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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:35:12 -0500


[I had written]
>> 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.

[to which John Lupia replied]
> 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.

John,
I do not find this kind of statement very useful or respectful. I just wrote
that I do not find these texts to mean what you do, so why resort to such
rhetorical silliness? It is neither the plain nor pellucid logic of this
text when I read it; hence, the discussion of what it means. Let's try to
deal with each other as historical critics, please.

[John continued]
> 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!).

But Peter did not conclude when applying the dream, "God has shown me that I
should not call any food unclean." The point was that he was to now mix with
the people, not change his diet. At least that is what the text explicitly
states that Peter learned from the application of the dream. And the logic
is called upon in Acts 15 to resolve how to categorize and mix with gentile
Christ-believers. But note that here the question is not whether the Jews at
the council should eat unclean food; the situation presumes that they do
not, since even the gentiles are told to regard some dietary laws in order
for the social mixing to work among these Jews and gentiles. In other words,
if even gentiles are to regard minimal Jewish dietary customs, this implies
that the Jews with whom they eat--including the Peter who had this
vision--continue to observe Jewish dietary customs.
> 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.

That does not follow, based on the point I have made above.

> Since
> St. Peter was guilty of this St. Paul criticized him (Gal. 2,14).

Where does Gal. say that Peter was guilty of eating according to "old
dietary laws," or in any way eating unclean food?

By the way, perhaps you don't realize that adding "old" to "dietary code"
each time you refer to Jewish food customs perpetuates the kind of
supersessionist attitude that even the Vatican has challenged. Judaism is a
living faith and practice. As a Jewish discussion participant, I would
appreciate it if you would desist from such pejorative rhetoric.

> There is also nothing in Galatians and Acts that shows that they did not eat
> non-Kosher foods.

Indeed!

> 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.

I deny that Gal. 2:14 means that Peter ate non-Kosher food. It is not
clearly implied to me; in fact, to me it is the opposite that is implied.

Note that the change of behavior for Peter is provoked, according to Paul,
not by "the ones for Jewish food laws," but "the ones for circumcision,"
that is, for proselyte conversion. Note that the gentiles are logically
compelled not "to eat Jewish food," but "to judaize," to become Jews.

The rhetorical context has to do with whether Peter lives in the same way as
these gentiles--in Christ, and thus as equals. If so, then his
discriminatory behavior toward these gentiles has been hypocritical, as
though he had a higher standing than they. That is the rhetorical point I
see here, and that point depends upon the continued difference between Jews
and gentiles in this group, but not discrimination based upon that
difference (cf. 3:28), a very difficult proposition for group life, even for
someone like Peter.

> 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.

I do not see this in the text, but it is merely another point of
interpretation; you should be aware of that.

> 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.

Perhaps you should read again Rom. 14, where Paul calls for respectful
concern for those who do not share the same view as the addressees, instead
of disregard for their sensibilities and the situation that results. The
ostensible conundrum for the traditional interpretive scheme--which you
basically follow-- of the instructions in Rom. 14 combined with the
narrative of Gal. 2:11ff., is one of the topics of a chapter in my Mystery
of Romans, entitled, Peter's Hypocrisy in the Light of Paul's Anxiety.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page