Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: was:Paul Not a Pharisee?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: was:Paul Not a Pharisee?
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:52:33 +0100


Dear friends.
May I enter the debate about what Paul has been or has not been, has done or
has not done, claims to have been or not been, etc., by introducing a more
general concern, i.e. the question of reliability, or persuasive strategy if
you prefer, of assertions made or not made in his letters, both with regard
to himself and to his opponents.
Let me approach the issue from the angle of Paul's claim to be an apostle of
equal if not superior dignity and authority as the twelve (or whatever number
one infers). As we all know, Paul asserts, at times with great fervor, that
he is an apostle like them, for he also has seen the risen Lord (1 Cor
9.1-5), the least of them, to be sure, yet with regard to labor superior to
them all (1 Cor 15.9-10) etc.
Now, in Gal 2.6-9, as many have argued, Paul makes known to the recipients of
his letter, that his claim to be the apostle to the Gentiles met with
approval in Jerusalem. I.e. not only does he considers himself to be an
apostle, but those who have everybody's respect do agree and have confirmed
his apostleship to the Gentiles. Even G Lyons, who opposes any mirror reading
from autobiographic passages (Autobiography 116, Fn 91), accepts that much.
Here is my point of departure: the critics ought to be more alert to Paul's
intricate use of insinuation, especially in light of the fact, that most of
the recipients of his letters would not have had the opportunity of reading
and studying these passages over and over again for themselves, considering
and reconsidering the phrases, outlining the argument etc. Thus, whatever
impression came across at the recital of the letter, i.e whatever assumptions
arose in the mind of the listener by means of the persuasive momentum of the
argumentation, has to be taken into account with regard to argument
invention. Modern interpreters are to quick in assuming an advantage for
themselves over and against the original listeners. If a letter is conceived
rhetorically to be read for an audience, then there is a meaning that comes
across in just that kind of reception situation.
Now, I am not suggesting, that Paul would ever write an outright lie.
Especially Gal 1 & 2 have convinced me of that. Rhetorical insinuations, that
may conceive assumptions in the readers' mind are quite a different pair of
shoes, however. One may not actually be able to accuse the orator or the
sender of the letter of having said, what everybody believes to have heard.
Neither may one ever be able to identify such implications in the text,
especially when read carefully and analytically. Yet still, an overwhelming
implication is suggested to the listener by a skillfully constructed
argument. What is suggested is never stated, it is the result of the dynamics
of the argument as a whole.
Before I present the details of my reading of Gal 2. 6-9, let me just
mention, that this is by no means the only place, where Paul argues in such a
way, that implications suggest themselves to the reader, which 'most
probably' may not comply with what has actually happened. (I have identified
a number of such texts in my book 'Forum für Sprachlose', where you can also
find a detailed analysis of Gal 2.6-9 from these angles)
With regard to Gal, one such implication is the often discussed fact, that
Paul does not actually tell his readers, whether or not he succeeded with his
reprimand of Peter (2.11-14). But I suppose most of us would agree, that a
listener, to whom the account is read, followed by the heartbreaking
confession of 2.19-20, at least to begin with, would just simply suppose
Paul's success. The fact, however, that Paul does not recount any success at
Antioch (and other evidence from outside Gal that points towards a
problematic relationship between Paul and Antioch) would seem to suggest,
that he was constructing his argument in order to make his listeners assume
something contrary to fact, namely his victory over Peter in Antioch.

Now to Gal 2.6-9: Paul never asserts explicitely in these verses to have been
accepted in Jerusalem as the apostle to the Gentiles. Yet, if even the
critical reader is tempted to grant such an implication, how much more the
first listener? With great skill, the 'trap' is prepared. First, the listener
is presented with a depreciative remark with regard to those of repute (v.6).
Then the affirmation is added, that the pillars were deeply impressed ('On
the contrary.!') by Paul's account of God's work through him. While the
emphasis of the argument seems to be on the account of God's working, Paul,
as though it were a self evident matter, puts his ministry alongside that of
Peter ('just as!'), as equal divine callings (v.7).
Now the listener is in the right mood to make another implication, since by
now it is so evidently obvious: the 'apostolen tes peritomes' that was given
to Peter, is basically the same as the . 'eis ta ethne' of Paul (v.8).
Finally we have the handshake (v.9), and the rhetorical plot is complete.
Nobody could accuse Paul to have said it, yet everybody is inclined to imply
it.. It is quite clear to my mind, that, had Paul been attributed explicitly
the office of apostleship to the Gentiles by the Jerusalem leadership, he
would not have held it back in his comparison with Peter, he would have
bellowed it all over the letter.

Thus, in conclusion, I would suggest, we should include in our discussion of
what Paul may have been, have said or not said, about himself and others, the
pragmatic side of communication, especially of skilful letter communication.

Greetings

Dieter Mitternacht
Research Fellow at the
University of Lund, Sweden
Dieter.Mitternacht AT teol.lu.se










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page