Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos

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: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:16:11 -0600


Dear Dave,
Thank you for the clarification of your view. I will make a few remarks below.

You proposed translating:
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.

Yes, the conclusion is similar to my view, although intelligibility is a subjective conclusion that puts this methodology in question. Does it not weaken the ability of one to listen to a text and perhaps learn something new or even in opposition to what they have presupposed it to mean? I now read Galatians very differently, in some major ways, than I did before spending the last five years researching it closely.


Cephas evidently was of the opinion that conversion was the preferred
path,

This I do not see indicated or even implied, but the opposite. Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, believing one thing but behaving in a way that masks his belief, not apostasy, believing something different and thus behaving differently in accordance with that different belief.

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.

This is a large matter of dispute. To what degree and in what ways did purity issues related to the Land and Temple apply to those outside of the Land or Temple? Did they differ according to one's role or group when in the Land or Temple? Etc....


It also appears that the "ones from James" scrupled to remain ritually
pure, even when outside the holy land.

I do not see this indicated. It is not clear that the ones from James did anything but arrive in Antioch. It is the ones out of/for circumcision whom Peter was intimidated by, and it is not clear that these are the same people or groups. Nor is it clear that purity was the issue, but table-fellowship.

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.

Separation does not purify, and Paul does not indicate that any purification was involved in Peter's withdrawal and separation.


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.

This is possible, but arguable. Yet Paul presents Peter's motivation as a concern with avoiding disapproval of the ones for circumcision and not as an intended slight toward Paul. Rather it seems that Paul picks up on the implication, but in the first case toward the gentiles, who are thereby marginalized by one who should be their champion. It is the logical conclusion for them to draw that they are not whom they have been led to believe they are by the leaders of this coaltion, and thus they are logically "compelled" to judaize, i.e., to become proselytes.

[snip] 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.

I am more inclined to say that the ostensible twisting is the result of interpreter's assumptions about Paul and the construction of the communities and situations addressed. I do not assume that Paul was a Catholic or Protestant Christian. I think his language predates not only the later ideological concerns of these institutions, but Christianity as an institutional entity, and thus, in historical terms, has been largely misconstrued. But that is not the same as you are arguing, for I do think that the issue for this Jewish reform coalition turned around the resultant meaning of the life, death and resurrection of this Jewish martyr of the Roman regime for both Israel and the nations, or to put it anachronistically, that it was Christological. I look forward to considering your proposition across the spectrum of corpus-Paulinum when it is available.


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:

There have been some provider problems in the last few months from time to time; if you care to send this message again to nanos AT gvi.net it should come through now.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page