Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Dave,
A few comments below.

> 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

I don't quite follow this, since hypocrisy is explicitly cited by Paul. And social anxiety in response to pressure resulting from taking a disputable position that imposes upon others who do not share your view does not seem to be very unusual human behavior.

> 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.

I do not think the language implies an objection to eating with gentiles, but to how this was being done, that is, that it went past the usual practices in some way as though these gentiles were proselytes, and thus this way of practicing table-fellowship with gentiles who were not on their way to becoming proselytes was the issue (note: Peter was afraid of the ones advocating circumcision).

> [snip]
> 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.

Yes, that is best, and I hope my language has made it clear that I am offering a construction.

> 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.

Would you mind elaborating? 

In addition, a line of the questions that arises for me in considering your proposed method is the supposed manuscript tradition. Does your view suppose that all the manuscripts and parts we have or that are attested in some way are after this interpolation took place? And does it suppose that there was only one copy of each of Paul's letters at the time; moreover, that this one editor (or is there a group collaborating on this?) possessed them and no one else? And that no one else was aware or objected effectively enough to bear witness to an alternative anti-this-interpolation version? How do you see this working out in social historical terms? Where? When? By whom?

Regards,
Mark Nanos