Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: ideas

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: ideas
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:50:44 -0500 (CDT)


I apologize for coming to this discussion late, but I wonder if the
following observation might be helpful.

Paul's antithetical setting out of his authority as apostle to the
Galatians addressed as from God rather than human agents or agencies seems
to me indicative of the force of the entire letter's concern to set out the
antithesis of (a) the gospel of Christ for gentile inclusion among the
righteous ones of God against (b) the gospel proclaimed traditionally for
non-Jewish/Israelite people seeking to join the ethnos Israel/the righteous
ones of God.

The gospel of Christ (a) maintains that gentiles become righteous ones by
faith of/in Christ without becoming proselytes because of the dawning of
the age to come in the present age, thus bringing together Israel and the
other nations as one. This is set in contrast to the other gospel (b) that
by completion of the ritual of conversion to proselytes, i.e.,
Jewish/Israelite status, non-Jews/Israelites could negotiate this ethnic
boundary. (Please note that this "normative" policy for gentile's becoming
part of the Jewish/Israelite ethnic group is ethnocentric inclusiveness
rather than exclusiveness).

An interesting thing is that Paul argues in the autobiographical narrative
of chapters 1--2 that, while he came to have this authority independent of
the other apostles, that when he submitted his view to the review of the
other apostles, it was found that they too had come to the same conclusion,
also by revelation (2:7-8) from God, and not by way of the traditional
interpretation. Thus the contrast is not ultimately between Paul and the
other apostles, but between the Christ-believing apostles (who are united
on this point, even if they have arrived at their understandings
independently) and other authorities who do not share this revelation and
thus maintain the traditional view, i.e., gentiles may negotiate this
boundary, but this is done by the traditional way of the present age, by
proselyte conversion.

So Paul's juxtaposition is based on an identification of the human agents
and human agencies which maintain the traditional view of how gentiles
become righteous ones independent of any belief that Christ's death has
changed this way of negotiating inclusiveness. The are contrasted with
those who have received revelation of Christ and thus believe that the
traditions of the fathers must be reinterpreted to mean that the age to
come has dawned, and thus that such proselyte conversion no longer pertains
to gentiles in Christ.

The implied or rhetorical situation suggests to me that the contrast does
not indicate that tradition is not based upon revelation (it claims the
same authority of revelation after all), and that the issue is not whether
Paul got information from others or not. But that on this matter the
traditional view, which Paul had once been a zealous advocate of, has been
in force until the dawning of the age to come, which was revealed in
Christ. This view of the good news of Christ is shared by the other
authorities of this coalition as well, to which Paul appeals in his case
for the authority to instruct the Galatians that they must not compromise
on this matter, i.e., they must not think they can both become
Christ-people and proselyte people, for these are the solutions of two
different ages and thus undermine the authority of each other for their own
appropriate time. Thus gentiles no longer become Israelites to become
righteous ones of God, for Israel and the nations are all being redeemed
together as one by the Creator God of all humankind. This coalition is
still a Judaism in the situation and in Paul's view, but one coalesced
around Christ.

I thus suggest that Paul is not really concerned with arguing that he got
this information without human involvement (and thus 1 Cor. 15 presents no
real conundrum). The issue is a particular interpretation of the
traditional authorities (which Paul had zealously shared), but which is now
dated (in the opinion of this coalition) in view of the revelation of God
in Christ, on the matter of the truth of the good news that gentiles too
become righteous ones by faith in/of Christ and not by proselyte
conversion. That is the view of this coalition shared by the other
apostles, they are co-dependent now, for this has been confirmed
dyadically, albeit belatedly, when they have met and agreed on this matter.

In other words, it is not the other apostles that Paul refers to in the
contrast as human agents, but those whom he had formerly been a most
zealous representative of, the keepers of the traditional view on this
matter of how gentiles may become righteous ones. The "human agents" are
not the other apostles, they are not Christ-believers at all.

This coalition of Christ-believers is running into problems with the
keepers of the traditional interpretation of the fathers on this point, and
the gentiles addressed have been caught in the crossfire. Paul seeks to win
their resolve to remain in this marginalized state on the traditional and
dominant view, and thus this letter is an appeal to the authority of God
invested in the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves, which would
be undermined if they chose to also become proselytes in order to gain
approved status on the traditional view to escape this disputed identity on
the part of the dominant community and its social control agents who are
seeking to bring this (dangerous) deviance into compliance.

This brings to mind the question of another thread, that Paul's view of
justification by faith of gentile equally with Jew is not solely his view
or his invention, but was of a piece with that of the Jerusalem churches
which preceded even his revelation of Christ. That seems to me the point of
2:7-8 and the overall autobiographical narrative, including Paul's
correction of Peter on this shared ground (thus hypocrisy rather than
heresy or apostasy is the charge). They agree on this (I am not proposing
they agree on everything), even if they have come to this view
independently, and work out their ministries to different locations. Paul
may see the implications more clearly than the "pillar" apostles who are at
times a bit shakey; nevertheless, they do not hold different views of "the
truth of the gospel," he argues here, at least as I read him.

Regards,
Mark Nanos







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page