Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Paul: Renegade or Insider?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Paul: Renegade or Insider?
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT)


List:

I want to thank Mark and Hyam for some great
exchanges. Their kind of dialogue is what makes lists
like C-P so informative.

Mark concluded his one of his posts by noting that

>Two issues have arisen of interest to me
>at least: 1) whether Paul abandoned
>circumcision (and thus Jewish identity for
>himself and other Christ-believing Jews);
>2) whether the Jerusalem apostles held to views
>different from Paul's on the circumcision of
>Jews and Gentiles, so that their relationship
>can be represented as oppositional, as in a split.

I want to use the second issue as a springboard for
considering more recent interpretations of the
Jerusalem conference (Gal 2:1-10) and the following
Antioch incident (2:11-14), which in my view are
represented by equally persuasive yet different
voices, Philip Esler and Mark Nanos; the former sees
Paul as a renegade apostle, while the latter sees him
as an insider and friend of the pillars.

Esler and Nanos both agree it was not dietary issues
which were objectionable at Antioch, but rather the
indiscriminate nature of the table-fellowship. They
disagree, however, on what was at stake in such
fellowship. Esler believes idolatry was the issue,
since by sharing eucharistic vessels Gentiles might
taint the wine and transform it into a pagan libation.
Nanos thinks indiscriminate seating arrangements were
the issue. In either case, proselyte conversion
(getting circumcised and submitting to the "whole
law") was seen as the solution which Paul opposed, and
the issue had nothing to do with supposed "unresolved
dietary issues". Gentiles were presumably eating like
normal God fearers (or resident aliens), and Jews were
presumably eating like good Jews.

Esler and Nanos disagree on the more fundamental
question of Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem
pillars:

1. Esler believes as follows.

It was agreed at the Jerusalem conference (2:1-10),
against the better judgment of the pillars, that
Gentiles did not have to submit to proselyte
conversion in order to participate in indiscriminate
eucharist fellowship. Paul had extracted this
agreement from the other apostles, over and against
certain hard-liners in the Christian movement (2:4-5),
conceding nothing himself (save taking up a collection
for the poor). This left the hard-liners steeming with
a desire for revenge, and they put pressure on James
to revoke the agreement soon after Paul and Peter left
Jerusalem. James then sent a group of delegates to
Antioch to break the sore news. Peter thus withdrew
from indiscriminate table-fellowship at Antioch and
changed his mind, starting to teach that Gentiles must
become proselytes in order to be considered equals
with the Jewish people and partake as one in the
eucharist. Paul was a rival apostle, and so the
pillars were under no obligation to keep their promise
made in Jerusalem. Paul had extracted no oaths from
them, so in effect, their "fingers had been crossed
behind their backs" when they committed to the
agreement.

Again, the issue at Antioch had nothing to do with
unresolved dietary issues. It had to do with the issue
resolved in Jerusalem: proselyte conversion
(circumcision) (2:12). The pillars simply broke the
agreement. But then why didn't Paul accuse Peter of
exactly that? Why dance around the issue with the
"hypocrisy" charge (2:13)? The crux of Esler's
argument hinges on an understanding of deception and
lying in an honor-shame culture. It's worth quoting
him at length here:

"In this culture people commit their honor to a
promise only through their sincere intentions. If
their true will is not really behind the undertaking,
they are not dishonored by going back on what they
have promised. People can deceive and lie without
forfeiting their honor, for rivals have no right to
hear the truth. Moreover, a charge of promise-breaking
can be answered by asserting that one had not really
intended to carry out the promise, even if this is a
convenient rationalization after the event, akin to
the child's ploy, 'I had my fingers crossed'. The only
way to have confidence that someone really stands
behind their word at the time it is given is by
extracting an oath from him." (Galatians, p 138)...

"None of this means that you cannot call someone a
liar in public, but you can only do so if you can
demonstrate that he previously committed his honor to
the accuracy of the statement or promise. Otherwise,
you run the risk of making a fool of yourself by
having been deceived. The way to get around this
problem is to extract an oath from the person in
advance, thereby tying him to the truth. Once his
promise is made before God (for whom truth is
absolute), he activates a curse against himself in the
eventuality of failing to implement his oath -- or, at
the very least, he ensures that public opinion is
entitled to judge him as dishonorable." (Ibid, p 129)

Paul didn't accuse Peter of breaking the Jerusalem
agreement, because he would have made a fool of
himself for having been deceived. The best he could do
was accuse Peter of inconsistent behavior, relying on
the Mediterranean idea that "actions speak louder than
words" -- that actions reflect a person's true
intentions more than empty agreements. So, in effect,
this was an oblique way of calling attention to the
fact that James and Peter were going back on the
agreement.

2. Nanos believes as follows.

It was a unanimous agreement at the Jerusalem
conference (Gal 2:1-10) that Gentiles did not have to
submit to proselyte conversion, despite adversarial
pressure from certain parties outside the Christian
movement (2:4-5). Paul and the pillars were pretty
much on the same page. But after Paul and Peter left
Jerusalem, James again came under pressure from
non-Christian outsiders, to whom he gave leave to
investigate matters at Antioch. Upon their arrival at
Antioch, Peter withdrew from indiscriminate
table-fellowship out of social anxiety, masking his
true belief (shared by Paul) that Gentiles did not
need to become proselytes in order to be considered
equals with the Jewish people and partake as one in
table-fellowship. Peter and Paul were not rivals. Paul
accused his friend of "hypocrisy" -- not "heresy" or
"apostasy", which would have been the case if Peter
had actually broken the agreement or changed his mind.

Once again, the issue at Antioch had nothing to do
with supposed unresolved dietary issues, but rather
the issue resolved in Jerusalem: proselyte conversion
(circumcision) (2:12). But this doesn't mean that
James revoked the agreement. He may have had no choice
about the presence of outside investigators, "as long
as the pillars regarded themselves as a Judaism
seeking a good reputation (honor) and legitimacy
within the larger Jewish communities" ("Irony", p
149). But then why does Paul seem to align the pillars
with these outsiders by publicly shaming Peter? Nanos'
argument rests on understanding Paul's rhetoric as
"ironic rebuke", which should not be taken as a
face-value representation of the positions he
characterizes. Nanos writes:

"It is not easy to resist the attraction of social
acceptance, especially by the dominant and
norm-setting and goods-holding group. This is more
than just a psychological or religious need; it is
socio-political to the core. It has resulted in
temptation to compromise for even the most convinced
leaders...[some of whom] have capitulated at Antioch
in the face of intense social pressure. But they were
confronted with a level of ridicule ["ironic rebuke"]
that may be mistaken for that of an enemy of their
interests." ("Irony of Galatians", p 154)

In the context of an honor-shame milieu, Paul's
vilifying rhetoric served the purpose of attempting to
redirect people -- even his best of friends -- back to
his own point of view by means of humiliation and
shame.

3. Esler/Nanos -- Does the truth lie somewhere in
between?

Esler and Nanos appear to be correct about the Antioch
controversy revolving around proselyte conversion
(circumcision), especially since the adversaries in
question are the "circumcision faction". The Galatian
controversy involves proselyte conversion
(5:2-3,11-12; 6:13-15), and the Antioch incident would
then be offered as a corresponding analogy. (Whether
the indiscriminate nature of the table-fellowship had
to do with sharing wine vessels (Esler) or liberal
seating arrangements (Nanos) is difficult to say.
Maybe it was both.)

In considering Paul's relationship to the other
apostles, I believed Esler's reconstruction of events
to be the best available before reading much of Mark's
work. That the pillars stiffed Paul by flagrantly
breaking the agreement is easy enough to imagine,
given what we know about honor-shame cultures. Rivals
generally had no right to hear the truth or expect
promises to be kept, unless they were accompanied by
oaths (thus, for instance, Jesus lied in Jn 7:8 to his
brothers "who did not believe in him" (Jn 7:5)). On
the other hand, I've become convinced that Paul was
not a rival apostle. That he subordinated himself to
the pillars (Gal 2:2) and worried about his work being
acceptable to them (Rom 15:31) points to an in-group
phenomenon.

But while I don't believe Paul was a renegade apostle,
he was certainly a troublesome insider, which accounts
for much of Hyam's point of view and his recent
observations to Mark, who in turn appeals to the
nature of ironic rebuke: sarcastic, smoldering,
vilifying, yet not to be taken literally. But how far
can we push this? Mark is obviously right that a
charge of "hypocrisy" doesn't exactly rank with those
of "heresy" or "apostasy" -- but in the honor-shame
milieu itÂ’s nasty nonetheless. I doubt Paul was naive
enough to think that he might actually have a chance
of redirecting Peter himself by publicly shaming him
as a hypocrite -- just as I doubt Jesus suffered from
any delusions that he might win the various Pharisees
and scribes to his point of view by demeaning them
with the same insult. (And if the controversies
between Jesus and the Pharisees are taken as gospel
fictions, then the point is only strengthened on
account of Christianity having split from Judaism and
becoming a rival movement in the post-70 period.)
Ditto for the unflattering remarks about castration
and mutilation in Galatians and Philippians (addressed
by Mark in his reply to Hyam).

I've gone on at some length and will stop for now. To
me, Esler and Nanos represent the best of where the
Galatians debate has been steering with the social
sciences. I side with Nanos more than Esler, but with
reservations. Perhaps others will feel inclined to
comment on the possibility of bridging the different
positions of Esler/Nanos (or, alternatively and
differently, Maccoby/Nanos).

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page