Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>]

on 1/7/01 9:57 AM, Loren Rosson at rossoiii AT yahoo.com wrote:

> I had written:
> 
>>> Phil Esler ("Galatians") suggests
>>> that the offensive practice was indiscriminate
>>> eucharist fellowship, whereby Jews and
> uncircumcised
>>> Gentiles shared bread and wine from the same
>>> vessels. This naturally ran the risk of idolatry,
>>> as Gentiles might taint the wine (i.e. transform it
> 
>>> into pagan libation wine).
> 
> Mark responded:
> 
>> I disagree that this was the issue...If it was, then
>> the solution to the problem in Antioch was not to
> get
>> circumcised [i.e., become proselytes], but to use
>> separate bowls, or develop some other such practical
>> solution.

Loren now writes:
> Esler's comments here are useful: "The practice of the
> Eucharist meal meant genuine table-fellowship, with
> shariing of food, wine, and vessels, and not a
> parallel meal of the type later advocated by rabbis of
> a more liberal persuasion." (Galatians, p. 107)  What
> many misconstrue as "table-fellowship" is, precisely
> speaking, "eating in parallel" (see p. 106), as seen
> in the solution you propose, Mark.

I do not understand why you suppose that my definition of table-fellowship
is any different than Eslers, or parallel. Both approaches focus the issue
at the table in Antioch on the people, Jewish and non, at the same table
eating the same Jewish food, rather than on the food, as though the food
laws were being violated, as do most interpreters. (see my discussion in The
Mystery of Romans, appendix 1: "Peter's hypocrisy in the light of Paul's
anxiety"). Then Esler asks what was objectionable, and suggests that it is
that non-Jews are eating from the same vessels. Thus, even though the food
and drink does not violate food laws, the way it is eaten is feared, because
Esler supposes that these Jews would worry that the non-Jewish eaters and
drinkers might secretly harbor idolatrous intentions.

I do not know of any support for his view, that is, any NT examples that the
use of the same vessels was ever an issue in fellowship. And what are
God-fearers anyway, but (oversimplified) those non-Jews respected as no
longer idolaters? Moreover, if some Jewish people might suspect such
idolatrous intentions, which I do not doubt possible for some people at some
place and time, they are people likely to fear the same from proselytes, and
perhaps even from other Jews who are not as strict as themselves in some
observance or other. But people so disposed are not likely already at the
table eating indiscriminately with the non-Jews in Antioch in the first
place. Are they?

> Using separate
> vessels may be a "practical solution" -- from one
> point of view, anyway -- but it would have destroyed
> the essence of eucharist fellowship, and thus would
> hardly have been a viable option for any of the
> Christ-believers.

How so? Do not many Christian traditions share eucharist from separate
bowls, drinking cups, etc., without fearing that the essence of this
fellowship is somehow undermined? I would think fear of passing germs, not
your neighbor's idolatrous intentions would lead to proposing this solution
in modern times.
> 
> Proselyte conversion, on the other hand, would have
> been the natural solution to the problem -- whether
> for Christians like James (according to Esler), or for
> non-Christian outsiders (as you would maintain, if
> this argument were correct). Proselytes, obviously,
> were less likely "idolaters" than God-fearers.
> 
> What do you find wrong with this argument, Mark?

I have noted some of the problems above, and add here that proselyte
conversion is a radical solution, effecting a complete change of identity
with significant (and usually severe) implication in not only religious, but
in every social realm of life. The questions that arise can be seen in
Corinth; must be go out of this world? i.e., leave our families and social
gatherings, our jobs and place in local politics, etc. Although such issues
might arise in time for God-fearers fellowshipping indiscriminately in
Jewish social space, surely a change of vessels at this table would be a
more practical solution that speaks directly to the issue Esler raises than
would proselyte conversion, and all that this entails. (Although I do not
believe that this was the issue; but if it was.)

Remember too, that Esler recognizes the need to make sense of this in social
terms, and thus proposes that Peter changed his mind and was intentionally
challenging this indiscriminate table-fellowship, actually teaching that
these non-Jews must become proselytes. I believe that Peter was doing no
such thing (which Paul would accuse of being heresy or apostasy, not
hypocrisy, which is the charge), but withdrawing because of social anxiety,
masking his true belief that they did not need to do so, playing the role/ a
hypocrite, and thus undermine the principle "truth" that both he and Paul
otherwise believed.

As you know, Philip Esler was my supervisor, and is my friend. You can be
sure that we have discussed (and disagreed on) these matters and related
ones many times without persuading the other, yet! We are however in
agreement (on a minority view) that the food and drink itself was not
objectionable on Jewish grounds, but the way fellowship was being conducted
indiscriminately with these non-Jews. From there we each identify a
different problem, and thus offer a different solution. Esler suggests it is
the sharing of vessels, I suggest it is the arrangement of the seating, and
perhaps, the distribution of the food, at which point discrimination would
normally be exercised on the basis of different standing for Jews,
proselytes, non-Jewish regulars, non-Jewish guests, etc., but in this group,
the traditional conventions were being altered to suggest equal standing
among all of the members. Peter fears the ones for circumcision of the
gentiles of this group, and thus withdraws (and is followed by the other
Jewish members of this group) to a table where this is not so, and Paul
confronts this as hypocrisy, since he believes that all in Christ have the
same standing, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not. If this occurs,
the logical deduction for the gentles left at the table (a deduction
apparent immediately to Paul anyway) is that what this group has taught,
that they were indiscriminate equals without becoming proselytes, is not the
case. They are publicly shamed for foolishly believing this supposed
"truth," and ought to become proselytes now, if they wish to remain in this
group and be treated as equals.

Take care,
Mark

-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
816-478-3369