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: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:01:24 -0400

Loren Rosson III says:

>>On the question of whether or not Gal 2:1-10 = Acts 15:1-35, I can only
conclude that either (1) Gal 2 refers to an earlier and private meeting,
Acts 15 to a later, formal and more public meeting (to deal with exigencies
resulting from the more open-ended earlier decision in Gal 2); or (2) Gal 2
and Acts 15 refer to the same meeting, and the Apostolic Decree is simply
unhistorical. I tend toward option (1).<<

Don't forget that both books can be drawing on common lore, with Gal being
more likely than not a first hand - although not necessarily accurate or
unbiased - account, and Acts being a more-or-less "historical" account. One
of the famous debates of the late 19th century was over whether Acts or the
Paulines most closely represented the true story. Acts presents a coherent
and plausible string of events while the Paulines do not. Either the
Paulines are pseudepigraphs drawing their inspiration from Acts and/or some
other well-known but variant set of traditions, or Acts is a smoothed-over
account, which means the author had probably engaged in some combination of
harmonization, selection, rationalization and emplotment to get a story that
makes a specific and intended impression. Maybe it was a little of both! <g>
This knot is not going to be easy to untie.

>>It could be that [in Gal 2:14] Paul is accusing Peter of changing his mind
in the face of adversarial pressure (i.e. deciding that eating
indiscriminately with uncircumcised Gentiles isn't such a good idea after
all). Or it could be that Paul is accusing his friend of masking his true
(and unchanged) belief in the face of such pressure (i.e. covering up his
belief that eating indiscriminately with uncircumcised Gentiles is fine).
Philip Esler argues the former, and list member Mark Nanos argues the
latter. Whichever way you lean, however, I would urge -- as both Esler and
Nanos have urged -- that what was being eaten at Antioch has little if
anything to do with Gal 2:11-14, far less "whatever has been strangled". The
issue at Antioch was with whom one could eat (uncircumcised Gentiles?).
Circumcision, not diet, was the issue, which is why Peter feared "the
circumcision faction" (2:12). It's abundantly obvious that circumcision was
the bone of contention in Galatia (3:3, 5:2, 6:12-15), and we should be
trying to harmonize Gal 2:11-14 with the rest of the letter rather than with
Acts 15.<<

There are two parts to this:

1) "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew ..."

Kephas (not Peter) was in Antioch, where some ritual rules did not apply and
others may have not have been so keenly observed as situation dictated. And
he was eating *with* Gentiles. I'm kinda inclined to think this means Kephas
was eating at the invitation of Gentiles, and thus most probably was
consuming a non kosher meal in one or more of their homes. However, if there
is one thing Jews were known for was their avoidance of certain foods and
having unique rules for food preparation. If Kephas is eating non-kosher, I
think this must indicate that some Jews felt it was OK to relax the ritual
rules regarding food as situations dictate. Is Kephas' dining habits, as
recounted by Paul, indicate an attempt to reach out to Gentiles who may not
be in a position to prepare kosher foods (as slaves, whatever)? Or was he
just engaging in a practice common to less-observant Jews of the Diaspora?
Kephas' withdrawal from eating at Gentile tables in the presence of the
Jerusalem envoys may have not signified anything more than an insistence
that Gentiles conform with Jewish ritual if they expect to enjoy table
fellowship with Jews. But this is not really the important point here. Paul
is using the account to make a point.

2) "... how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Here I have to go out on a limb a bit, but I think we can recover Paul's
original argument by stripping out the Christ dogma*:

2:15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16a [...]
who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith
[...] 20b and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the
<grace> [...] of God, who loved me [...]. 21 I do not nullify the grace of
God

This is essentially Paul's basic theme: It is faith in God that justifies a
person before God, not the acts of law, a rule he applies equally to Jews as
well as Gentiles. In effect, by representing Kephas as if he considered
ritual law secondary in importance to the faith of Gentiles, Paul makes an
argument against the doctrine of the contending party also reaching out to
the Galatians, that Gentile believers must necessarily fully convert to
Judaism by means of circumcision and all that it entails. Paul counters that
if a Gentile's faith is more important than his legal standing, Kephas (and
by extension Paul's challengers in Galatia) cannot logically "compel the
Gentiles [through circumcision] to live like Jews?" This is the whole point
of this "historical" reminisce. In fact, because Paul is trying to force a
point, we cannot be entirely sure of the historical *accuracy* of the
account.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

*16b in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be
justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works
of the law shall no one be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be
justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then
an agent of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again those things
which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the
law died to the law, that I might live to God. 20a I have been crucified
with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me ... son
of ...; 20c and gave himself for me

This looks to me to be a secondary attempt to "explain" Paul's words in
light of Christ dogma, in which justification is effected through the
atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page