Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Lupia <JLupia2 AT excite.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:25:15 -0700 (PDT)


A Response to Dr. Mark D. Nanos:

You wrote:

>Dear John,
I don't know how you got from my post that I agree with what you express in
the post copied below. Have you ever given a lecture only to have someone
come up after and sincerely express appreciation and agreement, but then
begin to elaborate the exact opposite of what you meant to communicate? I
don't want to be disrespectful, but what you have written, which is largely
in agreement with the traditional view, is not at all what I think.


Mark, I never said that you agreed with what I posted. You completely
misconstrued the context of what I wrote. If you read it again you might
notice that I prefaced my posting with the statement "and offer a
suggestion below: " A suggestion made on my part does not necessitate that
you are already in agreement, but in itself implies that an offer of new
information is being made to which it is impossible to ascertain whether or
not you will agree or disagree. To answer your question about post lecture
discussions with students I would have to say "No." I have made it a
practice to teach then ask if there are any questions about what I just
taught. When no one asks questions I then reiterate the teaching giving it
a new focus and turn things around so that there is clarity on the part of
my students. I have learned over the decades that it is good practice never
to assume that students have understood a thing. After all we do not give
out brains only information. Now returning to your last statement you said
what I posted is not at all what you think. That's why I said: "and offer
a suggestion below: "

Then you wrote:

>To begin with, from my reading, nothing in Gal. or in Acts suggests that
Peter ever ate without regard to Jewish food regulations. Or Paul. Or that
they ever taught such for Jewish people. But they did not believe gentiles
should become Jews and thus they did not teach that gentiles should observe
the Law, except as incumbent upon respectful guests. The differences
remained, but the discrimination did not, since they believed that the end
of the ages had dawned in the present age in Christ, and thus that these
representatives of the Nations remained representatives of the Nations, but
joined as equals with Israelites in the worship of the One God of all.

Mark, the simple and pellucid logic of the text of Acts 10,11-16; 11,5-11 is
the revelation of the annulment of Jewish dietary law. If anyone can eat
anything and not be made unclean then it logically follows that St. Peter
could rightly say, "God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy
or unclean."  Acts 10:28 (in regards to dietary law, of course!). Now if
anyone can eat anything and not be made unclean then why would SS. Peter and
Paul continue practicing the old dietary laws? Out of habit? Surely, they
were no longer obligated to practice these laws but I guess they could
continue out of custom meaning "out of their habit". However, if they did
continue in the old dietary laws this would exclude them from giving good
example and testimony of those who were in complete compliance with the "New
Covenant" and would cause scruples in the minds of those around them. Since
St. Peter was guilty of this St. Paul criticized him (Gal. 2,14). There is
also nothing in Galatians and Acts that shows that they did not eat
non-Kosher foods. However, the suggestion is very clear that they did in
the posting I made earlier. To say: "To begin with, from my reading,
nothing in Gal. or in Acts suggests that Peter ever ate without regard to
Jewish food regulations. Or Paul." is to deny that Galatians 2,14 makes this
suggestion disregarding the text: EI SU IOUDAIOS hUPARCWN EQNIKWS KAI OUCI
IOUDAIKWS ZHS "If you being a Jew live as a Gentile and not a Jew". That
St. Peter ate non-Kosher food is clearly implied in Galatians 2,11. That
St. Peter exhibited inconsistent behavior to cater to the "circumcision
faction" is what St. Paul is pointing out. The "circumcision faction" as
they were called obviously included strict adherence to not only
circumcision but to the old dietary code. St. Peter tried to keep the
Jewish converts in the fold by bowing to them. St. Paul rightly criticized
him for this and in essence was saying that if the Jewish converts to
Christianity cannot accept the "New Covenant" entirely let them go because
they had become hardened of heart. Then St. Paul goes on to make
eschatological prophecy that after the full number of Gentiles are brought
into the Church then Israel will follow.

Cordially in Christ,
John
<><


John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
JLupia2 AT excite.com
<>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
"during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
. unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page