Corpus-Paul

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

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