Gal1,1717(
A)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 (
B)Damascus.
You're certainly reading an awful lot into Gal1,17
No, simply that there were apostles before Paul.
The reason is not what you are suggesting, he doesn't state that he is defending his authority, besides, he's never shy about his authority, he never states anywhere or even hints that it's because he also knows that Jesus lived, or because apostles were followers of Jesus long before him as you suggest.
He doesn't need to state it. It is very clear. The whole point of Galatians is the question on circumcision. Paul is putting forward his view over and against that of Peter and the other "pillars." So he begins his letter (after the salutation) that before he received the Jesus tradition from Peter, he received it from Christ himself. This is what legitimizes him as an apostle at all. Otherwise, why should those he writes to accept him over Peter?
The reason he gives for not being deserving was "because I persecuted the church of God."Gal1,9 Now, who do I believe, Oberon or Paul? Obviously I'm taking Paul's word for it, because that's the reason he gives.
You believe Paul very selectively then, because Paul also states that Jesus died, that he passed on teachings, that he had a last supper, all things that you write off.
Anyway, the point is the same. Paul persecuted the earliest followers of Jesus, and therefore cannot claim to have been an original follower. Peter et al can.
And then what does he do? Right after stating he's undeserving he puts himself right back up on an even par with all the others:
That's my point. He defends his authority because he received his mission from Jesus first, before he was initiated by Peter, therefore he should be thought of as an apostle.
Apparently paradidomi can mean "hand over" or "deliver up."
paradidomi comes from the prefix
para and the greek
didomi, which means (basically) "I give" but it is combined with numerous prefixes for different shades of meaning. Even these meanings depend somewhat on context.
paradidomi is, among other things, used as a technical term for the handing over of tradition, and it is used even outside the NT and christianity in this context. However, it can mean deliver up, give over, even give a city into another's hands. You have to look at context.
In other passages in Paul, God does the delivering up(e.g., Romans 8:32) , or even Jesus himself (Ephesians 5:2 and 25). The gospel translation is not necessary. Also note that Paul refers to a Lord's Supper, not the Last Supper as in the gospels.
First of all, what he calls the "lord's supper" is the practice that the early christians carried on. Second, so what if the word is used differently in other contexts? Paradidomi in that context means betrayed or even "given over" (to authorities). The point is that Paul has Jesus sitting their eating with his disciples, just as we find in the gospels.
The gospels are a later Christian development, they were written after Paul's death, and so to read Paul objectively, we can't make the mistake of reading the gospels into Paul's writings. If anything, the gospel writers are borrowing from Paul's writings, not the other way around.
None of the gospels show an awareness of Paul's writings. In any case, I am not "reading back" into Paul. Rather the fact that Paul clearly discusses the twelve and Peter as the head of the twelve and the gospels do as well should make anyone who isn't a complete idiot think that they are talking about the same people.
James is referred to as the Lord's brother, not to mean the literal brother of Jesus, as later Christians insist.
So why is James the only one ever referred to (even in Josephus) as Jesus' brother?
Paul never states that James new Jesus.
He doesn't have to. He is writing to christian communities who would have already known this. In addition, most people know their brothers, especially in cultures where family is everything.
He does refer to Peter, James, and John as the pillars but he does not discuss the Twelve. He only mentions them once, Gal1,5 "he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve." Had we read this after Paul died and before the gospels were written, we wouldn't have a clue as to what is meant by "the Twelve" because he never discusses them or mentions them again.
True enough. But we do have the gospels, early bioi of Jesus, which explain this. Thank goodness.
Notice the confusion reading through a gospel lense causes. He appeared before Peter and then to the Twelve. This sounds like thirteen people.
No. It simply means that it was Peter first, then the whole group of the twelve.
Also, He appeared before James and then to the apostles. So, he appeared before the Twelve as well as the apostles as well as to Peter and James. If we don't know of the gospel story, which wasn't written yet anyways, it's not a problem
The gospels weren't written, but the earliest parts of them were already around orally (if not in writing, as Q is dated to around this time)
So what you are saying is that the translations we have are completely bogus. Nobody got it right except you.
Actually, most translations do it my way. See Metzger or Fitzmeyer on this.
He never says this. It's Christian's that insist on this meaning. James was probably the head of a brotherhood of believers. The word brother and brethren is used dozens and dozens of times in the epistles and Acts and none of the other times is the term taken to mean a literal brother unless it actually states, such as James, the brother of John.
No one else is ever, ever referred to as the "brother of Jesus" the way James is. All the other uses of brethren and brother don't matter. Only James is "the brother of the Lord" because they were actually related.
Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as pillars, and the gospels, drawing from Paul's writings
And what, from you analysis of the the gospel texts, leads you to believe that the gospels were aware of Paul's writing? The fact that Paul says things that happen in the gospels? But you already said they stole it all from the OT. Be consistent.
The truth is that Paul was aware of the traditions concerning Jesus which he received directly from Peter. The gospels used similar traditions.
James, the brother of Jesus plays no role in the gospels. He's mentioned once in Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his family, and is never mentioned again. Luke/Acts doesn't even so much as name Jesus' brothers or sisters.
James was not one of the twelve, and apparently received more authority after his death. If the gospels (as you suggested) were dependent on Paul, wouldn't they have made him more prominent? They don't, though, because they are aware (and show a desire to record history) that James did not become prominent until after Jesus died. And James is mentioned in Acts (15:13).
