Corpus-Paul

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

Mark Nanos responded to Dave Hindley:

>>Yes, the conclusion [that Paul considered faithful Gentiles as not in 
need of conversion] is similar to my view, although intelligibility [of 
arguments in the epistle] 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.<<

And hence my reluctance to engage in many of these discussions, especially 
with my hypothesis at this stage of its development. Yes, any argument 
based on style is subject to the criticism that it is subjective. However, 
rhetoric is also a style of sorts, and also subject to subjective 
interpretation (see my response to Jim Hester).

>>This [i.e., that Cephas was of the opinion that conversion was the 
preferred path] 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.<<

One thing that intrigued me about Gal 2:11-14 is that Paul's complaint in 
verse 14 does not at first seem to relate to what is relayed in verses 
11-13. "Hypocrasy" was probably a bad choice of words on my part (I 
considered excising the sentence that contained it before the message was 
posted, but omitted to do so). I really do not see hypocracy being 
expressed here so much as disrespect. What is perplexing is why Cephas 
would associate with Gentiles and then suddenly withdraw either in 
deference to representatives of James or to a "circumcision party

However, I can see your point about table fellowship being the issue at 
heart here, but I am not sure on what basis these Jews would have objected 
to eating with Gentiles. Like the question of purity, there are many fine 
differences at play here. You may have an equally hard time justifying this 
position on historical grounds as I have.

>>This [whole question of purity] 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....<<

>>I do not see this indicated [i.e., that the "ones from James" scrupled to 
remain ritually >pure, even when outside the holy land]. 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.<<

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

You are right, there are loose ends to tie up. Some while ago (maybe 6 
months ago) I did make a preliminary stab at understanding this question of 
purity (ritual, contact, etc), and collected a small library of books 
(mainly Sanders) on the subject, but really do need to sit down, read it 
through and work up some charts, etc. Unfortunately, there is so much to do 
and so little time to do it in.

>>This [proposal that Paul was a financial Apostle for the Temple with a 
commission to bring gifts and offerings from the diaspora] 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.<<

Regardless of the correctness of the Apostle proposal, I do agree that what 
this all boiled down to was a power play of sorts. What we do not know are 
the actual motivations of the characters involved, but as historians we 
must resort to emplotments to make sense of the data.

>>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.<<

"Twisting is is what twisting does," Forrest Gump might say. As I admit, 
the author of 2 Peter 3:16 would class me among the "ignorant and 
unstable", but that would be his opinion. We all have to make sense of the 
data, and I doubt that it can be done without emplotment.

You say that you try to understand Paul's meaning from a language 
perspective. But as one familiar with rhetorical approached you must be 
aware that Post Moderm influenced historians have been using rhetoric to 
deconstruct the emplotments of other historians as well as our own as we 
evaluate data. We really have to deal with our presumptions. I like to put 
them on the table, up front.

"Christology" is perhaps an anachronistic term, but it does describe a set 
of ideas and vocabulary associated with NT documents. I am saying that 
they, as a class, can be identified, bracketed, and the remaining text 
continues to be comprehensible, even more so, without exception. If the 
christ-terminology and theology was organic to the text, I seriously doubt 
that this could occur.

The only real difference between my approach and the traditional one is 
that I do not see a connection between Paul's movement and that of Jesus's 
followers until the time that they "merged". Most commentators see them as 
related all the way.

Regards,

Dave Hindley