Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's persecution of the Church

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:07:30 -0400


Robert Brenchley asks me:

>> Are you saying that the anti-Law statements are later
interpolations? If so, is there any textual evidence of
this?<<

Yes, I think this is so. Actually, no, there are few textual
variants that could support such a concept. Of course, the
significance of the presence or lack of presence of variants
is connected to our assumptions about the transmission
history of the text(s). With regard to this aspect, I've
been looking at David Trobisch's work (especially _Paul's
Letter Collection_) that suggests that rather than being
based upon individual mss copies circulating independently
(a process which can be expected to produce variants if the
text had been altered by one or more copyists) the Pauline
corpus we have today trace back to a single "published"
edition (with the exception of Hebrews, possibly added
later). While there is evidence that the published edition
is comprised of several smaller collections, Trobisch finds
very little evidence that these smaller collections were
circulating at the same time as the collected published
edition.

>> On the other hand, if, say, Gal 5:1-6 is all original,
who would have been arguing for justification by the Law?
Could it have been over-zealous proselytes claiming some
sort of 'benefit' from circumcision as such, much as
fundamentalists today sometimes claim the 'spiritual
benefits' of believers' baptism or whatever their favourite
practice is, insisting that those who don't do it are not
'proper' Christians?<<

Gal 5:1, to me, is the last verse of a fairly long
interpolation starting in 4:24 (the "Two Women allegory",
which might except 4:28 & 31). The way I've broken it out
for my own analytical purposes is:

ORIGIONAL: 1 [...] 2a Now I, Paul, say to you that if you
receive circumcision, it [...] 2b will be of no advantage
to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives
circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4a
You are [actually] severed 4b [...], 4c you [Gentiles] who
would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from
grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the
hope of righteousness. 6a [...] 6b Neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision is of any avail [i.e., has an advantage
one over the other], but [our common] faith working through
love.

INTERPOLATIONS: 1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand
fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of
slavery. 2b Christ 4b from Christ 6a For in Christ
Jesus

This all follows what appears to be a simple example of
Abraham's faith in God's promise of a son, fulfilled in
Sarah's conception, compared to his lack of faith in the
generation of his other son through his concubine Hagar (Gal
4:22-23). The conclusion is that faith in God's promise is
the better course. The allegory of the two women, on the
other hand, completely turns this simple example on its
head.

One naturally thinks of Isaac, born through Sarah, as
representative of the Jewish people, but the interpolator
says "Now this is an allegory: these women are two
covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for
slavery; she is Hagar [who bore Ishmael, who in turns seems
to be given as the "true" father of the Jewish people]"
(4:24). How does he justify this? "25 Now Hagar is Mount
Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem,
for she is in slavery with her children." This sounds very
much to me like a reference to the captivity of Jerusalem in
70 CE, and the enslavement of large numbers of Jewish
captives in the preceding campaigns. The constant additions
of the words "Christ" or "Christ Jesus" (and elsewhere the
famous "in Christ" etc.) seem to be attempts to redirect
arguments so that they focus on Christ dogma.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page