Corpus-Paul

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

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