Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - re: Gal 2

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: re: Gal 2
  • Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:04:34 +0200


Dear Loren
Your comments raise important questions as to how one perceives the implied
intention/impact of an expression in a text.

Loren wrote:
> I can't help but wonder if Esler's
> (and your) position is a bit overstated with regards
> to Paul's conflict with the other apostles in general,
> and Peter in particular. Paul and Barnabus willingly
> brought the Apostolic Decree back to Antioch (Acts
> 15:22-29),

Obviously, with references like Acts 15.22-29 one can do a lot of things, and
it will not be easy to judge which of the conclusions is right or wrong.
First of all, there is the over all tendency of Acts to take the heat off of
Paul (my reading of course). Then there is the fact, that Paul, at that time
probably still was subordinate to Barnabas in terms of leadership. Thirdly,
for some reason, quite soon after the return to Antioch and during
preparation of the next mission journey, Paul and Barnabas had a heavy row
(15.36ff), and were thenceforth not able to work together anymore. One can
only speculate what could be implied in the reason given in Acts for the row.
Why had Mark deserted them, why was it such a concern of Barnabas' to have
him join again, was there already a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas as
to the interpretation of the decree, etc.

> and Rom. 14:1-15:6 shows pretty clearly
> that Paul agreed Gentiles were obligated to observe at
> least minimal purity standards (= Acts 15:19-20?) when
> in the company of Jews.

Rom 14.1-15-6: It is beyond me to deal adequately with such a complexity of
arguments. I see there a beautiful piece of advice, especially in the way
tolerance, acceptance, peace, situation related ethics, etc. are interlaced.
But I would have to add: I wish Paul had had that attitude when reacting to
the Galatian situation.

> And I know you believe that
> all apostles were on the same page with the
> circumcision question.

I am not sure what 'the same page' means. Thus, I fell 'compelled' to react.
Using your idiom I would be willing to say: they were in the same book, but
on different pages (book = principle, page = interpretation), the title of
the book being "We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are
turning to God. (Acts 15.19, 28)" the pages however ranging from a) even so,
we should still urge them to..., to x) they must not....


> I see no evidence in the language of Gal. 2:1-10 that
> Paul is trying to establish himself over against the
> other apostles. He is clearly heaping disdain upon the
> "false believers" (2:4)/ "supposed leaders" (2:6) --
> whoever they were -- but the remarks in Gal. 2:7-10,
> to me, reflect collegial and amicable relations with
> the apostles themselves. At Antioch, on the other
> hand. . .

Again, I am aware that one can read the evidence differently, depending on
how one fills in the blanks, interprets assertions, views the relationship
between sections, etc. which in turn depends on what impression one gets
from the argumention as a whole. I cannot discuss every point in detail, but
here are some of the vital points anyway, as I see it:
1. I have mentioned before, that it appears rather strange to me, that a new
convert who felt a calling to serve Christ would decide (immediately!) not to
see any of the Christ-appointed leaders of the movement (1.16-17) and stick
to that deicision for years. And, most important, that he would mention just
that in this letter with such fervor!
2. The emphatic assertion in 1.20. Who was there to question what?
3. The assertion in 2.1 about the revelation ('revelation' being loaded with
connotations in 1.12), and the additional assurance in 2.2 (just to make
sure...)
4. The depreciation of status in 2.6, which I take to be concerning those
mentioned in 2.6-10.
5. I do not think we can just draw a dividing line between 2.10 and 2.11. The
strategy is to show the inferiority of Peter with regard to the
interpretation of the truth of the Gospel.
6. Finally I think that the ellipses in 2.6-9 (I have hinted at my
interpretation of those ellipses in my reply to Kathryn Smith) are no
coincidences of style, but serve that same rhetorical strategy.


Regards
Dieter





  • re: Gal 2, Kathryn J. S. Smith, 09/21/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • re: Gal 2, Mark D. Nanos, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Dieter Mitternacht, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Loren Rosson, 09/22/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Dieter Mitternacht, 09/24/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Mark D. Nanos, 09/24/2000
    • re: Gal 2, Loren Rosson, 09/25/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page