Corpus-Paul

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

I would like to add to Roy Ciamba's post retained here:
>I submit for your consideration the following observation regarding
>_Paul's_ interpretation of whether his resistance in Antioch resulted in a
>"win, lose, or draw":
>
>"While the verb ANQISTHMI means 'to resist by actively opposing pressure or
>power' without any necessary indication as to whether such resistance is
>successful or not,  ANQISTANAI KATA PROSWPON seems to be an idiom in the
>LXX which implies successful resistance to an opposing power.  KATA
>PROSWPON modifies ANQISTHMI eight times in the LXX:  Deut 7:24; 9:2; 11:25;
>31:21; Judg 2:14; 2 Chr 13:7-8; Jdt 6:4.   Each example of the idiom
>communicates the idea of making a successful resistance to an opposing
>power or force.   ANQISTHMI KATA PROSWPON is to succeed in resisting the
>opposing power (Deut 9:2; 31:21; Judg 2:14; 2 Chr 13:8).  OUK ANQISTHMI
>KATA PROSWPON  is not to be able to offer successful resistance to the
>opposing power (Deut 7:24; 11:25; 2 Chr 13:7; Jdt 6:4).  The use of this
>idiom should inform our understanding of the implied outcome of the Antioch
>incident according to Paul (whether or not all parties involved would
>agree)." (Roy E. Ciampa, _The Presence and Function of Scripture in
>Galatians 1 and 2 [WUNT 2:102; Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998], pp. 157-158
>[minus footnotes]).
>
>The LXX (and Paul, IMHO) is following a Hebrew idiom which was evidently
>thought to communicate fine in Greek.  Given the use of the idiom and its
>use in the LXX I suggest that the KATA PROSWPON ought not to be literally
>translated ("to his face") but simply understood to be part of an idiom
>that means "I withstood him"[successfully].

I now add a discussion I have written for a forthcoming article on the
Antioch Incident, this piece in response to Philip Esler's claim to the
opposite effect for this phrase in his "Galatians" (Routledge, 1998), pp.
130-40, esp. 133-35. When written I did not know of Ciamba's argument, so
it is not yet informed by his comments quoted above:

Esler notes that the expression "to oppose someone to their face," by which
Paul describes his challenge to Peter, "is a biblical one used where people
resist a determined military assault, usually without success." Thus Paul
is saying Peter attacked him directly: "the hostilities previously settled
in Jerusalem had now been resumed," and though Paul resisted, he may be
"intimating by the biblical context of this idiom that he was ultimately
unsuccessful against Peter."
        I find Paul's uses this language here to the opposite effect. First
of all, this is obviously not a military context or usage of the
word/phrase, though it is a confrontation, in fact, an honor challenge.
Second, Paul says he opposed Peter, that is, he initiated the challenge to
Peter's honor, and that this was because Peter stood condemned. That is, he
asses Peter to be standing indefensible (dishonorably)." This does not
appear to be an admission of the weakness of Paul's position, or of defeat.
Condemned, in biblical terms, is a very strong judgment. Paul is saying
that Peter's action is opposed to God's truth (v. 14), and the next point
will clarify this dynamic. Third, the language is not so clearly slanted
towards defeat; in fact, it is used of certain victory. There are two
aspects of this point to consider.
        a) The context of the verses sighted by Esler represent God's
voice: the view of those who are certain to be the victor if they walk
faithfully within the terms of the covenant with God, and thus are used to
relate the loss that will result for anyone opposing the people of God or
his purposes (Deut. 7:24; 9:2; 11:25; 2 Chron. 13:7, and Josh. 1:5; 23:9).
This is the rhetoric of divine power overcoming human power, even when it
may seem on the surface superior. Note that it is Peter's actions that Paul
faults for departing from the God's way, i.e., "not walking straight toward
the truth of the gospel." On this basis, that would imply Peter's loss is
anticipated, for he has departed from trust of God on the basis of fear of
humans. In Judges 2:14, where we find another example of this verb, the
Israelites are the ones no longer able "to stand before their enemies"
because they "forsook the Lord" and thus "the anger of the Lord burned
against Israel." But these were the same ones assured earlier that their
enemies could not successfully oppose them if they walked faithfully
(Judges ...).
        b) The word is also widely attested in reference to an action of
opposition which results in victory. That is, there are other biblical and
non-biblical uses of the verb and verbal phrase that are written from the
perspective of the one opposing and victorious. For example, Isa. 3:9 bears
some resemblance to our context in that the expression of Israel's own face
is accused of standing against themselves. Why?: "because their speech and
their actions are against the Lord" (v. 8). The context of usage in 2 Tim.
4:15 is also interesting. Here Timothy is warned to be on guard against
someone who "opposes our teaching" and who has caused much harm; but this
warning is couched in the assurance that God will repay this one according
to his deeds, and rather make the one who stands with God victorious in the
end (vv. 14-18). There are also non-biblical usages that do not bear out
Esler's point. To cite a few: Aris. Athenian Const. 20.3 uses this verb to
describe the position of the Council when it resists an attack and is
victorious; Plut. Alcibiades 25.5 of resisting someone acting deviously to
win favour; 26.4 of opposing so as to have prevented a fatal mistake;
Pericles 11.1-2 of choosing a discreet man to oppose and bring an equality
of power in the face of a superior opponent; Theseus 1.2 in an interesting
quote: "'Whom shall I set against him? Who is competent?'"; Thucydides Book
2 89.5 of the knowledge of the enemy that they would not be opposed unless
they knew it would be successful. In other words, I find no implied
admission of taking a position opposing Peter that anticipates failure, but
quite the opposite. Paul's language follows the line of antithesis between
the assurance of being an agent of God rather than an agent of--or in
Peter's case, of being intimidated by--humans.

This last point is one different take on the larger purpose of this
historical lesson to that offered in the recent well-taken point in the
post of Jeff Peterson on 5/25. I.e, it may not be necessary, I agree, but I
think it is implied, and can make a case for the function of victory here
in that Paul is arguing for a consensus among those informed by the
revelation of God in Christ versus the traditional interpretation of the
powerful human agents whom he calls the Galatians to join with Paul and the
other apostles to resist. Thus, while Peter faltered, he was corrected, and
the principles of this coalition agree that the Galatians should resist the
pressure to become proselytes, even if at great price, and with full
knowledge of how difficult following this principle in the current age may
be. The position of Paul's lose at Antioch is related to the view that Paul
is arguing for independence in this narrative; but if it is unity in spite
of having arrived at this view independently that is his point, then the
rhetorical purpose is otherwise, and Paul's victory would serve his
argumentative purpose by way of this historical illustration (note the we's
of 2:5, 7-9; 15-17). I think he is claiming that the believers in Christ
agree on this, in spite of independence and shaky early reactions to other
Jewish interest groups who oppose this position. I refer for support of
this rhetorical unity as the point of the autobioigraphical material to
Paul E. Koptak's article, 1990. "Rhetorical Identification in Paul's
Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1.13--2.14," JSNT 40:97-115.

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at the Univ. of St. Andrews