Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)

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: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)
  • Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:58:38 -0600


Hi Sakari,

Some additional responses below.

You asked me to identify the opponents of Paul, right? I
suppose he had several opponents. As you rightly noticed,
his letters are to gentiles. However, in some of these
gentile communities (or mixed ones?) there were visitors,
itinerant preachers that preached Judaism. These preachers
had taught differently from Paul, that is why he attacked
them in his letters. Do you agree?

Yes, there were other influential people in his addressees' lives; no, I do not think that they are itinerant preachers, but yes, that they preached Judaism; yes, I think that Paul did oppose their influence upon his addressees; I imagine we would disagree about what they taught or why Paul opposed them; and I doubt that they taught against Paul per se, until after his letters arrive anyway.


One of the problems with defining Pharisaism at Paul's time
is that we have so little data of Pharisaism, except later
data. However, in the time the Gospels were written
Pharisees were considered as enemies of Jesus-believers.

Some Pharisees! And the difference in time is not small but enormous, as the Revolt and Temple destruction is paradigmatic. What is really real now? As the rival Jewish groups sort this out we have the documents from one of them, and they are polemical probably with the other most important group in whatever area the author(s) of these "Gospels" were concerned to speak of and for and to. What do we really know about Pharisees who engaged Paul in the Diaspora before these cataclysmic events, including the political changes leading up to the revolt.

{snip}
OK; so we do not have sufficient data from the Pharisaic side of your argument that Paul was opposed by Pharisees; or for why, that is that he is supposed to have been an apostate according to Pharisaic interpretation of Law.

Here are some texts about the Jewish opponents of Paul:
apostles 2 Cor 11 especially vs. 4-5, 13, 22-23
teachers of the Torah Gal 1, 6-9 implicitly Gal 3 and 4,17
and 21; Gal 5,1-11; 6,12-13
(2,4 pseudo-brethren, [I have your paper on these])

I do not see that 2 Cor. 11 supports your specific argument about Pharisaic opponents of Paul or that he was an apostate according to their interpretation of Law (would you like to explain?). But I do have some opinions about Galatians, and neither is implied on my reading (in other words, you will have to supply more than the references to convince me of your argument).

The people whom Paul opposes in Galatia do not oppose Paul on my reading, and the addressees are confused by two proposals which they want to see as complimentary for themselves. What kind of direct opposition to Paul is implied? Now Paul opposes their influence to be sure, and they will, if the letter is observed by the addressees, no doubt oppose Paul thereafter. Anticipation of this hoped for result accounts for defensive arguments from Paul, I think, better than answering opponents. If their patron Paul was outright opposed, how then does this explain the addressees being seduced into naively thinking that this other message was complimentary, so that Paul chooses to ironically ridicule them for their naivete? This need not imply that the others are trying to trick them; their agenda need have nothing to do with Paul's interests, and may be quite nobly conceived as a response to the expressed interests of the addressees from their own perspective. Why would it be otherwise?

I must say that I see no data from Paul that supports either of your argumentative premises. Either that he was opposed by Pharisees, or that he was an apostate according to the Law as interpreted by a Pharisee--which should be qualified actually, according to the standards that a Pharisee might be expected to apply to one working in the Diaspora.

In other words, I see no evidence that Paul did not consider himself, as a circumcised worshipper of the One God, indebted to observe the whole Law, as he puts it in Gal. 5:3, and that according to "common" Jewish norms of his religious minded contemporaries (to use Sander's standards, for brevity sake). If you know of some exception to this, I would welcome having it explained.

I enjoyed the conversation and look forward to seeing your work and yourself this next year.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page