Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Moon,

I believe that both Peter and Paul behaved
understandably -- Peter dithered, Paul blew his stack.
I would refrain, however, from using the term
"hypocrite" as a neutral label for describing Peter's
behavior, because in a collectivist culture, acting
one way and thinking another is not necessarily a mark
of hypocrisy (whether or not you are insulted as one).
You should act according to the way the people expect
you to act. If many of the Antioch Christians were
having doubtful feelings (like Peter) about treating
non-proselytes as full and equal heirs to the promises
of Abraham -- or sensitive about "flaunting" the fact
to outsiders, or in certain company -- then Peter's
behavior can hardly be labelled hypocrisy. If, on the
other hand, the majority of the Antioch Christians
felt as strongly as Paul did, then Peter's dithering
**could** be considered hypocrisy, since his behavior
did not square with what the in-group expected of him.


The question also hinges on the relationship between
Paul and the pillars, and outside Judaism. If Peter
and Paul were rival missionaries from the start, then
Paul could insult Peter all he wanted (and
vice-versa). But if they were colleagues (as I
believe) -- and if they remained colleagues after the
Antioch incident (as I also believe) -- then the
question becomes more thorny. In an honor-shame
culture, publicly insulting a friend can make him an
instant enemy, unless you have a very good reason for
shaming him. Did Paul overkill Peter by insulting him?
I would say it depends on how the majority of the
Antiochene Christians felt about the issue. If Paul
was shaming Peter in order to make him fall back in
line, then perhaps it wasn't overkill. If Paul was a
voice crying in the wilderness, however, then his
shaming of Peter could be construed as an act of
self-righteousness.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
>From rossoiii AT yahoo.com  Thu Apr 17 07:39:41 2003
Return-Path: <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from web41504.mail.yahoo.com (web41504.mail.yahoo.com
        [66.218.93.87])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id B1A232006C
        for <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20030417113940.7705.qmail AT web41504.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [64.80.28.137] by web41504.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:39:40 PDT
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030416132850.32319.qmail AT web41507.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Time: Paul's Peasant Present
X-BeenThere: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul>,
        <mailto:corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/corpus-paul>
List-Post: <mailto:corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul>,
        <mailto:corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:39:41 -0000

List --

Bruce Malina has written an interesting essay called
"Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean", in which he
argues that pre-industrial peasants had no
understanding of eschatology as we know it today. He
distinguishes between "forthcoming" (the focus of
peasants) and "future" (the concern of prophets,
and/or scribes and elites). The latter may rightly be
called eschatology, but the former is really
"soonology", "nextology", or "proximatology" in which
present and immediate future blend together under a
prolonged "now". Here is a snap-shot of Malina's
presentation, which I cited recently on the Dale
Allison Seminar in our discussions of the historical
Jesus:

"Peasant societies invariably have the present as
first-order temporal preference; secondary preference
is past; and the future comes in as third choice...For
members of Jesus-movement groups, God's Kingdom was
forthcoming, Jesus' emergence as messiah with power
was forthcoming, the transformation of social
realities in favor of God's people was forthcoming.
Yet for the audiences of Mark, Matthew, and Luke,
things changed. The coming of Jesus was moved into
imaginary time...In the New testament writings, we can
see how the forthcoming became future, how the
experienced became imaginary...Jesus was once
perceived by present-oriented people as the
forthcoming messiah with power. This perception was
rooted in actual, experienced time situated in an
operational realm abuting the horizon of the present.
Given the press of events, however, this perception
had subsequently proceeded beyond that horizon into
the realm of the possible, of the future rooted in
imaginary time...accessible only to [Christian]
prophets." (pp 182,193,208)

Malina concludes that for peasants no tension exists
between the "now" and "not yet" -- since both are
subsumed under a rather broad and prolonged "now",
any future dimension understood as immediately
"forthcoming" which impinges directly on (or is
actualized in) the present. The (non forthcoming)
future, on the other hand, as the realm of the
imaginary, belongs exclusively to God who speaks
through his prophets. (See pp 210-211.) 

The distinction between forthcoming and future is one
I find interesting, if a bit murky. In a series of
private emails, Bruce Malina has been very helpful in
clarifying his position to me. I (along with seminar
guest Dale Allison) had found the forthcoming/future
distinction a bit superficial -- and perhaps yet
another scholarly device by which unnattractive and
embarrassing notions of future eschatology can be
banished away from "heroes" like Jesus and Paul.
Malina wrote (in his email, which I quote with his
permission):

"My distinction [between forthcoming and future] is
based on basic data from field studies on folks
interested in time. The first datum is that peasants
and ghetto youth today are present oriented and the
reason for that is that they are not sure of having
their daily basic needs (food, clothing, shelter)
taken care of. It was only with the Industrial
Revolution that an economy of abundance emerged so
that people might plan for a future that allowed for
several years of crop failure. Modern ghetto youth are
not interested in college (a typical future oriented
endeavor in which young people are kept out of the
labor market for a good number of years, hence must be
supported by someone's surplus; no surplus, no
future!). The same is true with peasants: no surplus,
no future."

This entails a revision of how we should understand
any "future" expectations of people like Jesus and
Paul. Malina continues:

"Jesus' proclamation was for 'soon' or 'this
generation.' Peasants have a nothing ventured nothing
gained attitude. So lets wait and see if it happens in
this generation. If not, forget about it. Notice Paul
has this problem with the Thessalonians as 'this
generation' began to 'sleep.' One generation's wait is
forthcoming, not future. This generation is actually
around, standing and seeing stuff and can await the
culmination of its present rooted hopes. Once this
generation goes, the game is over and all go home. No
harm in expecting, but now back to work. This not
eschatology but soonology, nextology, proximatology."

Malina is currently working on a Romans commentary,
which he kindly outlined for me. I won't copy the
outline here, only summarize his theme of "Time:
Paul's Peasant Present" under three divisions in
Romans. (1) Rom 2:1-3:20 is called "from past to
present" (focusing on the law, decalogue,
circumcision, Judean advantages); (2) Rom 3:21-8:39 is
called "now" (focusing on a new revelation for Israel
+ the proof-text, humanity reconciled to God, dead to
sin and alive to God while living in the spirit); and
(3) Rom 9:1-15:13 is called "forthcoming based on the
present" (focusing on what will soon happened to
Israel and the Gentiles, based on the present
attitudes and activites of each).

So even I Thess passim and Rom 11:25-27 are understood
by Malina to be "forthcoming" (and thus really
present-focused), not "future".

There is much about Malina's argument I find helpful,
but I remain dubious about the idea that peasants as a
rule could not have been future-oriented. Indeed,
Malina's argument stands the
eschatological/millenarian model on its head. We have
been told that eschatology -- the millenarian dream --
is the hope of the disaffected and those unhappy with
their lot in life; that peasants often bank hopes on
future eschatology so that God will start providing
the much-needed surplus and set things to right.
Malina now insists that soonology (or nextology, or
proximatology) is the actual hope of these folks; that
peasants are invariably focused on the present.

I am interested in seeing what other list-members
think about Malina's argument in general, and the
forthcoming/future distinction in particular --
especially (for the sake of this list) as applied to
the apostle Paul. 

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
>From Torrey.Seland AT hivolda.no  Sat Apr 19 06:44:42 2003
Return-Path: <Torrey.Seland AT hivolda.no>
Delivered-To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from HVO-5.hivolda.no (hvo-5.hivolda.no [158.38.75.8])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E49920006
        for <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:44:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 158.38.75.11 by HVO-5.hivolda.no (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall
        NT); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:43:10 -0700
Received: from HVOD-Message_Server by hvo-3.hivolda.no
        with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:43:09 +0200
Message-Id: <sea1445d.072 AT hvo-3.hivolda.no>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:43:04 +0200
From: "Seland,Torrey" <Torrey.Seland AT hivolda.no>
To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>, <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Ang: [Corpus-Paul] Time: Paul's Peasant Present
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 08:46:36 -0400
X-BeenThere: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul>,
        <mailto:corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/corpus-paul>
List-Post: <mailto:corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul>,
        <mailto:corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:44:42 -0000



>>> rossoiii AT yahoo.com 17.04.03 13:39:40 >>>
wrote (snipp snipp...)

I am interested in seeing what other list-members
think about Malina's argument in general, and the
forthcoming/future distinction in particular --
especially (for the sake of this list) as applied to
the apostle Paul.=20
--------------

You may be interested in knowing that in the recent Festschrift to Paul J. =
Achtemeier (A.Andrew Das & Frank J. Matera (eds), The Forgotten God. =
Perspectives in Biblical Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville,=
 2002)), on pp.229-248, David E. Aune has an article on 'God and Time in =
the Apocalypse'. On pp.238ff he discusses the view of Malina and others on =
Biblical and Apocalyptic Perspectives on Time.=20
Here he, inter alia, argues that " Malina's rejection of the terms ' =
apocalyptic' and 'eschatological' as moderne temporal conceptions imposed =
on ancient thought is based in part on a misrepresentation of their =
meaning in modern scholarship. Scholars generally use these terms to =
refer, not to distant future, but rather to the imminent future transformat=
ion of the world, that is, the end of history."
On the other hand, he argues several  possible metaphors for considering =
time in addition to the line and circle, including the spiral, and  the =
'zigzak'......

TorreyS