Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Goulder's Two Mission Hypothesis

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JERRY SUMNEY <JSUMNEY AT LEXTHEO.EDU>
  • To: 'Corpus-paul' <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Goulder's Two Mission Hypothesis
  • Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:28:32 -0400


Robert Brenchley wrote:
I'd be very interested to know more of your views about the former. There's
an obvious disagreement going on there (Paul is rather sarcastic, to say
the least, about the Jerusalem setup in Gal. 2:6, and somebody obviously
doesn't think he's a proper apostle), but I feel that it hasn't been
explored as it deserves to be.

Jerry's response:

I don't think my reconstruction, which opposes Goulder's revival of Baur,
will help with the Gal 2 passage because I think that the group being
opposed in Galatians is completely separate from those who opposed Paul's
apostleship. Those who opposed Paul's apostleship and his understanding of
apostleship are opposed in 2 Corinthians. The attempts to show that they
are related to Jerusalem or to the Law are not convincing. IMHO such
attempts to related those opponents to Jerusalem or the Law stem from
attempts to keep a simple scheme like that of Baur. Both Judaism and
Christianity were more diverse than such reconstructions allow.

Finding arguments about authority structures is common in emerging
movements like early Christianity. So it is not surprising that Paul faced
these questions. But there is a whole other set of questions such groups
also face, that of self-definition. That, I think, is what the Galatians
question is about. Discussions about these 2 different sets of issues may
be related, but that does not mean they were raised by the same people.

The leaders of both anti-Pauline movements were Jews, but again that
does not mean they were part of the same group. One should expect that
since Christianity started among Jews, its early leaders would be
Jews--whatever the issues that arise. Jewish Christians would have great
advantages as leaders because of their familiarity with Scripture, life with
the basic moral code, etc. So noting that the leaders of both groups were
Jews in no way means they were concerned with the same issues. For comments
about the diversity in Jewish Christianity (and Gentile Christianity) see R.
Brown's 1983 article in _CBQ_.

BTW, to add to the mix, I also think some letters of the Pauline
corpus oppose teachers who are related to neither of these 2 anti-Pauline
groups; e.g. those of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. Further, I don't
think the teachers opposed in these 2 letters thought they opposed Paul's
teaching at all. Rather, they were identified as opponents with the arrival
of the letter.

Thanks for the interest.

Jerry

Jerry L. Sumney
Lexington Theological Seminary
631 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40508
(606) 252-0361
jsumney AT lextheo.edu






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page