” I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it”
jakejones said
” I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it”
But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.would “church of god” have included different christians not having the same views?
Good question. I don’t know the answer, but my guess is he didn’t sit down with his victims before stoning them for a theological screening.
“I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.”
Someone can “violently” persecute a church and try to destroy it without using physical violence against the followers.
For example, I’m violently persecuting Christianity with my words, but I’m not physically attacking Christians.
While the word “violently” can just mean “vigorously,” that is far from the usual meaning. In general, “violently” would suggest actual physical harm, and the word “vigorously” would be used if that was intended. Galatians 1:13 has been translated in various ways: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The question may be better resolved by looking at the original language . . . Robert?
. . . But do you disagree violently? (It may be interesting that it would be rare to see a phrase like “I agree violently.” I suppose that goes along with the negative implications of violent.)
I hope that this serves as yet another good example of the problem with close readings, especially in translation. In this case, the broad disagreement in translations probably should be the first clue that there are some complications here.
JAS said
. . . But do you disagree violently?I hope that this serves as yet another good example of the problem with close readings, especially in translation. In this case, the broad disagreement in translations probably should be the first clue that there are some complications here.
Pfft. The obvious solution is to never read anything closely.
I know I never do.
Robert said
I do not disagree violently; I merely disagree peaceably. One can only do a close reading in the original language and even then there will always be many points of interpretation that will be variously decided upon by readers.
Well, in fairness, that’s exactly how my ex ended up with the house, kids, and cars, and I ended up living out of a 1973 Gremlin in Walmart’s parking lot.
I didn’t even realize legalese was a language.
Imagine my surprise.
In general, “violently” would suggest actual physical harm, and the word “vigorously” would be used if that was intended.
I vociferously agree and vehemently suggest that there are currents in our culture that would view certain forms of speech, par exemple, “hate speech”, as inherently violent. (I do not mean to imply I agree.)
I hope that this serves as yet another good example of the problem with close readings, especially in translation.
Well I think the problem is not with a close reading but with the results of a close reading.
Robert said
The Greek expression used here does not at all denote violence. It is literally the same word we still use today for hyperbole. One could argue that violence is implied in some contexts, but I do not agree here. One need not read Acts into Galatians. Paul uses the same expression elsewhere in contexts where it implies something quite good:1 Cor. 12,31 But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent (καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν) way.
2 Cor. 4,17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure (καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν)
it means he excessively persecuted the church. Which can only be interpreted as involving some violence.
Yes it just means pursue but in a negative context is understood as persecute. It should be understood with the same sense as elsewhere in Gal 5:11 “why am I still being persecuted” and Gal 6:12 “they compel you to be circumcised to avoid persecution for the cross”
The persecution of himself that Paul speaks about elsewhere in his letters, and the persecution that others wish to avoid, is the same persecution that Paul was excessive with towards the church before he converted.
He may have felt it was a righteous punishment at the time but looking back on it as he is in Galatians he would have understood it as unjustified action against the church. The only way to understand all this is that its persecution which involved some level of violence.
Isn’t Paul telling us his own persecution of the church was more excessive even than that of those who are now persecuting him? Imprisoning and life threatening?
Well during the time that Paul was persecuting the church we can assume it was still mostly Jewish.
Paul describes it as his former life in Judaism, Gal 1:13. And through the use of the phrases “excessive persecution” and “advancing beyond his contemporaries” we should conclude that he wasn’t the only one participating in this persecution. We have no reason to believe this persecution stopped with Paul’s conversion, but rather the persecution that Paul now suffered is a continuation of that which he himself was a participant in. This continuation involves imprisonment and at least threats to life according to Paul.
If Paul was excessive in this persecution we can only conclude it involved some level of violence.
Jesus was executed; his brother was executed; Paul claims to be an early persecutor of the church, and was himself imprisoned and beaten after conversion. There’s no reason to doubt the accounts in acts of violence and killing being done to the early church.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)