Corpus-Paul

[Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>]

Dear Eric

Thank you for your detailed response. There are one or two points that I
think I can respond to. Others that I will have to leave as open questions.

First - not all my general comments at the end were meant as criticisms of
you or anyone else in particular. They were a broad statement of hoped for
consistency - and somewhat naive as you point out.

Eric: You refer to your knowing about the "actions" and "motive" of James
and Peter (Cephas) from their "writing about the love of God," but what
writing from James, and what writing from Peter are you referring to here?

Bob: you are right in assuming that I take the general letters as having the
mark of the apostles they are named after and as not pseudipigraphal. It is
not a strongly held position of mine. I see them through the lens of 1900
years. A recent essay of mine (see homepage - lots of naivety there) noted
that James and Paul both appeal to the ultimate law concerning love of
neighbour. I take the character of James (and Peter) from these character
witnesses - whatever pen wrote the words first in their name.

Eric: The two "Peter" letters in the New Testament are generally considered
to be forgeries
Bob: pseudipigraphy is not forgery - whoever wrote James 2:13 was not
falsifying a signature. Your language is loaded - Mr Rumpole raises an
objection to your choice of words.

Eric: But yet you claim to know about the "writing" from both of these
individuals.
Bob: I didn't intend to make that claim - though I did not expect to be
cross-examined. I wrote to the intent that if they were as negative as they
are sometimes proclaimed - James changed his mind etc - then they had no
motive for writing about the love of God.

Obviously, Luke reported James words - and like any historian, he may have
had to reconstruct them; and let us say that some other writer wrote his
epistle; so we have no first hand record of James as we do of Paul.
Nonetheless we have the reports of others - and I contend that this is
evidence. Your statement that he changed his mind on circumcision has no
grounds that I can see apart from your own inferences. I grant you it is an
interesting conjecture and I am not afraid to entertain it. I just don't see
the need or the plausibility at this time.

Eric: Galatians 2:11 right after the Jerusalem council meeting has Peter in
Antioch, presumably only shortly after Paul's own arrival back in Antioch,

Bob: I don't see any connection between Galatians 2:11 and the Jerusalem
council of Acts 15.
If the council had sent the letter from the apostles (Acts 15:23-29), I
think Paul would have appealed to it in Galatians. This is too long a topic
for the current window.

Eric: Peter then in Antioch saying something that Paul very importantly
omits telling us,
Bob: We have action reported from Paul. By Paul's words and Peter's action,
I don't see how you could infer Peter's subordination to James, or any
content of Peter's unreported words.

Eric: Paul gives the Galatians *only* his side of that argument;
Bob: Paul's argument is out of love, not out of a desire to win points at
Law. Have you read Nanos' Irony of Galatians? It is a very good read.

Eric: carrying out his own dictum stated in Romans 3:4,
Bob: Whatever you mean by this out of context allusion is beyond me - and I
jump around in my thoughts quite a bit. (Definition of fundamentalist
thought - the shortest distance between two scripture verses).

Eric: James,... decided that he did, after all, have to enforce God's
commandment
Bob: by what authority would this be enforced? Commandments don't get
enforced. They are promises - co-mandates - life in the Spirit - means of
grace. No first century person would have thought this way about covenant.

Eric: Paul himself had said in Romans 3:4&7 about truthfulness being
unnecessary.
Bob: Oh so that's what you are getting at above - the 'all Cretans are
liars' paradox (a point for the pastorals!). Well there are life-giving
words too and if we find the obedience of faith, we find life in them.

Eric: Peter, evidently, had not been informed that James had sent a backup
and was surprised at their arrival,
Bob: ignoring the rest of this paragraph, and accepting the accusation of
naive (again), I think your reconstruction fails here - As a boss, I confirm
messages, but I don't blindside people and put them in embarrassing
positions. But I do disagree with my mentors occasionally.

Eric: (Peter speaking) it is now my sad duty to inform you that the side
that you and I have pursued in this important matter was and is wrong.
Bob: You are an investigative reporter - trained I presume. I am an
untrained story teller. Peter didn't have any sad duty for Paul. Try another
thesis.

Eric: Perhaps you have never even so much as doubted the truthfulness of the
NT's explicit assertions that Peter was Jesus's favorite disciple,
Bob: I have never considered this - I know a beloved disciple when I hear
one or see one. I have no investment in any particular ancient disciple as
favoured.

Eric: Your reconstructions, Bob, <<snip>> canonical <<snip>> Your comments,
here and elsewhere, suggest to me that in your implicit ordering of
priorities, God precedes truth

Bob: jesting Pilate would not wait for an answer when he asked 'What is
truth?' I do not order priorities by words. Eric, Eric, you are concerned
about many things. One thing is needful.

peace

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
   the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca