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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: was:Paul Not a Pharisee?
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:10:06 -0600


Dear Dieter,

Your methodological comments until the following point seem to me well-considered. I too think that not enough historical distance from the rhetorical construction of the author is generally observed when dealing with Paul's material, especially Gal. 1--2. But then you make the following comment:
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.

Here there are methodological assumptions that are not made explicit, or perhaps they are, but whichever, they need to be argued, not assumed, on the basis of your earlier comments. I note the following points:
1. "The fact...would seem to suggest...in order to make his listeners assume something contrary to fact..."

How do you know what is fact or fiction here, so that you know what is contrary or not? On the basis of what precedes this comment, namely, that Paul does not recount the success (and other...)? If so, then this will need to be argued in cross-cultural terms, that is, as the only logical way for him to have proceeded on his rhetorical terms, not the cultural norms of later interpreter, or their rhetorical conventions.
To read Paul here on his own terms it would seem the interpreter would need to consider, for example:

a) what if the addressees already know the outcome from Paul's previous telling of the story, but here this narrative has another purpose? (namely, e.g., to show Peter as an anti-model, so that even someone much more important than themselves [the Galatian gentile addressees] is tempted in the face of social pressure to hide what they know to be true in order to gain acceptance with rival interpretations of right living in the present age). Would not this show that Paul was not the enemy of themselves, just as he is not of themselves, for telling them the hard truth when they are perhaps tempted to compromise in the face of compelling social pressure? Thus, they might read this as: Peter got the same (condemning) treatment as we are getting in this ridiculing letter, and he then returned to doing the right thing; we should be ashamed, and do the right think now too.

b) what if there are markers for the audience that later interpreters have failed to recognize that indicate the facts differently than you take them to be? E.g., what if it is dishonorable in the addressees culture to gloat over an honor contest won?; or what if the lack of response from Peter was sufficient reason to know that the honor challenge was not met, thus the implied but clear conclusion of success according to the cultural norms of storytelling among the addressees?

2. "namely his victory over Peter in Antioch."

How do you know that this victory is contrary to fact? Obviously here the defining of the confrontation and of the concept of victory must be considered, and again, in cross-cultural terms. What if he did win, i.e., e.g., Peter returned to the table with the gentiles, and everyone knew it?


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.

Excellent points, and I think that this is how Paul's argument was constructed to be taken.

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.

But I do not see how this follows. On what logic? It is not clear to me? Was it clear to Paul or the addressees in their cultural context? I believe you are mistaken here; that is not necessarily how honor or persuasion was construed in either Jewish or Greco-Roman cultural terms (I don't know about Celtic, if that applies, but Celtic culture is considered a part of the circum-Mediterranean cultural complex on such matters touching upon honor cultures as the evil eye belief system). Your conclusion has a long history, but I do not think it has been considered cross-culturally by the interpreters who have promoted it. In other words, it must be argued, not assumed, to be the logic at work for Paul and his addressees, in the construction of rhetoric, and in letters in particular.

Should it not be considered in rhetorical terms of the author and authorial audience? And should not the fact that we have so little data, even from Paul, and that constructed for different occasional purposes with different group at different times, to conclude that this matter of Paul's apostleship was an issue among the "other apostles"; or purposely avoided across his literary production, or if so, perhaps the why of it?

Perhaps Paul's lack of concern to assert it is rather the "fact" that neither he nor the other apostles considered it a matter of debate--as do many of his later interpreters, who perhaps "assume" a divide that may not have been there--but just the way things "really" are, a knowledge shared by his addressees.

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.

Indeed! Please provide bibliographic data for your book 'Forum für Sprachlose'; and any other articles that might apply. Thanks

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page