the type of letters which Paul wrote, based on the common Greco-Roman letters of his day. In the second post, I considered the basic content and breakdown of a Pauline letter. I noted the major sections of the formal letter structure and, in the context of each section, outlined the theological and ethical (as well as other) concerns of Paul, including some Greek words which will be examined more fully as we continue with the commentary. In the third entry, I looked at the salutation, which is long for Paul’s corpus (only Romans 1:1-7 is longer) and briefly commented on the lack of a Thanksgiving, the only letter of Paul’s which does not have one. The fourth entry discussed the opening of the body of the letter, a significant part of the letter especially in light of the absence of a Thanksgiving. In the fifth entry, I examined the beginning of the opening of the body of the letter, in which Paul describes his background in Judaism and I placed this in the context of Judaism in the Hellenistic period. In this, the sixth post in the online commentary, I continue to look at Paul’s biographical sketch of his life, this concerning his earliest life as a Christian.

4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians  

d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):

ii) Paul's Background in the Church 1 (1:18-24):

¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰ In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! ²¹ Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ²² and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ²³ they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” ²⁴ And they glorified God because of me. (NRSV)

Paul recalls his initial visit with the Apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion,^[1] which includes he says only Peter (Cephas) and James the Lord’s brother. (1:18-24). He then returned to Syria and Cilicia (his hometown of Tarsus was in Cilicia), but his reputation had now spread to the churches in Judea.

The focus of this section, as noted last entry, is that Paul was not dependent upon any human being as the source of his Gospel, but instead was guided by the “revelation” of Jesus Christ. Here he states that he met Cephas only after three years. Cephas is Aramaic for “rock” and though the identity of Cephas has been disputed, it seems clear that it refers to Peter, which is Greek for “rock.” Why Paul uses Cephas instead of Peter in a Greek letter is intriguing, but difficult to answer. He might simply prefer Peter’s name in the mother tongue (see note below). What Paul desires from Peter is also left vague.

Paul writes that he “I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days” (1:18). What sort of “visit” was this? The verb used here, historêsai, can have the sense of gaining knowledge through face to face encounter, so visit might work, but it also has the meaning of enquiring, learning and examining a thing or a person. Given the context in this letter, of Paul’s self-sufficiency in the Gospel, and then his acknowledgement that he did “visit” Peter for fifteen days, I think it is best to understand Paul’s visit as having the purpose of enquiring about Jesus’ earthly ministry and Peter’s reminiscences about that ministry.^[2]  Paul’s visit had as its purposes research and personal contact.

Paul then defends himself, it seems to me, against unknown interlocutors and charges – made by the Galatians? The interlopers who were unsettling the Galatians? – that he saw no other apostle “except James the Lord’s brother” (1:19). There is actually some question as to whether this phrase means to exclude James from the apostles or to include him among the apostles. Literally the Greek phrase which is translated as “except” is “if not” (ei mê). This could be adversative and mean “but”: “I did not see any other apostle, but (I did see) James the Lord’s brother.” Or, it could mean “except”: “I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.” I prefer “except,” even though James, the Lord’s brother was not considered one of the twelve apostles. It seems clear, however, that “apostles” was a broader category in the early Church than just the twelve, as we can see in Romans 16:7, in which Andronicus and Junia are noted as apostles.

Who is this James? It is not one of the twelve apostles, see my outline of each James in the NT, but is clearly a relation of Jesus, the one who was considered the first bishop of the Jerusalem church. We see this James guiding the Church in Jerusalem not only in Galatians 2:9, 12, but in Acts 15: 13 (and most likely Acts 12:17 and 21:18). Catholics, of course, deny that Jesus had any full brothers or sisters and so would understand “brother” in the broader sense of “relation” or “kinsman” or “cousin” (as for instance Fitzmyer, NJBC, 783). Paul’s meeting with James would be a recognition of James’ standing within the Jerusalem church.

Paul then states, “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” (1:20). It is the vociferous denial here which leads me to say, as above, that Paul is mounting a defense against some charges thrown his way. What charges? That he has had more contact with Jerusalem then he is letting on? That he is more dependent upon other apostles than he wants them to know? Is this an attack on his apostleship? Paul’s apostleship depends upon a religious experience, not an earthly ministry in which he followed Jesus, so perhaps the charge leveled against him is that his conversion cannot be trusted and he is only a follower of  the apostles in Jerusalem not a leader, so what kind of authority does he have? On the other hand, as we shall see, Paul will want to align himself with the authority of the Jerusalem Church to demonstrate that they accept him and do not reject his Gospel. It is a tight wire he walks: I am an independent authority, but the apostles, who I did not know and was not dependent upon, approve of and support my message.

Paul then summarizes his next travels following his first Jerusalem visit with Peter and James, three years after his conversion, saying he “went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” (1:21), which would include his home city of Tarsus and the major early Christian center of Antioch. In Acts 13 and 14, Paul’s missionary activities are outlined in this region and I suspect that this correlates with the activity surveyed briefly in Galatians 1:21 but that cannot be certain. Still, Paul was “still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me” (1:22-24). Paul ends this section by again asserting his dependent independence, focusing on his unique missionary activity, without the support of the churches in Judea, including Jerusalem, but with their tacit support since “they glorified God because of me.” What they knew of Paul was simply that the persecutor had become a missionary for the Church.

Next entry, Paul travels to Jerusalem fourteen years later to meet the Apostles.

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word

---

[1] This period of three years could be reckoned two ways: a) three years after Paul’s conversion; b) three years after his journey to Arabia and return to Damascus, with the conversion, of course, preceding both the journey and return. Since we do not know how long this sojourn in Arabia was, I think it best just to speak of this as “three years after his conversion.”

[2] As an aside, if they spoke in Aramaic during this fifteen day visit, could this be the source of Paul’s use of Cephas and not Peter? That is, this is the name and linguistic context for how Paul came to know Peter.

The 'Holy One of Israel': The Book of Isaiah I

Fragment  of Isaiah Scroll (Isa 57:17 - 59:9), 1QIsa b
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I want to continue my Prophetic Literature comments going back to the eighth century BCE and looking into the first of the Major Prophets: Isaiah. 

I became interested in the study of the book of Isaiah, probably because of the beautiful poetic oracles and the efficient edition process this book has gone through which I learned to appreciate while learning advanced Hebrew and History of the OT at the Biblicum. For me, it is also very practical to have a preference for this book, since it appears quite frequently in the Sunday and Weekday lectionaries.

Although we are very far from finding a final agreement on the matter, many scholars see three periods (and also at least three “prophetic voices” according to historical content, style and theology) in the Book of Isaiah. Acknowledging the risk of oversimplifying things, it seems that the major parts of Isaiah 1-39 transpire the political realities of Judean region at the end of the eighth century BCE. Isaiah 40-55 record circumstances and figures extant in the late exilic period. The last chapters (56-66) reflect circumstances Jews encountered at their return to Judah under the Persian Empire during the late sixth century. The final product of the composition/edition presents sixty-six chapters containing biographical accounts, third-person reports, preaching, hymns, polemical discourses and liturgical language among other literary features that seem to develop a process or plan, historical and theological, that unfolded during ca. 750-500 BCE. How such diverse material came to form such a beautiful and meaningful collection is another theme of a heated debate among experts and very far from a satisfactory consensus.

After the Book of Psalms and Jeremiah, the Book of Isaiah is the third longest book in the Bible, probably taking its name from the prophet who ministered during the late 8^th century into the early 7^th century BCE. Apart from Isa 1:1, we do not find any more direct references to him except 2 Kings 19-20 (and its parallel 2 Chron. 29-32). However, the books contain several biographical details depicting the traditional portrait of an Israelite prophet: having a changing experience with the heavenly realm (6:1-13), performing symbolic actions (20:2-4), giving allegorical names to his children (7:3; 8:1-4), showing up in court and delivering oracles (38:1; 39:3-8), appealing to justice and condemning corruption (1:2-31), etc. There is also a tradition that Isaiah was martyred during the reign of King Manasseh (697-642 BCE). 

According to Isa 8:16-17, and as I mentioned in another post, it is very plausible that Isaiah of Jerusalem had a group of disciples that kept alive his tradition and expanded, adapted and enhanced them. It would be very difficult to identify who and how many these disciples were, when and how long they worked in the prophet’s oracles and written material. However, it is very likely that the prophetic material collected in chapters 40-66 (second, chs. 40-55 and third Isaiah, chs. 56-66) relates better with Isaiah of Jerusalem’s message than with any other of the rest of the prophets. 

(Photo credit: William Brassey Hole:
Isaiah Witnesses the Folly and Vice of Jerusalem)

As we read the book in its final and canonical form, the careful reader can discern a theological reflection on Judah’s experience of a faithful God that steps into human’s history. Jewish interpretation looks more into this direction while Christianity focuses on God’s presentation of the Anointed One.

The Isaian writings portray God as great and majestic, morally perfect, transcendent and omnipotent, creator of all and ruler of all creation. Most of all, the prophet presents YHWH as holy (this adjective is used 33 times in the book). For Isaiah this is God’s principal trait. The book also stresses YHWH’s appreciation and value he bestows on humanity. If man gives God the proper glory, true significance is found in man. On the other hand when sin takes a hold the consequences are dire. For Isaiah sin is rebellion that has its origin in pride. Isaiah thinks that all the evil springs from humanity’s refusal of acknowledge God as Lord. The more humans remain in sin the more it has negative consequences, even to the environment: war, disease and natural disasters. Although God is ready to punish those who persevere in the folly of sin (which Isaiah compares with idolatry), he also comes with salvation for those who turn back and put their trust in him. Even though salvation is an act from YHWH, through God’s anointed king, redemption can be obtained. This salvation comes through the Messiah ultimately, and nobody can attain it by themselves, except when they accept to become YHWH’s servants. 

Juan Miguel Betancourt

Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

Adrian Murdoch's Videos on Roman Emperors

Via @SarahEBond, I found Adrian Murdoch's excellent Youtube channel.

Here he has over 70 short videos, a couple minutes each, dedicated to individual Roman emperors.  It can't be comprehensive with just two or three minutes, of course, but it gives a very good overview of the basic biographical details.  Perhaps it can be a good alternative to looking up details on Wikipedia (which recently was thoroughly dismantled by Peter Head, by the way).

I have not read anything by Murdoch, since I don't spend much time working on Roman history, but I have enjoyed dozens of these videos already.  As a good example, I have embedded his video on Titus.


UPDATE:  As Adrian Murdoch notes in the comments below, the series has been collected into a book, Emperors of Rome, for Kindle.

Isaac M. Alderman
Follow me on Twitter @isaacalderman
Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook

The Letter of Paul to the Galatians Online Commentary (5)

English: Map of the Letters of Galatia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on Galatians, I discussed introductory matters concerning the founding of the churches to the Galatians, the situation when Paul wrote to them, when the letter might have been written and the type of letters which Paul wrote, based on the common Greco-Roman letters of his day. In the second post, I considered the basic content and breakdown of a Pauline letter. I noted the major sections of the formal letter structure and, in the context of each section, outlined the theological and ethical (as well as other) concerns of Paul, including some Greek words which will be examined more fully as we continue with the commentary. In the third entry, I looked at the salutation, which is long for Paul’s corpus (only Romans 1:1-7 is longer) and briefly commented on the lack of a Thanksgiving, the only letter of Paul’s which does not have one. The fourth entry discussed the opening of the body of the letter, a significant part of the letter especially in light of the absence of a Thanksgiving.

4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians  

d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):

i) Paul's Background in Judaism 1 (1:13-17):

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. 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 God, 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 being, 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 afterwards I returned to Damascus. (NRSV)

In this section of Galatians, Paul recalls his former manner of life as a persecutor of the Church, who was called by revelation and grace to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles. This call was not dependent upon the previous Apostles, for the call did not come from human authorities, not even Apostles, since Paul did not meet them until years later (1:13-17).

Paul begins by noting his “earlier life in Judaism” (τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ- tên emên anastrophên pote en tô Ioudaismô), which need not indicate that Paul no longer considers himself a Jew, but the manner or type of life which he formerly lived, since the point of the reminiscence is to recall the fact that he was “violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it” (1:13). Evidence of Paul’s persecution of the followers of Jesus also comes from 1 Corinthians 15:9, Philippians 3:6, and Acts 8:3; this is an undeniable part of Paul’s earlier religious life, but why? Why did Paul seek to destroy the “Church of God”?

Paul speaks of having “advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (1:14). Richard Hays, in the notes to the Harper Collins Study Bible, remarks that “advanced” (proekopton) was a “word commonly used by Stoic philosophers to describe progress in cultivating virtue” (1974) and I think that whether one sees specific Stoic influence here, which is possible, it is important to see that Paul understands his previous persecution of the Church in a religious light. He links his persecution with his being “zealous” for the “traditions of my ancestors” (1:14).^[1]

How could persecution of other Jews be linked to progress in virtue? The word “zealous” is key as is the phrase “traditions of my ancestors.” Both can be linked to Paul’s life as a Pharisee. “Traditions of my ancestors” describes the oral traditions regarding the Law of Moses and the “strict” (akribeia) interpretations of those laws practiced by the Pharisees (see A. I. Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees” in JBL 102 (1983) 413-17). As a result of these “strict” interpretations of the law, many people were considered by the Pharisees not to have properly followed or fulfilled the requirements of the law even though these same people would have seen themselves as loyal Jews.

It can also be said, as Paul himself does, that to be a “strict” interpreter of the law was to be “zealous” for the law (see also Philippians 3:6). To be zealous for the law had a long pedigree in Judaism prior to Paul. The key passage and incident is that of Phinehas in Numbers 25:6-13, in which a Midianite woman and the Israelite who brought her into his tent are slain by Phinehas due to his zeal for the law. There are many other examples of “zealousness” from which to choose in the biblical tradition (see James Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Gospels Eerdmans: 2011, 150-52), but that of Mattathias in 1 Maccabees 1-2 is most relevant. Not only does Mattathias call upon the memory of Phinehas when slaying the representative of Antiochus Epiphanes and a Jew who was to make an idolatrous sacrifice (1 Maccabees 2:23-26), but to be “zealous” for the law is the condition of opposing the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes for those who would join Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:27) and a characteristic of those Israelite heroes who had defended the faith before Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:51-60).

Some scholars have even located the origins of the Pharisees in the Maccabean revolt, tracing the Pharisees to the “Hasideans” (Hasidim) or “pious ones,” who join with Mattathias and his sons to oppose the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are called “mighty warriors of Israel, all who offered themselves willingly for the law” (1 Maccabees 2:42). Whether this is the precise group from whom the Pharisees grew, and there is little evidence for this,^[2] it is generally the belief that the Pharisees did emerge from the fulcrum of ideas and responses to the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the response of the Maccabeans in the Hellenistic period, if not earlier. The first reference to the Pharisees places them in the reign of the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.E.) (Josephus,Ant13.10.5). Since the Pharisees do emerge only after the Maccabean revolt, and with a strong OT pedigree to support them, zealousness for the law becomes a watchword for their love of the Torah and desire to protect it from persecution and ignorance, such as that of the Antiochean persecution. Faithful Jews in the later Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods would support this position in a variety of ways, such as the “Zealots,” who oppose with force Roman rule, but they key was to protect the Torah and the practice of Judaism.

Paul is a part of this history and his persecution of the Church is an attempt to rid Judaism of what he saw as a sadly misguided reformation or interpretation of Judaism. We are unclear, though, on whether his persecution was a response to Jesus’ own teachings on the Torah – if Paul even knew of them – or whether it is a response to the practices or beliefs of Jesus’ followers and their interpretation of the Law of Moses, or whether he disapproved of their claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

Paul’s turn away from persecution and to Jesus comes through the revelatory experience he mentioned in Galatians 1:12 and further outlines in 1:15-16a, “when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me.” Paul places himself here in the role of the prophet whom God calls even before birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49:1-6) and in the constant sense of grace which he has experienced through Christ. Paul now sees Jesus and himself as part of God’s revelation to the Jews not in opposition to it. Again, Paul notes that God was pleased “to reveal” (apokalypsai) “his Son” to him, which points to a complex spiritual experience that turned Paul’s life around. Whatever one thinks of religious experience as a category, or the content of mystical experiences, Paul’s “revelation” turns him from persecution of the Church to the Church’s major proponent, from being willing to harm others on account of their faith in Christ to being willing to be harmed for the Gospel and his faith in Christ.

Something real happened to Paul through his encounter with God’s son who was revealed “in me” (en emoi). This is translated usually as “to me,” as in the NRSV, which is grammatically possible and probably even likely, but “through me” is also possible (on these grammatical questions see Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.,  New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Galatians 47:16, 783). I like “through me,” which fits with the task Paul was given in 1:16b, but Fitzmyer finds it “redundant” in light of that task. What we can say, I think, is that every aspect of this preposition is in play here: God’s son was revealed in, to and through Paul for the purposes of making the Gospel known to the nations. Paul is the means by which Jesus is proclaimed.

Finally, Paul stresses again that “I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus” (1:16b-17). This repeated emphasis is to indicate that Paul’s Gospel is divine in origin, as has already been seen earlier in Galatians 1 (see entry four), and we will examine the implications of this declaration for his relationship to the Gospel he preaches and his relationship with the Church and the Apostles in particular in the next two entries. As to Paul’s journey to Arabia, this has generally been considered to be the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas IV Philopatris, which was south of Damascus and east of the Jordan River (see 2 Corinthians 11:32), though this is not certain. What it does indicate is that Paul did not consult with the Apostles, but retreated to commune with God or with other Christians unknown to us.

Next entry, Paul travels to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word

---

[1] “Ancestors” here is a translation of patrikôn, which is more literally, and probably in a 1^st century context more accurately, “fathers.”

[2] See Shaye, J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Westminster John Know Press: 2006) 154-55 who sees “little evidence” for this connection. For a fascinating survey by the same author on the purported connections between the Pharisees and the later Rabbis and the Rabbinic desire for later Judaism not to represent the sectarian nature of the Pharisees see “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism” now in The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (Mohr Siebeck: 2010)