Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Mark D. Nanos, in response to Moon R. Jung, said:

>>I find it difficult to answer your questions as put, not because
there is anything wrong with the questions per se, but because I am
still trying to make sense of this overall passage [Gal. 2:11-21?] as
it relates to Antioch much less Galatia, and this verse is the
toughest statement of all.<<

If I might offer another view of this passage, based on my proposal
that this letter is redacted. For reasons which I enumerated off-list
in our recent communication, the internal tensions (and resulting
paradoxes) within Pauline epistles generally have every appearance of
being due to intrusive Christological passages. I have bracketed them
out in the following section :

RSV Gal. 2:11  But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his
face, because he stood condemned. 12  For before certain men came from
James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and
separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13  And with him
the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was
carried away by their insincerity. 14  But when I saw that they were
not straightforward about the truth of the good news, I said to Cephas
before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not
like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

RSV Gal 2:15  We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile
sinners, 16a  yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the
law but through faith <in God> 16b  [...], 16c  even we have believed
16d  [...], 16e  in order to be justified by faith 16f  [...], 16g
and not by works of the law, because by works of the law "shall no one
be justified." (Ps 143:2)17a  But if, in our endeavor to be justified
17b  [...], 17c  we ourselves were found to be sinners, are we 17d
[...] 17e  then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18-20a  [...]; 20b
and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in (the) 20c God
21a  I do not nullify the grace of God; 21b  [...].

Without them, the passage is much more intelligible. It simmers down
to a debate over whether faithful Gentiles have need to convert and
accept circumcision. This is a subject which I think you can identify.

Cephas evidently was of the opinion that conversion was the preferred
path, but outside of the holy land was lax with regard to maintaining
ritual purity. E. P. Sanders, in various places, makes it clear that
outside the holy land, this was entirely his right, on the basis of
the fact that ritual purity was related to entering the Temple in
Jerusalem.

It also appears that the "ones from James" scrupled to remain ritually
pure, even when outside the holy land. That Cephas and the other Jews
in Antioch, perhaps out of courtesy to these men, separated themselves
from gentiles (presumably to purify themselves) in order to avoid
offending them. Paul evidently felt this was hypocritical.

As I suggested to you privately, Paul was acting as advocate for
increased Gentile association with Jews, which involved lobbying James
to accept Gentile contributions to the temple (collected in connection
with a commission as a financial Apostle) as if from Jews. Paul took
Cephas' withdrawal as a snub of his position (and it probably was).
Verses 15-21a is an encapsulation of his argument justifying his
position.

If we look at the bracketed words (all of which are associated with
the defense noted above), it is possible, I believe, to discern
redaction. Firstly, the argument that faith in God justifies, not the
"works of the law" (and by implication, that Gentiles gain no
advantage through circumcision), is revised so that the faith they
express is no longer in God, but "the Son of God".

And so, in five cases, the redactor makes the point of interjecting
phrases that change the focus to Christ:

16b  in Jesus Christ 16d  in Christ Jesus 16e  in Christ 17b  in
Christ 17d  is Christ

Then the redactor proceeds from the unstated assumption that the death
of Christ superceded the validity of the law:

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.

Next, the redactor offers his own interpretation what constitutes
justification:

20a  I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live,
but Christ who lives in me 20b <the> Son  20d who loved me and gave
himself for me

Finally, he ties this into the original argument by means of verse
21b:

21b  for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no
purpose

In all, this juxtaposition of ideas comes across (to me, at least) as
artificial (I have never said the redactor was very good at his work)
and the author of 2 Peter 3:16 also noticed this (although I would
probably fall under his definition of one of those who are "ignorant
and unstable"). IMHO, while many commentators have done well at this
"twisting" (which the discordant ideas within the Pauline corpus make
a necessity if the unity of the text is maintained), if any twisting
was done, it was by this redactor.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

PS: Mark, I have been unable to respond with a polite conclusion to
your last private post, as my mail is being returned with the message:

... while talking to mail.gvi.net.:
>>> RCPT To:<nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
<<< 550 5.1.1 <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>... User unknown
550 nanos AT mail.gvi.net... User unknown