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: "Mark D. Nanos" <mark AT marknanos.com>
  • To: Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:08:06 -0600

Ian,
I have to bow out, but not before trying to clarify the issue and saying
that I do not find it productive when one discussion partner insists that
their view is based on "clear statements" when it is the translation and
interpretation of the statements that is under discussion. It is hard to
imagine an open dialogue partner who is interested in the text instead of in
needing the text to be read in a certain way. Can it be dialogue?

I have argued why the references are most likely to circumcision and
proselyte conversion in the published work to which I referred. And in the
essay in Galatians Debate to each of the phrases to which you refer here. If
you are open to a challenge to your view, which is widely held, of course,
you will find it therein.

When you read Paul citing "the just shall live by faith" (however
translated), do you take that to mean how they eat or how they stand before
God, justified? Language is multi-dimension, as you know doubt know but in
this exchange seem unwilling to allow. If justification/legitimation before
God as part of the family of righteous ones is allowed, then the phrase to
which you refer is not about behaving like a Gentile in matters of diet,
e.g., but about standing before God on the same terms, regardless of whether
Jew or non-Jew, as the following verses in Gal 2 seem to indicate to be at
stake (v. 16: "even we [Jews] have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be
justified by faith of/in Christ..."). (see my Debate essay on Antioch for
more.)

The boundary-marker I see implied in this language relates to non-Jews
becoming Jews or not, and how Jews who believe "also" in Christ, just like
them, are to regard them and behave toward and with them based upon that
shared identity in Christ. There are no "clear statements about the
non-Jewish lifestyle being led by Jews in Antioch," only interpretations to
that effect. On my reading, these Jews (and Jewish subgroups) do lead what
would be regarded as deviant (according to most Jewish communal definitions)
lifestyles to the degree that they maintain equal identity for non-Jews
apart from proselyte conversion, because of the work of Christ, no matter
how much they otherwise are zealous for scrupulous Torah-observance in
things like diet. I think they would need to be that, because they have
enough trouble with their Gentile inclusion program without being open to
having the charge provable that they disregard dietary codes (rather than
simply having their own group definitions on some points, because of their
belief in the gospel inclusion of non-Jews at meals as equals). In that case
it is not about food, which would presumably be kosher, but people.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Soebbing Visiting Scholar, Rockhurst University
Lecturer, University of Kansas
Co-Moderator, Corpus Paulinum
http://www.marknanos.com



on 3/28/06 12:19 PM, Ian Scott at iscott2 AT uwo.ca wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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