Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 2:16/ Pss

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 2:16/ Pss
  • Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:45:53 -0600


Dear Cameron,
This is an interesting question. I venture a response below.

Your wrote:
I have greatly enjoyed the ongoing conversations concerning Paul's
letter to the Galatians and have a question of my own which I would like to
submit. It tends to run in a little different direction then the previous
threads, but it deals (as usual) with justification and Paul's understanding
of it. My two-part question concerning Paul is based on the last line of Gal
2:16: OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX. To what extent can it be argue that this
is an allusion to Ps 142:2: OTI OU DIKAIWQHSETAI ENWPION SOU PAS ZWN? Are
there grounds which would
strengthen the notion of this being an allusion, or are we simply
finding here parallel language from distinctly different sources?

That this is an allusion makes for an interesting hypothesis, not only this language, but the overall construction of the dialogue with Peter. E.g., the Psalmist expresses concern with affliction from enemies, Paul confronts Peter's fear of an interest group (the ones for circumcision of the Christ-believing gentiles if indiscriminate table-fellowship is to continue in the way that it has been practiced); the Psalmist expresses concern with walking and being guided in the straight way, and Paul accuses Peter of having departed from walking straight (his withdrawal implies that these gentiles have mistakenly accepted the Christ-believing group's claim that apart from proselyte conversion these gentiles are equal partners within this Jewish coalition, and they must now become candidates for proselyte conversion if they are to "gain" this standing, in conformity with the prevailing views of an Antiochene Jewish [non-Christ-believing, I suggest] group pressing for this, i.e., those Paul labels "the ones out of/from {= advocating} circumcision).

However, great care must be taken with possible allusions. As my comment below will indicate, there are some similarities one may draw upon, yet Paul does not choose some of the explicit language of the Psalmists that it seems he might have chosen if wishing to make this explicit (this assumes of course the questionable proposition that the LXX version I am consulting is the one that Paul had available to him).

If it
is possible to consider psalm 142 to be a source for Paul, is it also
possible to argue that Paul's understanding of justification and
righteousness are defined in accordance with justification and
righteousness in the Psalms (here I am speaking specifically about the
righteousness inherent in the Psalms of Temple Entry, which seems to
also be incorporated throughout the rest of psalmody)?

This would seem to be a lot to hang on one possible allusion with respect to Paul, and involves interpretive limitations with respect to the Psalms variety of concerns as well. The Psalms are recited in the Temple, but the topics of concern are many, and this one does not seem to conform with your point.

My point is
this: If Paul were alluding to this specific psalm because of its
exacting language, and because he more or less understood the concept of
social ethics as a means towards righteousness in the Psalms, then
wouldn't it be possible to expand on his notion of what it meant to be
justified before the Lord (that in no sense was works righteousness ever a
viable means to setting oneself right before God, but that it was always
more about social behavior; cf. Mic 6, Isa 1:10-20)?

I am not sure what you mean here. In this Psalm v. 2 indicates an appeal for mercy, not works-justification, on the basis of belongingness, of lifting up his soul to the Lord (v. 8), of seeking refuge (v. 9), not on the basis of the accomplishment of "social ethics." (are works-righteousness and social behavior somehow contrasted in your point?). He appeals to God's righteousness to lead and free him/his group (vv. 10-11), and to overcome the enemies afflicting him/them, because he/they belong/s to the Lord.

If this is applied to the context in Galatians, it would suggest that Paul expects Peter to hear an allusion to himself (and those who have joined him in this act) as failing to rely upon the Lord, to whom he belongs, by capitulating in response to those who are bringing pressure to bear upon him to alter his behavior (in terms of indiscriminate fellowship with gentiles without those gentiles being regarded as proselyte candidates). Thus the allusion, like the Psalm, does not have to do with works-righteousness, that is not what Peter has been accused of by Paul, but of compromising behavior in the face of social pressure, instead of faithfulness to the right way in full knowledge of the Lord of right-eousness to whom he belongs, who will take care of bringing about ultimate rightness. Paul's concern for an "unsettled" marginalized group in the midst of social pressure to conform with the norms of the larger (although, on other terms, itself a marginalized) group puts the kind of concerns the Psalmist often expresses to good use; that is, if that is what Paul has done.

In this response I am assuming that the issue (works of Law) is not about Torah-observance (or social ethics/works-righteousness) but about Torah-identity (proselytes) for gentiles, and the implications of this policy for those leaders of the coalition who maintain that the gentiles in Christ remain gentiles instead of becoming proselytes (identified as Law-people or Israelites). Peter's withdrawal masks what he believes to be true, and Paul confronts the implied issue that thus arises: is there a difference between Jewish believers in Jesus like Peter/Paul and non-Jewish believers in terms of their standing as righteous ones? Should they not engage in table-fellowship as indiscriminate equals because of this shared conviction?

Regards,
Mark Nanos




  • Gal 2:16/ Pss, Fish__44, 03/17/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Gal 2:16/ Pss, Harold R. Holmyard III, 03/17/2000
    • Re: Gal 2:16/ Pss, Mark D. Nanos, 03/17/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page