"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?"
Assuming for a moment the purpose of Galatians as a polemic tract against this perverted gospel (Matthew?). This verse has been used in an affirmative light (Paul is acknowledging a written source for Jesus's crucifixion, either in a gospel or Old Testament pesher), but Paul speaks of it in a negative also: Jesus's crucifixion is written of, but this is not a good thing. Could this point to Paul's gospel not being transmutable via a canonical-like text? It would make sense for Paul's gospel to be written down only until a competing gospel was on the market. After all, what would have been the impetus? It could not have Mark's gospel given the arguments Paul levies against this perverted gospel (it apparently had a birth account which Paul attempts to circumvent in Gal 1, as well as the significance and distinction between those the children of Hagar and the children of Sarah which would be meaningless for Paul but would follow given the context he is arguing against if the perverted gospel was one that put a meaning onto it).
Does this follow then that Paul's gospel is strictly a sayings source? Dictums and commands, but no biographical or vita information Jesus.
Assuming for a moment the purpose of Galatians as a polemic tract against this perverted gospel (Matthew?). This verse has been used in an affirmative light (Paul is acknowledging a written source for Jesus's crucifixion, either in a gospel or Old Testament pesher), but Paul speaks of it in a negative also: Jesus's crucifixion is written of, but this is not a good thing. Could this point to Paul's gospel not being transmutable via a canonical-like text? It would make sense for Paul's gospel to be written down only until a competing gospel was on the market. After all, what would have been the impetus? It could not have Mark's gospel given the arguments Paul levies against this perverted gospel (it apparently had a birth account which Paul attempts to circumvent in Gal 1, as well as the significance and distinction between those the children of Hagar and the children of Sarah which would be meaningless for Paul but would follow given the context he is arguing against if the perverted gospel was one that put a meaning onto it).
Does this follow then that Paul's gospel is strictly a sayings source? Dictums and commands, but no biographical or vita information Jesus.
Statistics: Posted by Joseph D. L. — Sun May 05, 2024 12:41 am