Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: "And when Kephas came to Antioch . . . " was:Paul Not a Pharisee? <LYR95920-32841-2000.01.21-09.05.14--nm_mcgovern#acad.fandm.edu@franklin.o it.unc.edu>

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: "And when Kephas came to Antioch . . . " was:Paul Not a Pharisee? <LYR95920-32841-2000.01.21-09.05.14--nm_mcgovern#acad.fandm.edu AT franklin.o it.unc.edu>
  • Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 03:33:49 -0600


Dear Nathan,
You have brought up a good question:

PWS TA EQNH ANAGKAZEIS IOUDAIZEIN; (how can you compel the Gentiles to
live like Jews?)

My question is this: When did Kephas try to compel the Gentiles to live
like Jews?

Perfect question.

He apparently didn't do so earlier in Jerusalem, but instead
extended his right hand in partnership to Paul and Barnabas, that they
should go to the Gentiles. In fact, Paul says, not even Titus was
compelled to be circumcised! And Paul doesn't say anything about Kephas
compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews in Antioch, unless separating
from their table fellowship constituted a demand that they regain said
fellowship by "living like Jews."

Good observations. If I may interrupt your comments here, I would like to show you what Paul condemned Peter so harshly for, in my opinion. Paul calls Peter's withdrawal from the table, presumably to another separate table, hypocrisy, not apostasy or heresy. Thus he says Peter masks his true belief that gentiles in Christ are his equals, and entitled to sit at the same table as though proselytes, although not proselytes (i.e., not circumcised males). But he does not say that Peter actually believes or teaches gentiles to become proselytes to gain this standing. He says in fact quite the opposite.

It is the implications of Peter's hypocrisy that Paul argues are so compelling. And this makes perfect sense in social terms. These gentiles, if eating according to prevailing halakhic practice for a Jewish table in the Christ-coalition meetings in Antioch, but without gaining the standing of proselytes that would entitle them indiscriminate standing with other proselytes of this or other Jewish groups, are extremely vulnerable to the status ambiguity membership in this coalition represents and perpetuates when in contact with the larger Jewish community(s) in Antioch or anywhere else they might travel, say to the Temple in Jerusalem at the holidays sometime. Who are they? What should they expect? Are they merely honored guests, or members of full and equal standing? Awareness of such marginality may be salient without such contact outside of their coalition; the mere awareness of "difference" for those in ambiguous identity locations is often clear without a lot of demonstration, especially in a "dyadic" (psychological) society such as this, where people and groups derive much of their identity from their roles as understood by the other people and groups with whom they are "twinned."

Peter teaches that they should remain gentiles, just as does Paul, because that is what this coalition believes is legitimated by the death of Christ, and resurrection, bringing the dawning of the age to come, when Jews and the other nations worship the One God of Israel as the One God of all humankind. But then he withdraws because of social pressure--notice, not from the certain ones from James, but from the ones for circumcision--whose pressure was apparently stimulated to a heightened degree by the arrival of the certain ones from James. Why is not given, and I will skip here my view. But it is important that it is the advocates of circumcision for these Antiochene gentiles that brings Peter to behave differently than he believes, to wear a mask of his true conviction as it were.

This shames the gentiles, and demonstrates that this coalitions' principles (truth of the gospel Paul calls it), which marginalize them in terms of other and obviously powerful Jewish groups, at least in Antioch as far as Peter and the rest of the Jewish members of this coalition are concerned to save face with,if they do not follow the traditional course of proselyte conversion to gain full standing. The logical conclusion these gentiles would draw is (at least Paul draws for them!), either remain second class citizens not entitled to the most honored table, or become proselytes. It is the compelling logic of their plight that is exposed by the hypocrisy of one who should be a champion of their cause that Paul calls "compelling the gentiles to become proselytes."

Ultimately, the source of Kephas'
"hypocrisy" or "play-acting" is not his living like a Gentile but telling
Gentiles to live like Jews, but rather his doing one thing (eating with
Gentiles) while alone but doing another (not eating with Gentiles) when
"people from James" are present.

Yes, although I would stress that Paul says when they arrive. It could just be a precipitating event, but it is not clear that they are the same as the ones for circumcision, as they are not identified as such, and the syntax is strange if they are the same. They might be, but that is not clear. This is one of those points that suggest that the audience for Paul's letter is assumed to already know this story from Paul's earlier telling, but we of course do not. Again, with such a long post, I will refrain from engaging this question.

Why, then, does Paul make this reference
to Kephas compelling Gentiles to live like Jews? Is this a Freudian slip
on Paul's part? Or am I just missing something?

I hope this has helped. Nothing Freudian (as I think you mean it) on Paul's part here as far as I can see, but plain and simple compromise of principles in the face of social pressure, to which Paul and Peter in this instance respond differently (psychologically defined as social anxiety, for which different people have different threshholds; cf. M Leary and R. Kowalski, Social Anxiety, Guilford Press, 1995, if you like psychological stuff; and most important, M. Hogg and D. Abrams, Social Identifications, Routledge, 1998; R. Jenkins, Social Identity, Routledge, 1996).

Paul publicly challenges Peter before everyone, because it is before everyone that these gentiles have been shamed for allowing themselves to be marginalized by the principles of this group, when the leaders of this group are not in this instance willing to be marginalized for them. This is a minority coalition, and I think this story leaves open for us a window into an early intra-Jewish political moment in its self-definition, that will lead to an inter-Jewish identity with a few such episodes, and eventually into a sectarian identity, which became post-Jewish Christianity in due time. I have written a chapter in the Mystery of Romans on this Antioch Incident along the above lines, if you would like to see how I have tried to work this out in the text, although much remains to be done! And I have a paper entitle "The Inter- and Intra-Jewish Political Contexts of Paul and the Galatians" in the C-P archives, which seeks to set out some of the issues, to which comments are invited.

Perhaps other list members will offer you a different explanation; mine is admittedly not found in the current commentaries. Any reason why it doesn't explain the text or tensions?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City




  • Re: "And when Kephas came to Antioch . . . " was:Paul Not a Pharisee? <LYR95920-32841-2000.01.21-09.05.14--nm_mcgovern#acad.fandm.edu AT franklin.o it.unc.edu>, Mark D. Nanos, 01/23/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page