Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:14:53 -0700 (PDT)



--- Dieter Mitternacht wrote:

> I think, what we can deduce from Paul's
> account in Gal 2.1-10 (which, in my view, is a
> rather sophisticated report of Paul's implications
> of the Jerusalem Council) is that, for Paul, the
> major issue at the Council was circumcision. I know
> that some commentators find no use of the Council
> decision on circumcision in Paul's argumentation and
> are baffled. Cf. Witherington 13: "Had Paul known of
> and had the Jerusalem Church agreed to such a
> compromise before Galatians was written it is very
> difficult to explain why Paul did not refer to
> it..." I just cannot agree. Two reasons: a) the
> rhetorical composition of the success story of
> 2.6-10 with which Paul has been building up ethos is
> extraordinary. He says much more than just:
> circumcision is not required for Gentiles. He comes
> out of his own report as the Apostle of the
> uncircumcised. b) the issue at stake in Gal is not
> disagreement on Council decision (with regard to
> circumcision at least, food restrictions may be
> another matter), but with regard to the
> INTERPRETATION of that decision.

Dieter,

To me the arguments against Gal. 2:1-10 = Acts 15:1-30
are very compelling. I don’t quite follow your
reasoning in refuting Witherington -- can you
elaborate? Paul is combating circumcision (proselyte
conversion) in Galatia, and had there already been an
official decision regarding circumcision from
Jerusalem, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t
have played this “trump card” (as Witherington puts
it). Nothing would have been easier. It seems that the
Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 convened precisely in
order to resolve the Antioch and Galatian
controversies. Gal. 2:1-10 would thus refer to an
earlier council, though I’m not sure Witherington is
right in equating it with Acts 11:29-30. Luke may not
preserve an account of Gal. 2:1-10 at all.

Best,

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page