Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Dear Jeff and Liz,
I would like to comment on the following exchange.

>> At 2:52 PM -0400 5/21/99, Liz Fried wrote:
>> >Btw, the issue of table fellowship with uncircumcised Christians
>> is not the
>> >issue of fellowship, with which there is no problem, but the
>> issue of eating
>> >non-kosher food.
>>
To which Jeff Peterson replied:
>> It's a bit overstated to say that eating with Gentiles would never cause
>> observant Jews any problem, isn't it? E.g., Exod 12:43-49 bars foreigners
>> and the uncircumised from the Passover, and while among Jews that may have
>> been just one more way in which that night differed from all other nights
>> of the year, the adherents of Jesus may have felt similarly about their
>> more frequent sacral meal, especially as it seems to have been kept with
>> Passover overtones (cf. 1 Cor 5:7-8).

[Liz]
>If the table fellowship which Paul speaks of refers not to ordinary meals,
>but to sharing the Eucharist, then perhaps you are right.  More generally, I
>think the problem may be the chance that the Jew might either partake or
>give the impression to others he is partaking of non-kosher food.
>
>I merely wanted to point out that the problem is the food. Some people think
>that Jews weren't allowed to associate with gentiles at all, which isn't the
>case.
>
>>[Jeff]
>> There's a good consideration of this question by E. P. Sanders in the _The
>> Conversation Continues_ (FS J. Louis Martyn), concluding that while there
>> was no formal legal prohibition of table fellowship with gentiles, there
>> were customs of segregation for meals.

Both have made good points, that is, the notion that Jewish people of the
time did not ever eat with gentiles is mistaken. The level of this
interaction and any associated intimacy surely varied among people, groups,
locations, events, and from time to time, even among the same people or
groups.

Yet I do not believe that the Antioch Incident to which this discussion
points is along the line of a food problem, of even an eating together of
Jewish and non-Jewish people per se, leaving aside the question of whether
this table-fellowship was a eucharistic meal or not.

The article by Sanders to which Jeff points rightly argues (against Dunn
and Esler, although for different reasons), in my opinion, that there were
various ways to accommodate eating together so that neither the association
nor the food need present a problem. I remain of this opinion even after
reading and discussing Esler's spirited response to Sanders' article in his
new Galatians work (Routledge, 1998). And I get the sense that Dunn has
changed his stance from the purity argument (republished in Jesus, Paul and
the Law) that Sanders had responded to.

What then was the problem? It seems that the level of indiscriminate
fellowship with non-Jewish people taking place was objectionable (to
certain others) on the grounds that this particular level was only
appropriate if these were proselytes (former righteous gentiles). If they
are being treated "as though" full members without gaining this identity by
completion of the ritual process of conversion, then this was objectionable
to certain interest groups (those for/from circumcision). What kind of
Judaism could this be that no longer discriminates between the statuses of
Israelites and non-Israelites when eating together within an Israelite
setting? Have they no concern for holiness?

The principle truth of the gospel to which Paul appeals to Peter to now
return to observing (after his withdrawal) is not about food or even eating
together, but equality of status as righteous ones because of faith of/in
Christ, regardless of varying statuses as Jews and non-Jews. That is the
innovation that sets this Judaism apart, and thus provokes the need for
some halakhic reconsiderations in order to accommodate this new way of
viewing non-Jewish people as full members without becoming Israelites. This
would not mean that any change in food laws would be required, but rather
in the way of regarding each other. While Jew and gentile, they are
nevertheless one. As I argued this case in an appendix in The Mystery of
Romans, the differences remain, but not the discrimination. The gentiles
present are rather regarded within this group as representatives of the
nations turning to worship the One God of all humankind, as expected at the
end of the ages. They thus need not, must not, become Israelites, for this
would compromise God by limiting his reach only to Israel, and not "also"
to all of the rest of his creation (Rom. 3:29-31).

Thus Paul's point is that, if these gentiles must become proselytes to be
regarded as equally members of the righteous ones, then Christ died
gratuitously (2:21), since this was already provided for in the present age
without the need for such an action.

While non-Jewish people might be welcome in many other Judaisms at a meal
or other function within the community, this kind of intimacy without
regard for status discrimination is unique (as far as I know). Within this
Christ-believing Judaism, even if all were eating Jewish food and in
appropriate ways for themselves as either Jewish or non-Jewish people
according to operative customs for such interaction, the markers of
discrimination have nevertheless been somehow transgressed on the terms of
certain other interest groups. I would imagine this could be seen by
visitors or outsiders (e.g., by observation or rumor).

If so, then an interest group especially concerned with advocating the
proselyte conversion of gentiles who draw near would be on the alert and
exerting pressure to bring about compliance, which is how Paul
characterizes the "ones for/from circumcision" in this case. Their actions
give rise to Peter's fear.

I assume Peter feared that his actions might be mistaken (by this interest
group) as compromising Jewish honor concerns, in other words, failing to
"appropriately" maintain the difference and concomitant discrimination that
would lead these gentiles to wish to complete the process of proselyte
conversion in order to "step up" to equal identity as righteous ones. Peter
thus sought to "mask" his real belief by withdrawing from the
indiscriminate level of fellowship at the table, which implied the
inferiority of status of the non-Jewish people present, and this after they
have been told that they are already equal without completing proselyte
conversion. Paul thus accuses Peter of hypocrisy (wearing a mask). Note,
not apostasy or heresy (this is not his real face), implying that Peter
agrees with Paul, but has failed to live accordingly in this instance
because of social anxiety.

Mark Nanos
Kansas City; and
Postgraduate student: University of St. Andrews