Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - SV: Re: Paul as apostate (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: SV: Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:06:54 +0100


Dear Mark
I appreciate your extensive responses. I do not feel, however, that I can
re-respond adequately to all the good points you are making, since it would
lengthen our interaction well beyond the limits of what seems feasible. We
will have to leave some of our disagreements open to contributions from other
list members.
There is, despite our methodological agreements, as far as I can see, a
fundamental difference between your and my perception of Paul's attitude and
concern towards the recipients of the letter. This, of course, brings us to
matters of hermeneutical presuppositions, that we may not be able to resolve.
I do, indeed, find it very difficult to perceive the tone of the letter as a
paternal, and even less a maternal, rebuke. Remarks like 4.19 do not square
with, on the one hand, threats like 5.1-5 (I think we must agree that 5.1-5
is a threat) and the simultaneous affirmation, that the supposed reason for
the threat, i.e. circumcision, is a matter of no concern (v.6, cf. 6.15).
One can, of course, always argue, that there has to be a deeper meaning, an
underlying concern, a perspective, from which it all fits together. But that
would have to be argued for on the basis of the text and not just on the
basis of some good will presupposition (which, I might add, is always good
will with regard to Paul and never with regard to the accused, including
Peter). I for one don't think it is possible, except from a psychological or
a rhetorical point of view.
To put it bluntly, in order to save us some time, I have come to the
conclusion, that circumcision, as it is used in the argumentation of Gal (!),
is not primarily an identity marker, but a loyalty marker, i.e. a rather
intolerant demand of loyalty to the cause of Paul, over and against a more
tolerant and flexible attitude as it is practiced and advocated by the
'cursed' agitators, or by concerned delegates from Jerusalem, as I would want
to call them.
I have no problem agreeing, that
»Peter is not above being "publicly rebuked" when he fails to live according
to the principles of this truth« if that really was the problem.
But I do doubt very much, that Paul would have submitted himself to the same
public critique that he administered to others, regardless of their position.
And I find it very odd, that there should be one person, who is in the right
to admonish, threaten and condemn others and who does not seem to have any
need for regrets himself.

Again you write:
»Thus the strength of the message for these
"unsettled" teenagers: all of the leaders of the Christ-believing
coalition agree on the truth of the gospel--that gentiles do not
become Israelites (i.e., proselytes), but nevertheless equal
co-members of the righteous ones of God with Israelites--even if some
of the leaders (Peter at Antioch, and then the others present) may
find themselves tempted, just as are you, to compromise in the face
of pressure to conform with the norms of other reference groups.«

I have read similar interpretations in G Lyons book on autobiography and Gal.
I am afraid, I was not convinced then, and I am not now either. We should
remember, that the statements against Peter of hypocrisy, of failure to live
acc to the truth and of compelling Gentiles all stem from the accuser
himself, just as do the accusations of 'false brethren' and of the opponents
compelling the letter recipients (6.12) and so on. On this level, by the way,
you have a continuity from Jerusalem over Antioch to Galatia.
Can we assume, that a few years later everybody else just accepted Paul's
superiority and »worked out any differences that arose because of the
different contexts of their ministries.« Working out differences with Paul,
was equal to submitting to his point of view, that is my conclusion from the
text?

Let me just mention for the list with regard to the term 'ironic rebuke' how
TY Mullins, who has coined the expression, defined it:
"The whole point is that the writer is rebuking, even scolding the addressee.
And he is not using thaumazo in its common meaning; he is using it
ironically, often sarcastically. He is not really astonished; he is
irritated. This ironical use is an essential element in the form. I suggest
that if this is accepted as a form, it should be called ironic rebuke."
(Mullins Formulas [1972] 385-6)

I know that R Longenecker has tried to soften this. But the evidence he is
using (POxy 3063) does not convince me at all. Rather, I would submit, it
strengthens the impression of the formulaic function of thaumazo.

Thank you for a good exchange.

Greetings
Dieter







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page