Corpus-Paul

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

on 2/22/05 12:38 PM, Mitternacht Dieter at dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se
wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> What I still see is outside influence is admitted; however it arrives
> (obviously it took messengers from Jerusalem or ones from Galatia who
> returned with the news), it is after interference (at least, of opinion)
> from outside that Paul learns of the situation and responds in the letter we
> have. Is that not influence from outside to which Paul is understood to
> respond, albeit qualified in the way you have clarified?
> 
> Yes, I agree. Should that be a problem, do you think? I believe there are
> enough hints in Paul's letters to assume that there was interaction between
> the churches. What I argue agaisnt since I can't see in the texts, is the
> idea of certain people continously on Paul's heels, trying to reverse his
> efforts from place to place. THAT kind of outside influence I find difficult
> to verify. But that there was interaction between different groups of
> Christ-believers, and that indivuduals travelled to Jerusalem (for guidance
> or confrontation, Gal 1-2) I find natural to assume (see further below).
> 
> Mark:
> I bring this up because I do not even see that level of outside influence
> having to do with Jerusalem, although it is of course possible.
> 
> Dieter
> If it is possible, then there must be some important reason why you would
> reject it right out. Please explain.

Dieter,
Because I understand the Jerusalem apostles to share Paul's view, not that
of the influencers in Galatia.

In other words, against the prevailing view in Pauline studies that James,
et al in Jerusalem would have non-Jews become proselytes, I believe Paul's
argument in chapters 1 and 2 offers good reason to think that they would
not, any more than Paul, even if they came to that view independent of Paul,
and might not be as firm in resolve to uphold it as rigorously as Paul. Or
maybe better, to uphold it as publicly.

That seems to me what he implies, and it makes sense that in the Judean
situation it would have been an even more sensitive issue that had grave
social results, the results that led the collection project, to help those
in Judea suffering materially for upholding this policy of non-proselyte
conversion within Christ-believing Judaism--just like in Pauline Judaism.
Hence the participation in the non-Jews who benefit in a collection for the
Judeans--administered by Paul.

Call me meshuganah, but it is indeed what I think Paul's rhetoric suggests.

Geia sou,
Mark

> 
> Mark:
> But I do not think that Paul's raising the issues of Jerusalem and Antioch
> implies any
> direct influence, such as communication, even if in response.
> 
> Dieter:
> The concept of involving the leadership in Jerusalem in major decisions,
> even if it meant opposing them, is basic to Paul's argument in Gal 1-2. The
> least this must imply, I think, is that the efforts described made sense to
> Paul as something the addressees would accept as necessary and worhtwile.
> Thus, I think it is safe to assume that the Galatians were familiar with the
> idea of going south for council.  I believe that Paul wrote Gal 1-2
> primarily for the purpose of demonstrating his umwavering character. But
> this rhetoric functions only if he knows that he can expect the addressees
> to accept the necessity of the conflicts he is reporting to having gotten
> himself into. Otherwise, the rhetorical risk is too high, and the
> conclucison drawn by the recipients might be that this guy is just looking
> for trouble, and if he can't get it in Athens he looks for it in Jerusalem.
> 
> Dieter 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>