Corpus-Paul

[Jeff Krantz <jkrantz AT optonline.net>]

Dear Listers,

Having gotten this thread started, I feel obligated to respond to some of
the critiques of Nanos' work posted.  Again I thank Ian Scott for helping to
get things going.

I disagree with him, though, on almost every point of his post.  He may yet
remain unconvinced, but I don't think the reasons he offered hold up under
scrutiny.

> 1) There is significant evidence in the letter that the "influencers" are
in
> fact believers in Christ. The implication in 1:6-9 certainly seems to be
that
> the influencers understand themselves to be preaching a gospel, i.e. to be
> preaching the message about Christ.

This reading of euangellion doesn't recognize the other uses to which it was
put in the imperial period, i.e. the Priene inscription, which describes the
birthday of Augustus as "good news" or "gospel" for the whole world.  It
seems that there were different, non-Christ-believing "gospels" in the
thought world of the addressees.


>  Notice that the
> curse in 1:8 only applies to self-consciously Christian teachers.

I'm not sure I understand the logical leap that requires those cursed in 1:8
to be "Christian teachers."  Once we've established that there are gospels
other than Christian ones floating around in Paul's world, the necessity of
this conclusion fades away.

I'd add that the use of "teachers" in this context, itself a product of the
"new perspective" on Paul raises inevitable echoes of J. L. Martyn.  (Nanos
addresses this iamge in Irony, pp. 130-131.)  I would just like to point out
that in current circles "teachers" already means "Christian teachers."  I
don't have all of Nanos' reservations about the term, as even his
description of their role in the Jewish community includes (even if it is
not limited to) much catechesis.  I prefer Nanos' term, "influencers"
though, because, of the labels available to us, this seems the least
pre-conception laden.

> 2) Similarly, in 6:12 the implication is clearly that the influencers are
in a
> position in which they could be persecuted because of Christ's cross. Even
if
> this motive is entirely Paul's idea, such a suggestion (in order to be
> rhetorically effective) must at least be plausible, and I still don't see
that
> it is plausible unless the influencers are believers in that cross. Nanos
> argues that there was a threat of reprisals from civic authorities if not
all
> those identified as "Jewish" were maintaining the clear signs of Jewish
> identity.

I think Scott's second objection founders on two separate shoals.

A)  I believe that he mis-reads most of Nanos' arguement about 6:12 and the
motivation of the influencers.  While he (Nanos) does mention (briefly!) the
concern for potential loss of rights and status granted them due to their
Jewish identity, this part of his argument is the least important element. I
do not share Nanos' conviction that this motivation is "easier to
understand" than the intra-group persecution/loss of face to shich he
devotes much more page space.  On the contrary, granting the addressees the
status of "righteous ones" apart from proselyte conversion (circumcision)
seems to have litte import in terms of relationship to civil authorities.
(I admit that my take on this may be colored by coming from a dominant
cultural group in the present...)  Rather, the intra-group cost would the
more immediate and profound.  Allow me to give an example from the
present...

I am a priest in the Episcopal Church.  I am supposed to offer the elements
of the Eucharist only to the baptized.  If I were intentionally to admit
non-baptized persons to Communion, and this were to become known, criticism
from within the community that is most fundamental to my sense of identity
would be swift and heavy.  Loss of status would be significant and
long-lasting.  (I'd find myself black-balled from most parishes and
dioceses.)  On the other hand, my group's (parish's) status as a tax exempt
organization would be unaffected.

Scott hasn't dealt at all with this larger (in space given to it) and more
(experientially) meaningful part of Nanos' reading of 6:12.

B) The second difficulty Scott's argument stumbles over is that it seems to
me that those who desire to read the influencers as Christ-believers have an
obligation to show why the non-circumcision of the addressees increases in a
meaningful way the risk of persecution "for the Cross of Christ."  Indeed,
it may have increased the addressees' risk substantially, but not that of
the influencers.  Until a convincing explanation of the perception of
increased risk/liklihood of persecution for _Christ believers_ can be made,
the former arguments for an intra-group loss of face hold much more weight.

> 3) Nanos argues that Paul still, thoughout Galatians, supports the full
> observance of Torah for Jews. Yet this is difficult to square with, e.g.,
> Paul's description of Peter in Antioch as having lived *ethnikws*. Peter
(and
> by implication Barnabas as well as Paul himself) had been living "in a
Gentile
> manner." This must include at least some compromise of their Torah
observance.
> Moreover, there is nothing in 2:14 to indicate that Paul disapproves of
such a
> state of affairs. This, in combination with the way in which Paul portrays
> himself as among those liberated from the law's supervision in 3:23-27,
> certainly suggests that the Apostle sees the role of Torah as
fundamentally
> changed in light of the cross -- for Jews as well as for Gentiles.

I think that Scott misunderstands the impact of Christ-belief on Paul, the
Torah observant (not Torah bound) Jew.

By his (Scott's) suggestion that Paul, were he Torah observant, would/should
have objected to Peter's life as ETHNIKWS with the Gentiles in Antioch, he
overlooks one of Pauls most important ethical considerations.  Paul
repeatedly exhorts those to whom he writes to subvert their individual
freedoms to the needs of the "weak" among them.  In Romans he requests that
Gentile Christ believers subvert their freedom from Torah observance for the
sake of their non-believing Jewish co-worshipers.  In 1 Corinthians those
who "know" that idols have no power are asked to subvert that freedom to
east meat sacrificed to idols to the needs of those who not not yet "know."
So, Paul (if he believed that the separation Torah observance by the strong
would cause might harm the perception of the unity of the Gospel for the
weaker Gentile believers) would surely subvert his "freedom" to observe
Torah as a Christ-believer for the sake of the Gentiles (and, as he did,
also demand the same of other "strong" ones, i.e. Peter).  This then, makes
clear the inapplicability of Scott's citation of 3:23-27 as well.  Paul is
indeed "free" to observe (as Scott has suggested when he says that the role
of Torah has changed for Paul) as Torah's role as PAIDAGOGOS has passed for
him.  He has a relationship to Torah that permits to observe or refrain from
observing as the situation and the needs of the message of Christ require.
(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

> 4) As for Paul's opinion of the status of law-observant
(non-Christ-believing)
> Jews, I think it is impossible to maintain that he portrays them in
Galatians
> as participating in salvation. Paul's Hagar/Sarah allegory identifies the
> present Jerusalem with Hagar, the slave whose children are excluded from
the
> promise. This must imply that those associated with "Jerusalem" are
excluded
> from salvation in Christ.

This fourth objection is, at least at first glance, most troubling, as it
conforms more closely than any of the others to the anti-Jewish Paul of
Bousset/Bultmann.  Nowhere does Paul say in the allegory of hagar that the
child of the slave is exluded "from the promise" (and therefore from
salvation).  In fact, Paul clearly states that both children/communities
have _their own promises_!  (They are both covenants, promises...)  Insted,
Ishmael is to be driven out because he will nto share in the *inheritance*
of the promise.  That is, (if we go back and re-read Genesis) each child
will have *his own inheritance* (as God affirms when re-assuring Abraham
that of Ishmael there will also be a nation born.)

"Drive them out!" cries Paul of the influencers, "Their inheritance is not
yours!  Don't confuse them!"


For the reasons cited above, I can't personally give weight to Scott's
reasons for rejecting Nanos' construction, though I remain grateful that the
objections were raised.  Insights as startling as Nanos' should not be
dismissed without conversation!

I too would dread a list full of "insiders" who feel compelled to subscribe
to one view of Paul in order to participate.  Nanos' re-imagining of Paul is
so radically different from anything that we've seen before, that to discuss
other, less fundamental issues without acknowledging where we stand is
rather like discussing decorating options for the living room like wall
color or carpet texture without deciding what to do with the three-foot-wide
hole in the center of the floor.  Do we view it as something to be repaired?
Or easy access to the basement?


Sincerely Yours,

Jeff Krantz