Corpus-Paul

[Frank Jacks <cfjacks AT comcast.net>]

tim AT timgallant.org wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim West" <jwest AT highland.net>
> To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's diatribe against Peter
>
>
>   
> > Hello,
> >
> > While I see your point, I think there is a clear "break" in 3:1 where
> > Paul again addresses the Galatians directly.  It seems to me that in
> > 2:14-21 Paul is reciting an incident (relating his sermon to Peter) as
> > an illustration of the fact that he won't back down- even in the face of
> > power and authority.  Having made the point by relating his denunciation
> > of Peter, he refocuses attention on his primary audience, the crazy,
> > hacking Galatians.
> >     
>
> The way I look at it is that the whole *could* be a citation of his rebuke 
> of Peter - but even if it is not, the "remainder" is a self-conscious 
> unfolding of the implications of whatever he said to Peter. So in that 
> sense, it's almost a moot point, I think.
>
> tim
>
>
>
> Tim Gallant
> Elder, Christ Covenant Church
> http://www.christcovenant.ca 
>   

A word from the balcony and please excuse this intrusive "chiming in," 
but I begin by endorsing what Tim says here, by adding a point or two 
about Paul's style (or lack thereof). Over the years, it has often been 
observed that Paul has a "run-on style," meaning that both grammatically 
and in content is creates complex and compound structures which have no 
end.  I forget now which one of the chapters in Romans was described as 
just one long sentence but there are many examples of such, as well as 
often Paul himself loses the logic (both grammatical and content) of his 
exposition, by (as an example) beginning a point with "on the one hand" 
and never getting around to the appropriate and reciprocal "on the other 
hand."  At of which suggests that
Paul himself might not recognize just how or where he begins with 
talking about what he said to Peter (perhaps deserving being placed in 
quotations marks, to conform to our conventions, if not his) and ends up 
talking to his audience in Galatia.
I would agree that identifying the "point of departure" might be both 
impossible and unnecessary ... that Paul clearly does make this 
transition (which doubtless in his mind was all of a piece) is the only 
point about which we can be clear, and the transition is made "somewhere 
in the middle" but neither we nor Paul now know where or perhaps even 
how ... but the why is clear, isn't it?

So now back to the balcony for me,

Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union NYC)
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College,
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)