Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:03:43 -0700


Mark Nanos wrote:

>Paul wrote the account in Gal. 2:2, and could
>choose any language he wished to ensure that the
>question of his independent equality or even
>superiority remained clear, but he writes of his
>subordination, that he "laid [ANETHEMHN] before
>them...lest somehow I should be running or had been
>running in vain"!...
>Why then subordination language here at 2:2, instead
>of challenging language at at 2:11?

Loren Rosson replied:

>To Mark's observations I would add the following in
>brief: An accurate way to deal with the question of
>Paul's "independency/dependency" would be to say that
>he maintained his independence with regards to the
>source/origins of his gospel (God, no one else), but
>he acknowledged his dependence on apostolic authority
>with regards to just how that gospel (Gentile mission)
>was to be carried out. I think James Dunn once put the
>matter in these terms.

If we ask whether Paul is saying that he was subordinate to, equal to, or
superior to the apostles, we find conflicting evidence. I suggest that this
is the wrong question to ask, because Paul was not writing with the purpose
of defining his status relative to the apostles. If he had been doing so,
he would not have left such a trail of ambiguity on the issue. WE are
interested in how Paul saw his status relative to the pillars, but we
should not automatically assume that that issue was important to the
Galatians or to Paul at the time of writing.

I agree with Loren: the issue for Paul is the source of his gospel.
Everything that he writes is designed to make untenable the idea that he
had received his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. This was vitally
important for Paul, because the authority of his gospel rested on the fact
that it was received from God by revelation. If it had been received from
mere men, then it would have no authority (I suggest that we can therefore
assume that the opinions of the pillars carried little weight in Galatia).

Mark wrote:

>Why then subordination language here at 2:2, instead
>of challenging language at at 2:11?

If Paul were intending to discuss his status relative to the pillars, then
these two verses would give a very mixed message. But what happens if we
speculate that the Galatian believers were saying, "Paul inherited his
non-circumcision gospel from the Jerusalem apostles and he preached it just
to please them"? Don't both verses serve Paul's purpose of refuting that
view? By saying that he presented the gospel to them, he makes it clear
that it was his, not theirs. He then says that he did not know how they
would receive his gospel, thus leaving no doubt that he was not merely
repeating back to them something that he had learned from them before. With
the admission of anxiety and the subordinate language he makes it
impossible for this readers to doubt what he is saying. Brilliant!

In 2.11 his argument is different, but the same purpose is served, I think.
He had stood alone in defense of his gospel against Peter and
representatives of James, he says, so the Galatians are not to believe that
he was preaching his gospel just to please them.

Richard Fellows.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page