Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Scott <iscott2 AT uwo.ca>
  • To: 'Corpus-Paul' <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:19:54 -0500

Thanks Mark and Loren for your quick responses. Let me emphasize, first the
speculative nature of your alternatives. There is actually nothing in the
passage that says the issue is circumcision, even if (as you say) there is
also nothing which explicitly says the issue is about what food is eaten.
The fact that circumcision is used as a distinguishing mark of Jewishness in
2:12 does not in itself demonstrate that circumcision was the only issue
under discussion in Antioch. In fact, since Paul has just described Jews as
"the circumcision" in his discussion of the Jerusalem meeting (2:7, 8, 9), I
think it highly problematic to assume that the label here implies anything
about the issues under debate in Antioch. This may simply be Paul's label
for "ethnic Jews," a label which arises from other circumstances but which
come conveniently to hand at the moment.

More importantly, though, Paul's statement that Peter and Barnabas live
"ethnikws" and not "Ioudaikws" indicates that the debate in Antioch was not
simply about how Gentile proselytes act -- it was about how circumcized Jews
act as well. At the very least, Paul is indicating that Peter, Barnabas and
the others at Antioch had not been adhering to practices which were commonly
regarded as basic markers of Jewish identity. Moreover, Paul's statement
that they "live" in a non-Jewish way would seem to imply that it is their
general lifestyle that is at issue, and not simply one specific practice.
Nor, then, is this simply a matter of comparative social status. Paul
regards Peter and Barnabas as having habitually violated Jewish
"boundary-markers" by their lifestyle. Moreover, it is the most visible
(because culturally distinctive) injunctions of Torah which were
consistently treated as "boundary-markers" in this way (circumcision,
Sabbath, food, idolatry).

Granted, there still remains a question about why Paul regards Peter and
Barnabas' behaviour as pressuring Gentiles to "Judaize," live like a Jew. As
you note, Mark, one would think they could simply have eaten meals together
in which the food adhered to Jewish regulations. I don't think we can solve
this problem, though, in a way which overlooks Paul's clear statements about
the non-Jewish lifestyle being led by Jews in Antioch.

Thanks for the stimulating exchange.

Ian


--------------------------------------------------------
Ian W. Scott
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
King's University College
London, Ontario, CANADA
iscott2 AT uwo.ca
--------------------------------------------------------
The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp
--------------------------------------------------------
Please visit my web-site at http://www.ian-w-scott.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:corpus-paul-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Loren Rosson
> Sent: March 28, 2006 11:59 AM
> To: Corpus-Paul
> Subject: [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident
>
> Ian wrote:
>
> >It seems to me, though, that Paul's
> >description of the Antioch incident
> >still requires that Paul was at least
> >violating food regulations on a regular
> >basis when he was in mixed communities.
>
> I would insist -- following Philip Esler and Mark
> Nanos -- that Antioch was emphatically not about food
> laws. It was about circumcision, just as Gal 2:12
> implies, and thus about who ate with whom. The men
> from James were saying in effect that Gentiles had to
> become proselytes in order to share table-fellowship
> on an equal basis with Jewish people. Antioch centered
> on the question of full conversion to Judaism, rather
> than food laws, as if to imply that something "less
> drastic" than circumcision was being imposed by way of
> compromise. As Esler notes, "modern notions of fair
> play" have hindered scholars from interpreting the
> Antioch incident correctly (Galatians, p 137). This
> is, after all, why Paul recounts the incident: it has
> direct bearing on the Galatian crisis (Gal 5:2-3).
>
> Sharing this remarkable commonality, Esler and Nanos
> draw otherwise opposite conclusions about Antioch.
> Esler thinks the pillars revoked their agreement to
> leave Gentiles free of any obligation to become
> circumcised (Gal 2:1-10). Peter, by withdrawing from
> table-fellowship, went back on his word, prompted by
> the men from James. By the canons of honor-shame, the
> pillars were under no obligation to keep their promise
> to a rival like Paul, and every reason to back-bite
> him for having gotten the better of them with the
> Titus situation. So on this line of thinking, Antioch
> was about back-biting -- the pillars' revenge on Paul.
>
> Mark sees things differently, believing James'
> delegates to have been non-Christian outsiders who
> didn't agree with James. Peter ended up capitulating
> to outside influence, but only temporarily; the
> pillars remained on the same page with Paul, as they'd
> always been.
>
> Whether we go in Esler's or Nanos' (or another)
> direction, we need to take seriously that proselyte
> conversion (Gal 2:12 ~ 5:2-3) is what Antioch was
> about. Acts 15 should be held at arm's length and
> dealt with only after Gal 2 is hammered out on its own
> right. Moreover, neither reading *necessarily*
> requires Paul himself to have abandoned Jewish dietary
> laws. (Though with all due respect to Mark, it
> wouldn't surprise me, especially in light of I Cor
> 9:19-23.)
>
> Note: I recently wrote a blogpost about Antioch, which
> drew some interesting comments:
>
> http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/03/treachery-at-antioch.html
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page