Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Thanks to those of you who have responded to my question about views of
Paul's denial of apostleship from human (agents) or a human (agency) in Gal.
1:1. A brief scan reveals that all agree the contrast is made by Paul with a
view toward making it clear that his apostleship is not from the Jerusalem
apostles (that human/s = Jerusalem apostles).

While there is some variety when it comes to explaining the reason for the
human/divine contrast, there are relatively common views on this matter too.

Dieter M. objects to the idea contained in the other posts that Paul's
comment arises because he has been accused in Galatia of such dependence by
representatives of the Jer. apostles. ("What I find more difficult is
the assumption that usually accompanies this view, namely that Paul REacted
against opponents that questioned his authority.") Could Paul's rhetoric be
offensive (anticipatory) instead of defensive? (I too have argued that this
is the case in the situational discourse units of Gal). But if so, why would
the addressees be expected to make the connection human/s = the Jerusalem
apostles and not = some other local Gal authorities?

I wonder if most interpreters connect humans=Jer. apostles to
representatives in Galatia accusing Paul because, otherwise, the level of
ambiguity in Paul's use of "human/s" instead of directly stating "which
humans" makes it hard to comprehend how the addressees in Galatia would have
known what the interpreter knows, that this oblique reference to "human/s"
is to "the Jerusalem apostles"? Is that the probable logic?

--
Snapshot of responses to my original query:

Paul wants to claim an authority equal to that
of the Jerusalem Apostles based upon his own experience of the risen
Jesus, that he doesn't seem to be threatened by them, nor does he want to
settle for any perception of secondary authority compared to theirs.
-Tom Edmondson

When Paul claims that his doctrine is not from humans, he is denying that he
owes it to the teaching of the Jerusalem Church.
-Hyam Maccoby

Hence, the 'not from men' of the prescript serves
to undermine the potential view (of his doubters) that, being a late-comer,
Paul derived his 'apostleship' from a church (Antioch, presumably) rather
than from Jesus/God
-Dr John P. Dickson

I agree that the emphasis of 1:1 is on the divine source and that Paul put
himself on a par with the Jerusalem leaders.
-Dieter Mitternacht

Paul insists on his independence of Jerusalem makes sence when Paul[s
opposition comes from Judaizers who appealed to the pillars in Jerusalem.
The Judaizes could have argued that Paul's authority came from Jerusalem's
leaders even when he visited them.
-Billy Evans


In the immediate context of Galatians, when he deploys the phrases he of
course signals his independence from the leaders of the assembly in
Jerusalem--
this would be politically expedient given the probability that
representatives from that group (e.g. Cephas, men from James, false
believers) had recently claimed in Galatia that Paul's official status was
subject to the supervision of Jerusalem and that he had learned his message
from them--but he means much more as well:
the gospel he preaches comes directly from God,
via the Lord, which is the ground of all apostolic authority; Christ, not a
human being or the message of a human, is revealed "in" Paul, through his
preaching, so that those who receive him receive a message grounded not on
(his own or any other) human authority but grounded in a spiritual,
effectively prophetic, authority.
-Matthew C. Baldwin


Thanks again,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT comcast.net