Corpus-Paul

["Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>]

>
> I am surprised that you are not aware of the well-known problem of
> contradictory ideas living happily in parallel in the Pauline epistles.

Whups, I didn't mean to give that impression. I am aware of Pauline
contradictions. (Who isn't? Just read him.)  I've even written an article or
two with solutions that don't assume interpolations.

Anyway, I had written and you replied:

> > Law-rejection is what
> >Galatians is all about.
>
> And yet, the passages do represent the same characteristic of contrasting
two
> differing views:
>
> As I had stated earlier, I would see two threads in these passages:
>

[your "interpolation"-free text deleted for brevity]

>
> Possible interpolations:
>
> 16b  in Jesus Christ
> 16d  in Christ Jesus
> 16e  in Christ
> 17b  in Christ
> 17d  (is) Christ
>
>

Here is your possible original, with the 'in Christ' interpolations removed.

We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know
that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith, even we
have believed, in order to be justified by faith, and not by works of the
law, because by works of the law “shall no one be justified.”But if, in our
endeavor to be justified, we ourselves were found to be sinners, are we then
a servant of sin? Certainly not! I do not nullify the grace of God....


Yes, the passage still makes sense syntactically with 'in Christ' deleted --
but only because some object of faith is *implicit* in a reader's mind,
wherever the phrase 'in Christ' was explicit.  So the question is, does the
passage make sense, if that 'implicit' faith-object (i.e., God) is merely
assumed?

For an answer, put this statement in context. You see that Paul is telling
the story of what he said to Peter when scolding him for mealtime hypocrisy.
Peter had been rejecting Gentile companions, under James' bad influence.
Paul says, "When I saw that they [Peter et al.] were not acting in line with
the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter..." -- and then Paul recounts
for readers the antinomian lecture he gave Peter. In this, Paul said to
Peter, 'We who are Jews by birth ... know that a man is not justified by
observing the law but by faith [in what?]"

The question is, did Paul originally finish his sentence with 'in Jesus
Christ,' or did an interpolator add it?  In other words, if Paul put nothing
in, and if he intended the object of faith to be implicitly 'in God,' is
this supportable?

Unfortunately, no. The only idea that makes sense is that Paul is referring
to faith *in the Good News.* Peter's behavior is that of a Christian who has
denied the Good News by not acting-out his liberation in public. He won't
dine with Gentiles and break that taboo.

Paul says to Peter, "We who are Jews by birth..." in which he means, 'we
Jewish *Christians*', not "all of us Jews collectively.'  Only Jewish
Christians know that "a man is not justified by observing the law..."
(2.16). Other Jews as still in the dark about this. That's why they continue
to observe the law.

Paul's point is that Jewish Christians have put their faith *in Christ* and
the Good New he taught.

In conclusion then, whether Paul originally wrote 'in Christ' here, or
whether a friendly scribe added it, the 'in Christ' is definitely implicit
anyway -- if not explicit -- as the object of faith.  So, there is no basis
for suspecting an interpolation, because Christ is implicit here anyway. Nor
is there any practical consequence of the alleged interpolation. Christ is
the object of faith for Jewish Christians.

David, if I understand your post, you assert that the following is also an
interpolation.

 18  If I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself
a
> transgressor. 19  For I through the law died to the law, that I might live
to
> God. 20  I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live,
but
> Christ who lives in me and the life I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in
> the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me 21b  for if
justification
> were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose
>

The problem with your theory is that Paul articulates each of these
statements, I think, elsewhere too. For example:
(v18) That any Jewish Christian who attempts to revive the law is breaking
it
(v19) That the law caused him and others to 'die' (see esp. Romans)
(v20) That each Christian shares fleshly crucifixion with Christ ritually
(v20) That Christ is actually alive within each believer
(v20) That believers have faith in the Son
(v21b) That Christ died in order to remove the law

Again, if any of these ideas were interpolated, they are attested as Pauline
anyway and redactors have no revisionist or distoritive motive anyway.


Moving on, next you offer other possible revisions. Below is your text
stripped of suspect content as if to represent an "original."  Regarding the
cleaned-up version you write:

>
> But even if I were wrong, and these verses are all a unity, it is not
clear
> that the law is -totally- rejected, except as a direct means of
justification.
>:

What other use has the Law, then, apart from justification?  This is the
crux of everything. The Jews still believe Lawkeeping serves some good
purpose.  For Paul it does not. Some perhaps merely theoretical,
inconsequential, backhanded valuation of Law is "upheld."  But Paul damns by
faint praise. The law's aim is to impart death! It does so by charging
sinfulness to mankind. (All of this is in Romans. See Gal.-related comments
below)


>
> Gal 3:11  Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the
law;
> for "He who through faith is righteous shall live" ; but the law
> does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them."
> that the blessing of Abraham might come upon
> the Gentiles. To give a human example, brethren: no one
> annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.  Now
> the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.  This
> is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years
afterward,
> does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the
> promise void. For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by
> promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Now God
> is one.
>
>

<[David wrote] I've taken this to mean that God sticks to his promises
rather than
> change his mind and negate a prior covenant>

Yes, we agree.  You continue...

21a  Is the law then against the
> promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given which could
> make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the
> scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith
> might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we
> were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be
> revealed.

This is saying that 'faith' didn't even exist before Christ! I had earlier
thought otherwise, but now, under your revised version, I am seeing Paul as
even more radically antinomian than I realized. He continues:


> So that the law was our custodian that we
> might be justified by faith.

Previously I had thought this meant 'Jews were justified by faith under the
law, until Christ came." Now, though, in view of the previous statement, I
see Paul is speaking even less favorably of the Jews and Torah: *No* faith
existed under the Law Epoch, but faith only applied under the Abrahamic
Promise, and faith was restored again, after the Law's death-dealing effect,
by Christ's coming.


>
> There is neither Jew nor Greek,
> there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you
are
> all one. And if you are really Abraham's
> offspring, (you are) heirs according to promise. So with
> us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elementary things of the
> world.  But when the time had fully come, God sent forth the Spirit into
our hearts, crying, "Abba!
> Father!"
>

This is confirming my point: "Faith justification belonged to the Abraham
period, and now faith is restored by the Christ epoch. But the Torah-time
removed both faith and any possibility of justification, bringing only the
sting of death in sin. Ouch! I'm sorry but that's what Paul says, with or
without the deletions.


Regards,

Jon