Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] The Antioch Incident
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:58:50 -0800 (PST)

Ian wrote:

>It seems to me, though, that Paul's
>description of the Antioch incident
>still requires that Paul was at least
>violating food regulations on a regular
>basis when he was in mixed communities.

I would insist -- following Philip Esler and Mark
Nanos -- that Antioch was emphatically not about food
laws. It was about circumcision, just as Gal 2:12
implies, and thus about who ate with whom. The men
from James were saying in effect that Gentiles had to
become proselytes in order to share table-fellowship
on an equal basis with Jewish people. Antioch centered
on the question of full conversion to Judaism, rather
than food laws, as if to imply that something "less
drastic" than circumcision was being imposed by way of
compromise. As Esler notes, "modern notions of fair
play" have hindered scholars from interpreting the
Antioch incident correctly (Galatians, p 137). This
is, after all, why Paul recounts the incident: it has
direct bearing on the Galatian crisis (Gal 5:2-3).

Sharing this remarkable commonality, Esler and Nanos
draw otherwise opposite conclusions about Antioch.
Esler thinks the pillars revoked their agreement to
leave Gentiles free of any obligation to become
circumcised (Gal 2:1-10). Peter, by withdrawing from
table-fellowship, went back on his word, prompted by
the men from James. By the canons of honor-shame, the
pillars were under no obligation to keep their promise
to a rival like Paul, and every reason to back-bite
him for having gotten the better of them with the
Titus situation. So on this line of thinking, Antioch
was about back-biting -- the pillars' revenge on Paul.

Mark sees things differently, believing James'
delegates to have been non-Christian outsiders who
didn't agree with James. Peter ended up capitulating
to outside influence, but only temporarily; the
pillars remained on the same page with Paul, as they'd
always been.

Whether we go in Esler's or Nanos' (or another)
direction, we need to take seriously that proselyte
conversion (Gal 2:12 ~ 5:2-3) is what Antioch was
about. Acts 15 should be held at arm's length and
dealt with only after Gal 2 is hammered out on its own
right. Moreover, neither reading *necessarily*
requires Paul himself to have abandoned Jewish dietary
laws. (Though with all due respect to Mark, it
wouldn't surprise me, especially in light of I Cor
9:19-23.)

Note: I recently wrote a blogpost about Antioch, which
drew some interesting comments:

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/03/treachery-at-antioch.html

Best wishes to all,

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page