Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:16:51 -0500

Dear Vince,
Please see comments below yours. These are not simple matters, as you seem
to recognize. But they are very interesting and the answers have been very
influential for constructions of Paul and early Christianity, since Paul's
autobiographical narrative in Gal 1--2 is the primary first-hand description
written prior to the Revolt that survives.

> I have a couple of questions about Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 2.
>
> 1. I realize that not everyone agrees that this meeting is the same as the
> meeting in Acts 15, however, the first part of my question will be the same
> regardless.
> Does Acts 15's use of "whatever has been strangled" in verse 20
> and 29 indicate a dietary restriction for the gentiles?

This is a matter of interpretation, and also of which manuscript you consult
(the so-called Western tradition reads more like ethical requirements). In
my view it is about dietary restrictions (on the basis of the terminology
and context and intent, including the logical problem that if ethical, it is
a very inadequate list--why not the 10 commandments instead?! They and many
other ethical matters seem to be assumed, but so too do many purity matters,
but at least they seem to be signified better by this list).

> If so, this must be
> something Paul was unaware of when he claimed that "They only asked that we
> remember the poor" (Gal. 2:10).

This does not follow, although it can be found stated often. It does--
especially if taken in the way you do (the prevailing logic)--suggest that
these are two different events. I think they may well be, but for different
reasons. It is a conundrum that has not been solved by any arguments put
forward to date, in my view.

How could it be reconciled (if describing the same meeting from two
different points of view)? (whether describing the same meeting or not)
Well, if the decree details mentioned in Acts 15 were already active among
non-Jews meeting with Jewish Christ-believers, then their announcement as
formulated in Acts 15 would not be something new/added. This approach is
feasible to the degree that these Christ-believing groups were still Jewish,
a Judaism, a coalition within Jewish communities, or however you might
construct and describe that phenomenon (that many interpreters recognize was
likely for some if not many years to have been the case, but few take to the
logical conclusion that would seem to then apply, in my view, because they
imagine separate "Christianity" and "Churches" that are "Gentile" from the
start, as well as a "Law-free Paul," so that this must be something "added"
later [arising in ch. 15] to appease Jewish interest groups, and a
concession made by Luke's Paul [though usually denied to Paul of the
letters]).

The point is, to the degree that this was begun as a Judaism (prior to ch.
15, you might say), the decree is not something "new" being "introduced,"
but the determination of the limits to be applied within this (Jewish)
coalition, since it has finally decided, or confirmed to a heightened
degree, that these non-Jews were going to remain non-Jews instead of
becoming proselytes, as was the usual case for Jewish groups (about which we
are aware, anyway). It symbolized the "limits" of their obligation, since
remaining non-Jews within the Jewish space of the Christ-believing subgroups
(note the reason given: where Moses is read, i.e., Jewish communal meetings,
synagogues).

> Does it seem likely that Peter ate with the
> Gentiles until the message arrived from "certain individuals from James"
> with the "new" rules?

Yes, to me it does seem likely that Peter ate with Gentiles (and that is
what Paul wrote, not that he was eating like a Gentile, as most seem to
read). I do not think there was anything about the food that was not Jewish,
and I imagine that this was a Jewish group meeting in Jewish social space,
so that the non-Jews were eating accordingly (similarly to the decree of
Acts 15, whether preceding it or not, since, as noted above, this would be
the starting place within Jewish groups, not something "new").

>
> 2. I just do not understand 2:14:
> "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you
> compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" What is he trying to say? Is he
> telling Peter that if he can not even live like a Jew, even though he was
> born one, how can he ask Gentiles to do the same?

This is a verse usually read to mean that Peter was--or had before moving
away from the table with non-Jews--eating and living in a non-Jewish way,
like a Gentile ("pagan" might be better, to get the force from a Jewish
point of view; Paul writes in the next sentence of "Gentile sinners" in that
vein, I think).

I don't think that Peter was asking non-Jews to live like Jews, or that
Peter had been or was living like a non-Jew/pagan. I think that what follows
in Paul's argument through the chapter, esp. in vv. 15-16, makes the point
that "living" has to do with "standing before God." It is the language of
justification. The point is that, if Peter recognized that he was justified
"in the same way/just like" a non-Jew was, by the faith of/in Jesus Christ,
although born a Jew, then he should recognize that his discriminating
behavior undermined that proposition (the gospel of Christ). For "the truth
of the gospel" he accused Peter of compromising (and note, was the basis for
resistance shared with the apostles in Jerusalem in 2:5) was that Jews
remained Jews and non-Jews remained non-Jews, just as to be expected when
the age to come arrives and the One Lord of Israel is the One God of all the
Nations too, which is what this coalition claims to have dawned with Christ,
if not yet fully arrived in the "present evil age." So Peter's behavior
undermined that claim/confession, because it "inferred" that the non-Jews
must become proselytes/Jews if they were to be treated at the table as
equals, regardless of the fact that they ate Jewish food. That was not good
enough to gain that which they had been told within this coalition they had
gained, so proselyte conversion must be logically required if they were to
do so, just as other Jewish groups maintained--so Paul deduces on their
behalf.

What was the problem then at the table if not the food or some compromise of
Jewish dietary restrictions?

These non-Jews were being treated not just as welcome guests, and not as
those embarking on the rite of proselyte conversion, but as "already"
indiscriminately equal members of the family of the righteous ones. Such
demonstrations of equality would be evident in the seating arrangement, in
the distribution of food, and other such conventions of the meal. Even if
everyone at this meal, like other Jewish groups' meals, ate Jewish food,
discrimination (like in seating and food and portions) according to social
standing was an aspect of meals in Roman, Greek, and other ethnic groups as
well, and the norm in antiquity, still is in much of the world (ever hear of
"the upper crust"? Guess who got that serving!). What was different, and
would be considered objectionable/dangerous for several reasons by Jewish
community members and leaders who were not a part of this coalition, was a
change to the boundaries of identity where non-Jews (Greeks and Romans at a
Jewish meal) were not being identified and treated as guests or proselyte
candidates, but full members on equal terms with Jews and proselytes. That
would result in pressure to bring these non-Jews into proselyte standing if
this subgroup was going to continue to be in the good graces of the rest of
the larger Jewish community's groups (albeit also minority groups in terms
of the larger population of Antioch, they represent the dominant groups and
norms as far as this new upstart coalition is concerned). The concerns are
not only within the Jewish communities, but extend to the status quo
constraints of the larger pagan communal expectations too, which the Jewish
communal groups and members would be concerned not to flaunt, so as not to
disrupt inter-communal norms (i.e., such as expecting fellow pagans to
continue their family and civic idol activities unless they had become
Jewish proselytes, for which group the absence was allowable without fear of
retribution from superiors or the gods; otherwise, such a change in behavior
would be challenged, and the minority Jewish communal leaders expected to
answer for this offense being permitted to continue without being
stopped--either by clarifying that they are but welcome guests but still
pagans with those obligations intact, or by becoming proselytes).

I have described this and other aspects of the so-called Antioch Incident in
detail in The Galatians Debate, Hendrickson, 2002, a volume I edited as
well. It also includes (republication of) detailed essays by Dunn and Esler,
who read this differently, with whom I interact. There is also a chapter on
this in The Mystery of Romans and a section in The Irony of Galatians--so
yes, it has been an interest of mine for some time...

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
co-moderator





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page