Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's diatribe against Peter

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frank Jacks <cfjacks AT comcast.net>
  • To: tim AT timgallant.org, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's diatribe against Peter
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:07:28 -0400

tim AT timgallant.org wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim West" <jwest AT highland.net>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's diatribe against Peter


Hello,

While I see your point, I think there is a clear "break" in 3:1 where
Paul again addresses the Galatians directly. It seems to me that in
2:14-21 Paul is reciting an incident (relating his sermon to Peter) as
an illustration of the fact that he won't back down- even in the face of
power and authority. Having made the point by relating his denunciation
of Peter, he refocuses attention on his primary audience, the crazy,
hacking Galatians.

The way I look at it is that the whole *could* be a citation of his rebuke of Peter - but even if it is not, the "remainder" is a self-conscious unfolding of the implications of whatever he said to Peter. So in that sense, it's almost a moot point, I think.

tim



Tim Gallant
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
http://www.christcovenant.ca

A word from the balcony and please excuse this intrusive "chiming in," but I begin by endorsing what Tim says here, by adding a point or two about Paul's style (or lack thereof). Over the years, it has often been observed that Paul has a "run-on style," meaning that both grammatically and in content is creates complex and compound structures which have no end. I forget now which one of the chapters in Romans was described as just one long sentence but there are many examples of such, as well as often Paul himself loses the logic (both grammatical and content) of his exposition, by (as an example) beginning a point with "on the one hand" and never getting around to the appropriate and reciprocal "on the other hand." At of which suggests that
Paul himself might not recognize just how or where he begins with talking about what he said to Peter (perhaps deserving being placed in quotations marks, to conform to our conventions, if not his) and ends up talking to his audience in Galatia.
I would agree that identifying the "point of departure" might be both impossible and unnecessary ... that Paul clearly does make this transition (which doubtless in his mind was all of a piece) is the only point about which we can be clear, and the transition is made "somewhere in the middle" but neither we nor Paul now know where or perhaps even how ... but the why is clear, isn't it?

So now back to the balcony for me,

Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union NYC)
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College,
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page