Mark Nanos on the Myth of the Law-Free Paul

My friend Mark Nanos has published his ETS-paper on "The Myth of the 'Law-Free' Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews" at the on-line journal Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. Mark there gives his arguments for Paul being a law-observant Jew.

Why Did Paul Persecute the Church?

On why did Paul persecute the church, here is an idea from Mark Nanos that I think must feature in an answer in some way:

'That policy is the one for which he claims to be persecuted later, namely, for not “still” preaching circumcision of non-Jews (Gal 5:11). While Paul championed this move, he probably did not initiate it. Rather, since before the dramatic revelation of Christ in him and call to bring this message to the nations, he was the most vicious opponent of this policy, it is likely that this policy of including non-Jews as full members was a propositional truth for Christ based groups that predated his change of course. If so, what motivated Paul’s zealous was not a failure by Jewish members of the Christ groups to observe Torah per se. They were observing, for example, Sabbath and dietary customs, and circumcising their sons. At issue was a change of policy based on an alternative interpretation of Torah for defining the inclusion of non-Jews as full and equal members based on the claim that God has in Christ initiated the age to come kingdom with just such expectations for embers of the rest of the nations to join alongside Israel in the worship of the One God'.

Mark Nanos, ‘Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul's Judaism,’ in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on Paul’ in Mark Given, ed. Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, forthcoming 2009). See an on-line version here.

Mark Nanos on the “weak” in 1 Corinthians 8—11, Part Two

Mark Nanos argues in his yet-to-be-published paper “The Polytheist Identity of the ‘Weak,’ And Paul’s Strategy to ‘Gain’ Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1—11:1” that the ‘weak’ are polytheists, that is non-believing Gentile idolaters. These Mark asserts “are not resistant to eating idol food; rather, the impaired have always eaten idol food as an act of religious significance . . . the impaired are not insecure in their faith, they do not share faith in Christ with the knowledgeable” (12).

I want to agree with Mark's interpretation because I share his conviction that Paul practiced the Torah out of a deep sense of faith and conviction and therefore he would not have agreed with that idol food is of no consequence. I come to this passage ready to receive a fresh interpretation based on a new paradigm. And while Mark offers several compelling and fresh insights the whole argument for me is still wanting. This is the case for several reasons and it is not that my mind is made up, but I will not be convinced of Mark’s thesis until he can adequately answer the following issues sufficiently:

(1) The meaning of adelphoi (1 Cor 8:11-12). Try as he may Mark does not provide a sufficient case for taking adelphoi in the context of 1 Cor 8—11 as a reference to non-believing Gentiles. While showing the widespread usage of “fictive kinship” in the Mediterranean world and its potential reference to humankind (pp. 25-31), he cannot show Paul generally in this letters nor specifically 1 Corinthians uses the term in any other way than to refer to fellow believers. I think he undermines his case when he appeals to 1 Cor 5:9-12 where Paul explicitly distinguishes between idolaters and those who call themselves “brother or sister”. Mark I need something more to be convinced.

(2) Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8:1-13 and within it the significance of the term “knowledge” as well as Paul’s concern for the potential defilement of more believers (1 Cor 8:7). Here I can do no more than point out that Paul’s concern seems to be related to the elitism of some who think they have “knowledge”, but don’t reflect the life concomitant with true knowledge (8:1-3). For Paul the issue “concerning eating things sacrificed to idols” (8:4), of which they asked, revealed this fact in the recipients. While Paul asserts that all men don’t have the knowledge of the oneness of God, he nevertheless is interested here in the issue within the context of the believing community. This seems to be is the significance of the term “defiled” (moluventai) in 8:7. The potential for defilement of more believers--ultimately apostasy I think is in view--(8:11) is the issue. Thus Paul’s concern is the potential of idolatry and its consequence for a Christ-believer more than the present practice of idolatry by non-Christ believing Gentiles.

Furthermore, if the term “knowledge” understood so narrowly to be the only a reference to something that differentiation between those in or out of Christ faith, then it makes no sense why Paul would need to state emphatically that not all have this knowledge (8:7). The receipts being former idolaters themselves would clearly know that their fellow Corinthians who were not Diaspora Israelites would not have this knowledge. What appears to be the sharp edge of Paul’s pastoral exhortation is his point that there are those among their “family” who struggle to comprehend the implications of the Gospel. It is those “weak” who Paul is concerned for.

The final two issues I will only mention:

(3) The function Paul’s appeal to ancient Israel’s example (1 Cor 10:1-22). If apostasy is Paul’s real concern in 1 Cor 8 than his appeal to ancient Israel makes clear sense.

(4) Paul’s assertion that he became “weak” to win the “weak” (9:22) would be hard to comprehend if the “weak” are defined only as polytheists in the context. How can we think that Paul became a polythesist in any real sense? Note the different grammatical structure in 9:22 from the other items in 9:20-22 where "as" (hos) is used.

I am of the mind at least for now that while there are many problems with the traditional reading, which Mark usefully points out, these are not insurmountable and the underlying presuppositions that have informed the interpretation don’t need to be shared. So I will continue to hold to a more traditional interpretation with significant revisions.

On the whole, Mark does make a compelling argument that the “weak’ or “impaired” as he calls them, can in abstract be a reference to non-believing Gentile idolaters. His mention of Romans 5:6-10 seems to justify this sense of the term. Furthermore, it is not at all impossible or improbable that Paul would have had just the concern Mark asserts about the conduct of Christ-believing Gentiles. He would certainly be concerned with the conduct of believers with respect to the outsider and it is probable that he would have had a more specific concern that believers’ participation in the eating of idol food or the temple cults would be a obstacle to the truth of the Gospel. This is all quite true no doubt. Thus the question for me is not whether Mark rightly describes a Pauline concern—this is incontestable and perhaps even present; yet the significant point is whether in fact this is Paul’s primary concern here in 1 Corinthians 8—11. What’s more, is it even possible that within this context both concerns, that is inside and outside, are present, which then would account for the difference in discussions in chapters 8 and 10 respectively.

I think that the hypothesis that best explains the passage is one that focuses on the real and every present danger of further apostasy by members of the community of Christ-believers. Within the culture of Corinth there would no doubt have been tremendous pressure on Christ-believers to either apostatize completely or at the very least to practice some form of syncretistic worship.

.

Perhaps the most profound observation to make of this passage is that Paul lays the responsibilty at the feet of the members of the community of faith to keep this from happening. If only we would take that kind of responsibility for other members of Christ's church.

Mark Nanos on the “weak” in 1 Corinthians 8—11, Part One

Mark Nanos, as I have come to expect, has offered interpreters of Paul an alternative reading of a familiar text. What I especially appreciate about Mark’s work, is that whether in the end I agree with this conclusions, I am always forced to think differently about a Pauline text. Mark looks at well-trodden passages in Paul from new vistas and this is refreshing. No different is the case with this recently updated and unpublished paper titled “The Polytheist Identity of the ‘Weak”, And Paul’s Strategy to ‘Gain’ Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1—11:1”.

.

I planned to write a brief review consisting of one post, but alas I again find I just can’t be brief—or better his paper deserves better than brief—so I will break this review up among a few posts.
.
Mark’s thesis is that the “weak", whom he prefers to label "impaired" (more on this later), throughout 1 Cor 8—11 are not what the traditional and prevailing interpretation asserts, namely Christ believers who are prone to idolatry because of their cultural baggage. Through 33 pages of argumentation Mark contends that the group in view is instead non-believing idolatrous Corinthians. And since no moniker is better, he labels them “polytheists”, by which he means “non-Christ-believing-non-Jews” (1).
.
Mark begins with a largely even-handed review of traditional interpretations of the referent of Paul’s term “weak”, which differ slightly in detail, but agree on the Christ-believing identity of the group. He lists several reasons why he thinks the traditional interpretation has had such convincing force. Among the reasons are (1) Paul’s reference to this group as “brothers/sisters”, (2) Paul’s assertion that to sin against them is to sin against Christ, and (3) Paul’s assumption that the weak brothers and sisters are vulnerable to influence by the knowledgeable. What’s more, Mark suggests prevailing meta-assumptions about Paul also function to support the traditional reading not least the prevailing view of Paul as one who no longer is a Torah-observant Jew since converting to Christ faith.

.

While I will say more about these things later, I would quibble with the way he paints with broad strokes the assumptions of the traditional interpretation at least on one of the points. He seems to assume that all who hold the traditional view presume that the weak are “not mature enough in their Christ-faith to think like the knowledgeable ones” (9, emphasis added). This negatively slanted characterization of Paul’s presentation of the weak may characterize many if not most of the perspectives in the traditional camp, but it certainly is not shared by all.

.

A critical eye toward the weak, at least in my view (although I am yet to admit that I fit as a traditionalist in this discussion), could not be farther from the context of 1 Cor 8-11 since all criticism is aimed squarely at those with the so-called knowledge, the presumed strong. Thus, whatever might be thought of the weak, Paul gives no reason to think that he wishes them to mature beyond their current mindset. In fact, Paul seems to assume that such a phenomenon is simply a fact of reality of which the knowledgeable must accommodate.

Nanos on “Living like a Gentile” in Galatians 2:14

One more post on the issue of "living like a Gentile" in Galatians 2:14.

Mark Nanos has a novel interpretation of the clause which deserves attention. He proposes that the traditional reading of the phrase “living like a Gentile” should not be understood as a critique of Peter’s behavior—be it related to dietary laws (e.g. Longenecher) or Noachide commands (Dunn), but rather a statement of identity. Paul, therefore, asserts that Peter continues to recognize the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are made righteous before God in the same way. Nanos’ offers this equation: “living” = justification/legitimation; he states: “Paul’s challenge assumes that Peter still understands his righteous standing (“living” = justification/legitimation) to be based in Christ” (2002:314). His proposal is based primarily on two interrelated observations: (1) the present tense of the verb “living” needs to have its temporal force and (2) the point of the argument in 2:15-21 should be read back into 2:14 such that the issue for which Paul was concerned was not one of practice, but of identity.

With respect to the former, Nanos thinks that interpreters have not noticed the temporal force of the tense of zoā (“to live”). According to Nanos, with the present tense-form Paul is not addressing Peter’s past actions, but how he is presently acting. Paul would have known that at the time of his confrontation, Peter was no longer acting in the way that characterized “Gentiles”, but Paul nevertheless regards Peter as in some sense continuing to live as a Gentile: “Peter is no longer living like a Gentile in the sense of his dietary practice: he is surely eating Jewishly at this point” (2002:313). Nanos thinks this underappreciated observation is the key to understanding Paul’s accusation. Taking the point of the tense-form temporally Paul is asserting that Peter continues to live Gentilely and Nanos attempts to explain how is can be and what is its force. Nanos interprets the verb “to live” as not expressing a manner of conduct of life, but as a figure of speech to express a state-of-being, that is a justified life before God:

The only sense in which Peter is still living in the same way as or like a Gentile when living separate from this Gentile table is in the sense of identity in Christ, which is, as Paul so clearly puts the case in vv. 15-16, but being justified in the same way as are these Gentiles, by faith in/of Christ” (2002:314).

Thus, his interpretation of “to live” is inextricably linked to his view that the theme of 2:15-21 continues what was here the issue: identity in Christ. He comments: “although Paul’s theme of how Jew and Gentile are justified—live before God and with each other in Christ—is often noted by interpreters as the theme of vv. 16-21, I am simply suggesting that this same theme is present in v. 14 when Paul writes of how Peter ‘lives’” (2002:315). In 2:15-21 Nanos observes that Paul employs the language of living to challenge the implication that arises for these Gentiles from the discriminatory behavior of Peter and the other Jews who join him.

Nanos’ interpretation of Galatians 2:14 is not only fresh but more fully to integrates the narrative of the incident (2:11-14) with Paul’s discourse of 2:15-21 than perhaps previous attempts have been able to do. I am convinced by the assertion that Paul’s point in both sections is related to identity and not simply to practice. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced by two aspects of his interpretation.

(1) Given that tense-form primarily communicates aspect and not time, one would have to have solid pointers in the context to suggest that the time of action and not kind of action is in view when the present tense-form is used. In other words, noticing that a verb form is in the present tense does not, in Greek at least, mean that one should introduce the issue of time. While it is true that an author will most often use the present-tense form in a present temporal context, these are not one and the same. New Testament authors can and do use a present-tense form in a past temporal setting to communicate a continuous action. One might suggest that the imperfect tense-from would have been then the better choice if Paul was wishing to express Peter’s continuous action in the past. Yet, given the rhetorical nature of the conditional statement in the context of a past remembrance, it is just as likely if not more so that Paul’s used of the present-tense form is for emphasis: “Peter you continuously lived like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you continuously compel Gentiles to live like Jews?” What’s more, Paul’s point in the statement comes in the apodosis and the present tense of the protasis creates rhetorical symmetry. Even if this does not convince, I don’t think the present-tense form can bear the weight of the argument itself since I don’t see compelling contextual markers that highlight the temporal sense of the tense-form.

It is difficult then for me to agree with Nanos that Paul’s use of “living” in 2:14 is not primarily directed toward Peter’s practice or halakah described in the immediate context, although it is not in my view addressing dietary halakah. I do not, however, think that identity and practice here are unrelated. Thus, the issue of identity that Paul does then take up is appropriate because the identity of the Gentile, along with the Jew, has been redefined in light of Christ. Furthermore, that new identity had implications for intimate association between Jews and Gentiles which Peter because of fear of the circumcised stopped living out.

(2) Taking the verb “to live” as a figure of speech expressing state-of-being does make sense as Nanos argues, but the problem I have is that “living like a Gentile” is parallel with “living like a Jew”. And in view of this, his interpretation seems less useful. If we take Nanos’ reading of the former, what do we make of the latter? What is the state-of-being that is Jewishly that is in contrast? I don’t think that taking the “living as a Gentile” defined as “right standing before God” makes sense of the meaning of its parallel, but opposite partner, “living Jewishly”. For me, it just makes more sense that Paul is focusing on a manner of conduct characteristic of these two groups, namely the kind of associations characteristic of them.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Three

Mark Nanos has provided a very interesting proposal of the Antioch incident that deserves careful attention both in the overall reconstruction and in the details, although in this brief post I will not be able to address much more than a few points which are relevant to my own interests.

I begin by commending his evaluation of the traditional as well as the more recent interpretative trends. I find myself in hearty agreement with much of his analysis here and his critique of the scholarly assumptions that the “ones from James” are identical to the “circumcision party” and that Jewish dietary practices were the central issue. With respect to the latter, the oft stated idea that Peter did not eat according to prevailing Jewish dietary norms prior to the arrival of the one’s from James and shortly thereafter withdrew from this practice and again followed a stricter halakah cannot be substantiated by details in the passage itself. Among other things Mark observes that “in this text Paul never mentions the food itself, and he does not identify those with whom Peter fears as ‘the ones for Jewish diet’ or ‘for a more rigorous diet’ . . . [furthermore] “food is never the topic of concern in this letter” (2002:303,04, emphasis added). More emphatically Mark avers:

There is simply no explicit statement in this narrative or the whole letter that the meals at which Peter and the other Jewish believers in Jesus—including Paul(!)—had been “eating with Gentiles” included food that was objectionable on Jewish dietary terms (2002:304).

In addition to his analysis of previous approaches I would also find sympathy with his claim that identity and the issue of the status of Gentiles within the inaugurated eschatological community were an aspect of if not the central concern of all parties involved. I agree with Mark that in the subsequent discussion (Gal 2:15-21)—whether a summary of Paul’s continued reprimand of Peter in the moment or a later explanation added on for the letter—the issue it seems as Paul understood it was what Peter’s association or disassociation meant for the identity of the Gentiles as Gentiles in the inaugurated eschatoloical community. The issue of food laws is wholly absent. The focus is not on halakah related to food laws, but halakah related to association with perhaps a caveat that the two are not altogether disconnected of course, but can be distinguished. Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15-21 makes the point that both Jews and non-Jews are justified by Jesus Christ’s faithfulness [Ok I admit it: I take this as a subjective Gen.] and by their trust in (eis) that work of redemption just as the Gentiles are. Furthermore, I would add that the observation that this idea is reminiscent of Luke’s characterization of the Jerusalem perspective on the reception of the Spirit by non-Jews in Acts 10—11 and 15 is to me no coincidence. I will say more about this later.

The previous affirmation notwithstanding, there are still a couple of points that I would raise that still linger in my mind which leave me not fully convinced by Mark’s fresh explanation of the incident. The first relates to his interpretation of the collocation “the ones of/from circumcision”. First I am not yet convinced that the preposition ek implies the idea of “for” here. At the very least it would be an unusual use of the preposition. Had Paul wished to stress that the group in question “advocated” circumcision a more appropriate preposition was close at hand. While it is possible to interpret the group as those advocating circumcision—and on this point Mark is perhaps not far from the traditional view—it must be based on clear contextual clues and the preposition should not be forced into an inappropriate mold. Thus, Mark can assert that the group from out of the circumcision [i.e. Israelites] advocated proselyte circumcision thereby upholding the communal norms, but it cannot be sufficiently supported by the preposition.

Second, I am not so sure the preposition can bear the weight of the argument as Mark makes it. Once Mark establishes his reading of the ek early in the piece he then bases much of his reading of the incident on that point. Often he refers to the phrase “the ones for (or advocating) circumcision” to support a further step in his argument. For example, Mark states, “In fact, they are labeled by Paul according to their interest in the traditional way to negotiate the inclusion—not exclusion—of Gentiles seeking full membership among Jewish communities: ‘the ones for circumcision’” (2002:303, emphasis added). This strikes me as rather circular because it seems to me that the question of the identity of the group is precisely what needs to be argued for based on Paul’s reflection on the incident.

Finally, Mark thinks it obvious that Paul does not use the term “circumcision” to distinguish between believers and non-believers in Jesus since Paul, Barnabas and the rest of the Jews who are referenced in the passage would have themselves also been circumcised although believers. In this way they would be similar to all Israelites. He claims “the labels ‘the circumcision’ or ‘the ones from/out of circumcision’ by themselves do not sufficiently distinguish between Jews who believe in Christ and those who do not, but only between Jews and Gentiles” (Nanos 2002:288). However, he does further claim that the phrase can be employed “to distinguish among Jewish people” and in this way it would suggest an intra- or inter-Jewish group distinction. Mark thinks Paul here is distinguishing himself and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus in Antioch from this other Jewish entity. That being the case, one is naturally prone to ask, why couldn’t Paul refer to Jewish non-believers in Jesus with this term? This would fit the context where the previous use of the term in Galatians 2:7-8 is suggestive of this kind of distinction. The phrase ek peritomēs then would be employed to simply denote a group out of non-believing Israelites, the target of Peter’s mission (2:7-8). While this group may be advocates of proselyte circumcision as Mark thinks, this would have to be shown from the context and not from either the use of the term or the adverbial logic of the preposition. Having established the scope of Peter’s mission in the early context, we might then be able to assume that the fulfillment of his mission was the occasion for his presence in Antioch.

In sum, my own sense is that a more generic and general interpretation of the phrase is better. This view, however, does not necessarily undermine Mark’s thesis, although I do think he has over specified the referent given the limitations of the details in the text.

The second lingering question that leaves me not yet convinced by his reading is his assertion that the central issue in the Antioch incident was the manner in which the meals were conducted. It is not clear to me how Peter would have acted differently if he treated these Gentiles as mere “guests” in accordance with the presumed social norms. Mark does not develop this in any detail although he assumes that there would be a significant enough practice to reveal how Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus regarded the Gentiles with whom they ate. This seems to be quite fundamental to Mark’s argument. And I would have wished that he developed this more beyond some vague educated guesses about how the conduct might have been different [he refers to possible seating arrangements and distribution of food and drink as potentially observable conduct (2002:316)]. It appears that there are no ancient sources upon which to draw for this part of his argument. How would these advocates of proselyte circumcision observe that the believers in Jesus regarded their Gentile associates as more than guests? What would their posture be? If these meals were conducted in Jewish social space as Mark seems to think, then what would be observable? I wonder rather crassly if there was something like a bouncer at the door of these meals who said not “Let me see your ID” but “Please drop your trousers.” Isn’t it true that from an outward appearance there would be little to distinguish a Diaspora Jew from a God-fearing Gentile?

In the end, there is much in Mark’s fresh reading that bears careful consideration and it has usefully advanced my own thinking on the subject. In a future post, I will suggest my own working hypothesis for the issue central to the Antioch incident, but before that I will look next at Philip Esler's view.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Two

We continue analyzing Mark’s answers to questions related to the Antioch incident. Having sketched the first two questions in the last post we address the third here:
.
What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
.
Mark clearly summarizes Paul’s issue with Peter:

The issue in Antioch—from Paul’s point of view—concerned the eating of Peter and the rest of the Jews with Gentiles, and then their withdrawal and separation—because of the fear of the ones advocating circumcision of these Gentiles (2002:300, emphasis his).

What then was the issue the “circumcision party” had with Peter and the rest of the Jews that influenced him to withdraw? After evaluating the prevailing views of the issues at stake at the mixed meals from which Peter withdrew wherein Mark exposes the weaknesses of both the traditional view (of the likes of Burton and Betz) and more recent trends (the likes of Sanders, Dunn, Esler) that largely focus on Jewish dietary regulations and on the question of what was eaten, he offers his own novel interpretation of Paul’s beef with Peter in which he claims that the issue was not what, but in what manner or how Peter and the other Jews ate with Gentiles.

Based on the Jewish sources of the time he asserts the normalcy of mixed meals between Jews and Gentiles in the Diaspora—especially in Antioch. Furthermore, Mark claims that there is no reason to suppose otherwise then the food eaten at these mixed meals was in conformity with prevailing Jewish norms for eating with non-Jewish guests. With respect to the Jewish norms, while there no doubt were expectations, Mark agrees with Sanders that these mixed meals would be conducted most often in Jewish social space where the conditions could be completely controlled by the hosts. He writes, “In Jewish social space, the meals would be conducted according to prevailing norms, and the Gentiles would be expected to behave like guests, respectful of the conventions of the host’s meal” (2002:296).

Mark describes his approach to the issue in Antioch with the statement:

I propose to account for what was considered compromised while I maintain that the food conformed to the Jewish dietary norms of these advocates [i.e. the circumcision party] and that their objection was not to the inclusion of Gentiles at the meals per se (2002:300).

In his view the issue centers on the way the Jewish Christ believers ate with the Gentiles; that is as “full and equal members of this Jewish subgroup” and not as either non-Jewish guests or proselyte candidates (2002:300-01). Mark sees the problem to be that according to the circumcision advocates, the Jewish Christ believing subgroup did not follow the prevailing norms for mixed meals by treating the Gentiles like full and equal members. What they objected to then is not what was being eaten but that the Christ-believing Jews were not treating the Gentiles as guests or as those on the way to becoming proselytes. To put it another way, the issue that caused the rub was not one of behavior per se, but what the behavior meant for the identity and status of the Gentiles with whom they ate. Peter and the rest of the Jews in the way they ate with the Gentiles were granting them a status inappropriate for the present age. Those advocating circumcision by definition, according Mark, believed that only Gentiles who were proselytes (i.e. circumcised) should have the status of full and equal members. So in fear of these Peter and the rest of the Jews withdrew from table fellowship to avoid persecution.

According to Mark then Paul’s problem with Peter was that while continuing to maintain the view, with Paul, that Gentiles have equal status with Jews as members of God’s inaugurated eschatological community in light of the work of Christ on behalf of both, he nevertheless masked this view and acted in contradiction to his conviction. Peter’s conduct in Paul’s view was the result of his fear of the prevailing Jewish opinion on the question of identity formation and the role of proselyte circumcision in that formation. Peter and the rest of the Jews who followed him by their withdrawal undermined the identity of the Gentiles in Christ in the present age and their behavior was in effect a silent but loud assertion that Gentiles need to be proselytes.

Works Cited

Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part One

We attend ourselves again to the three questions related to the Antioch incident this time turning to Mark Nanos’ contribution in the collection of essays he edited titled The Galatians Debate. In preparing the to write the post it became clear that I needed to break up my discussion of Mark's work as it would be much too lenghty for one post. So I am dividing into three parts. Part one will discuss his view of the questions: Who are “those of the circumcision” and What role does James play in the circumstances? Part two will address what Paul’s issue was with Peter? And Part three will be my evaluation.
.
(1) Who are “those of the circumcision”? and (2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
.
Before one finishes the introduction of his essay the reader encounters Mark’s translation of the Greek phrase tous ek peritomēs (lit. “those of/from the circumcision”). Typically this phrase is translated along the lines of the NIV, “the circumcision group” or the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”. Mark, however, goes his own way by translating the ek with the preposition “for”, thus expressing the adverbial logic of “advocacy”. Hence, he translates this phrase: “the ones for [advocating] circumcision” (2002:284).

.

Later Mark in so many words avers that the interpretation of this group is an essential crux for an interpretation of the whole episode because it is on account of the “fear” of these that Peter withdraws. What’s more, he admits that the attempt to identify the group is “extremely involved”. Mark’s interpretation rests on a few observations: (1) the term peritomē means “circumcision” and is a decidedly Jewish way to designate the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish males, and by extension human communities; (2) while there is much debate about whether Paul uses this term here to refer exclusively to those who believe in Jesus or those who don’t, Mark argues that it is simply not possible or logical to limit the usage in either of these directions on “lexical grounds” since Jewish believers in Jesus and those who aren’t would nonetheless still be without their foreskin; and (3) the phrase can be employed as an intra or inter-Jewish distinction: to distinguish among circumcised [so Jewish] people—Mark appeals to the immediate context where Peter and “the rest of the Jews” are circumcised but distinct from those called “those of the circumcision”. With these observations Mark concludes,

It is not just any Jewish group in view—and thus the members circumcised and advocating circumcision as a nor for Jewish people—but an interest group specifically distinguished from other groups of circumcised Jews as advocates of circumcision(2002:288; emphasis his).

This is surely not an overly controversial point [I will take some issue with it later], but Mark doesn’t stop here. He believes the type of advocacy can be delimited further: the circumcision party advocates “proselyte conversion” in conjunction with the prevailing view of the day. This view would be in direct conflict with the “coalition of Jewish believers-in-Jesus”. In sum, Mark claims that “the ones for circumcision” are likely the “representatives of the dominant Jewish communal norms” (2002:289).
.
One final comment related to the connection between the advocates of circumcision and the “ones from James” is in order. And we can perhaps dispense with the question of the identity of the latter here as well [question two for those keeping score]. Mark sees no compelling reason to regard these entities as one and the same as is often thought. Moreover, while not shutting the door completely to this idea, he largely disregards it as the most likely interpretation with the result that he sees James playing little to no role in the episode. An extended quote will sufficiently bear this out:

Paul does tell us not [sic] what the ones from James were advocating, or even precisely who they were or how they were or were not related to “the ones for circumcision,” but only the part the played in the timing of this incident: Peter began to withdraw and separate himself from eating with these Gentiles in the way that he had been doing so because he feared the ones advocating circumcision, and this occurred after the arrival of certain ones from James. Thus, when I refer to the ones for/advocating circumcision, or the ones that Peter fears, it should be understood that I am not referring to the certain ones who came from James (2002:292; emphasis added).

Works Cited

Dunn, James D.G. 2002. The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18). In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:199-234. Peabody: Hendrickson
.
Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

.

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

A Foray into Mark Nanos’ views on the “Torah-Observant Paul”

I just finished reading two essays written by Mark Nanos available on his website: A Torah-Observant Paul? and Rethinking the “Paul and Judaism” Paradigm. If you are unfamiliar with this work I wish to encourage you to read these two very interesting and no doubt controversial papers for a foray into his views.

If I were mapping out the movements in Pauline studies I would say that Mark, among others (and interestingly especially Messianic Jews: see David Rudolph’s forthcoming monograph from WUNT A Jew to Jews) is at the forefront of not a “New Perspective” (Dunn’s phrase for the Sanders revolution) or even a “Fresh Perspective” (Wright’s phrase for the anti-Imperial perspective of Horsley and others) but rather an “Ancient Perspective” on Paul (Paul as a Torah-Observant Jew) [I am sure that this phrase will not be coined, but hey it is the best I can do!].

I found the essays in need of some editing and revision. There are syntax problems here and there and the argument is at times difficult to follow with all of the parentheses and interruptions with dashes. In addition, the introduction to the paper A Torah-Observant Jew? was especially difficult and all the more for uninitiated. It felt like there were elliptical statements throughout that would be well served to spell out a bit more. Still these issues are not substantial and I am sure they will be revised before they are officially published pieces.

To reveal my hand slightly before discussing my view on Paul on a later post about Jewish Christianity, I will say that I am warmly sympathetic to his view of a Torah-Observant Paul. What’s more, I found myself in sympathy with many of his viewpoints in the essays. I was especially encouraged in my developing views on Paul by his perspective since I am not much more than a novice—perhaps unlike my co-blogger—when it comes to Pauline theology. I suppose one advantage I have had is that I am coming to Paul after spending a significant amount of time in the Gospels focusing on the Jewish background of Matthew. What Nanos states about Pauline interpreters—that is that while Paul gets touted as a Jew, the full weight of that assumption is often less than significant for the interpreters’ conclusions—I have said about Matthean scholars. For example, how can interpreters of Matthew so easily assume that a theology of Land has no remaining value for the Jewish author. I often think such things are so easy for non-Jews to say, although of course I myself am a non-Jew.

I want to interact with one point from his essays here that relates to Paul and Israel. On several occasions Nanos makes the point that Paul did not think non-Jews needed or even should be allowed to become members of “Israel” by proselyte conversion; in fact to do so, according to Nanos, would undermine Paul’s conviction that the end of the ages had dawned (you can read his discussion so I won't unpack this any further here). I agree in part with this assertion on one definition of the term “Israel”. In other words, I agree with Nanos that Paul differentiated between expectations for Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus with respect to the Torah and asserted that non-Jews had equal standing, or were co-members with Jews as non-Jews and this was in fulfillment of eschatological expectations that Paul believed, in contrast to his compatriots, had arrived at least partially in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Still, I have been wondering these days about the term “Israel” especially Romans 9—11. What is the difference for Paul between the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” that surface in Romans? Why does Paul use the term Jew elsewhere in Romans, but in the context of Romans 9—11 he uses the term Israelite/Israel? Now most, as far as I can tell, see this change as one of election: who are the true chosen people? Most of course think Paul at best is saying that both Jew and non-Jew are now God’s chosen people and the election term “Israel” can be applied to both or at worst that the non-Jews have now taken ancient Israel’s place as God’s true Israel (quoting Paul “not all Israel is Israel”). Thus the meaning of the term “Israel” is thought to go back to the story of Jacob and his descendants. Indeed this view seems surely possible and perhaps even likely given that Paul references them in the context. Yet I question such a quick assumption when we come to Paul’s statement “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26).

The term “Israel” is multivalent and can mean at least five different things: (1) a name of a person; (2) the name of the northern 10 tribal territories—in distinction from Judah; (3) the united kingdom under David and Solomon which included not only the 12 tribal territories, but also encompassed Gentile territories from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Davidic census in 2 Sam 24); (4) the Northern Kingdom in distinction from the Southern; and (5) the Judean returnees from the Babylonian captivity.

Isn’t it at least possible that when Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" he envisages the restoration of political-national Israel that included the restoration of the twelve-tribe kingdom of David and included non-Judeans and non-Israelites--that is those of the northern kingdom? Thus the term "Israel" as a political term can encompass at least three groups: Israelites, Judeans and those who are neither, but within the kingdom of Israel(=kingdom of David). It is true that Paul's understanding is more radical with respect to these "others" than the ancient prophets understood in that even in prophetic contexts where the other nations are envisaged as participating in the eschaton they did not have equal standing in the kingdom. This for Paul is the "mystery" (Rom 11; Eph 2-3) Paul has been given by God to proclaim: Jew and Gentile as equal members of the Messianic kingdom.

It is surprising to me that nobody is even considering this possibility given that the term can be applied in this way. This is all the more startling to me since many agree with Wright that Paul’s gospel to the nations is the royal proclamation of Jesus kingship as the Davidide. In this messianic context such an implication can’t be far away. While this is not so much an issue I have with Nanos, I think it could potentially strengthen his line of thinking. I would like at some point in the near future to pursue this line of thinking.