Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - re: Gal 2

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: re: Gal 2
  • Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:30:31 -0700 (PDT)


Thanks, Dieter, for the well-considered reply. I will
respond to only one of your observations at the
moment.

>

> Rom 14.1-15-6: It is beyond me to deal adequately

> with such a complexity of arguments. I see there a

> beautiful piece of advice, especially in the way

> tolerance, acceptance, peace, situation related

> ethics, etc. are interlaced. But I would have to

> add: I wish Paul had had that attitude when reacting

> to the Galatian situation.



I'm not sure I do. Different situations call for
different kinds of responses, and sometimes it's hard
to speak the "truth" without giving offense. In Romans
Paul was targeting anti-Judaic attitudes and feelings
of Gentile superiority. At Antioch he was dealing with
the opposite problem, since his own colleague's
"fearful" withdrawal from table-fellowship implied
that Gentiles were unworthy.



What's unclear is why the circumcision delegates came
to Antioch, and the exact cause of Peter's "fear"
which prompted his withdrawal. If Esler is correct,
and James had simply revoked the decision of Gal.
2:7-9 to leave Gentiles uncircumcised -- under
pressure from the shamed "false believers"/"supposed
leaders" driven to wreak vengeance on Paul for his
having gotten the better of them at the Council --
then Paul was certainly justified in shaming his
colleague publicly. Interestingly, Esler notes that
Paul says in 2:14, "I saw that [Peter, Barnabus, and
others] were not walking straight with respect to the
truth of the gospel..." The only other place in the
letter where Paul uses the term "truth of the gospel"
is in 2:5, where he disparages the "false believers".
He argues that the false believers leaned on James to
revoke the Jerusalem agreement once Paul (and Peter)
were out of the city. On this reading, Peter's fearful
withdrawal signalled his siding with James'
about-face, and Paul could only have reacted to such
wholesale treachery the way any Middle-Eastern male
would -- go on the full offensive, shame Peter as a
hypocrite and equate him with the "false believers" in
Jerusalem.



On the other hand, if Mark is correct, and James had
simply given permission to a group of non-Christian
delegates to "check up on things" at Antioch, then
Peter's withdrawal would still have been treacherous
in that it signalled his siding with a group of
outsiders against Paul. Again, Paul would have had to
defend his honor in the Middle-Eastern manner by
shaming Peter publicly.



(It may be obvious that I consider Philip Esler and
Mark Nanos to be lead players right now in the
Galatians/Romans debate -- which is ironic, since in
many ways they're opposites.)



In either case, against the background of
Mediterranean social values, I can understand and
respect Paul for the way he shamed Peter.



Best,



Loren Rosson III,

Nashua NH

rossoiii AT yahoo.com



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/



  • re: Gal 2, Kathryn J. S. Smith, 09/21/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • re: Gal 2, Mark D. Nanos, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Dieter Mitternacht, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Loren Rosson, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Dieter Mitternacht, 09/24/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Mark D. Nanos, 09/24/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Loren Rosson, 09/25/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page