Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul

8/2/2019 Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-science-commentary-on-the-letters-of-paul 1/3

Malina, B. J., & Pilch, J. J. (2006). Social-science commentary on the Le!ers of Paul. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Comparison of Paul and Others

(Sygkrisis) 2:11–21

This comparative section of the encomium

has two parts: a comparison of Paul and

Cephas at Antioch (2:11–14) and a comparisonof Paul and Judean Jesus-group leaders

(2:15–21).

Part 1: Comparison of Paul and

Cephas at Antioch 2:11–14

Textual Notes: Gal 2:11–14

Aer the exposition of the “accomplish-

ments” of a person, the encomia indicate that

it is appropriate to include a sygkrisis or

“comparison.” We might examine Gal 2:11–14 in this light. Hermogenes off ers us a succinct

definition of a “comparison”: “Now some-

times we draw out comparisons by equality,

showing the things which we compare as

equal either in all respects or in several; some-

times we put the one ahead, praising also the

other to which we prefer it; sometimes we

blame the one u#erly and praise the other, as

in a comparison of justice and wealth”

(Malina and Neyrey 1996:48, citing Baldwin

1928). The “comparison,” then, may elevatethe status of a less honorable person to the

level of a recognized and honorable person.

Or it may praise the one and blame the other.

This fourth-century bas relief portrays the

apostles Peter and Paul face to face. See Notes to

Gal 2:11 .

In this regard, we might reconsider the

meeting of Paul with “those of repute” in

2:1–10. On the one hand, he earlier main-

tained that he did not “confer (about his

gospel) with flesh and blood” (1:16) but now

he does so: “I laid the gospel before them”

(2:2). The two events may be “compared” in

that the second one is directed by God (“I

went up by a revelation,” 2:2a), whereas pre-

viously Paul was under no such constraint.

The la#er, then, is not an indication of incon-

sistency and instability. Once more Paul

indicates superior and praiseworthy behav-ior, since it was at God’s direction that he

behaved as he did.

At that meeting, moreover, Paul met pri-

vately with the elite of the Jerusalem group,

“those of repute” (2:3, 6) and “those reputed

to be pillars” (2:9). On that occasion, the

higher-ranking persons, James, Cephas, and

John, agreed not to hassle Paul because of

behaviors that followed from his gospel of

God. And in their own way they judged that

Paul was equal to Peter in that, “just as Peterwas entrusted with the gospel to the circum-

cised,” so too they acknowledged that Paul

was comparably “entrusted with the gospel

to the Foreskins” (2:6–7). Whether such out-

reach to Israelites in non-Israelite locations

was of any merit is not discussed. Paul’s men-

tion of the meeting, however, served the

rhetorical function of comparing Paul with

Peter and pu#ing him on a parallel track

with the person commonly acknowledged to

have the top management role. The worldwas ethnocentrically divided into two equal

parts (Israelites in Judea and Israelites among

non-Israelites), and Paul was credited as

being in charge of Israelites living in the non-

Israelite world. His honor claim is not simply

acknowledged; he is also elevated in status

1Exported)from)Logos)Bible)Software)4,)11:31)AM)March)09,)2012.

http://www.logos.com/





through this comparison of being ranked on

par with Peter.

The “comparison” seems most evident,

however, in the narration of the encounter at

Antioch in 2:11–14.

2:11: The expression “to oppose someoneto their face” is a biblical one used to

describe when people resist a determined

military assault, usually without success. It

means to stand up to an opponent in conflict

even though one loses. Accordingly, Paul

intimates that Cephas “made a frontal a!ack,

in other words, that the hostilities previously

se!led in Jerusalem had now been resumed,

and that he had resisted” (Esler 1998:135). The

idiom intimates that he was ultimately

unsuccessful against Cephas.The controversy is about living styles in a

context that presumes there is a Judean way

of living and a non-Judean one. Paul previ-

ously was told that the non-Judean lifestyle

of his Jesus-group Israelites living among

non-Israelites is quite acceptable to the

Jerusalem management group. Even Cephas

dines in non-Judean style with his fellow

Jesus-group Israelites in Antioch. Yet when

called down by those Jesus-group members

espousing the Judean lifestyle as the only

one allowable for Jesus-group members,

Cephas backs down, Paul calls this

“hypocrisy,” that is, playacting. Consider

now what rhetorical comparison under-

scores about the character of Paul. Here it

will be helpful to cite the rules of Theon on

comparison:

A comparison is a speech which

shows what is be!er or what is worse.

There are comparisons of charactersand subjects: of characters: for exam-

ple, Ajax, Odysseus; of subjects: for

example, wisdom and courage. But

since we prefer one of the characters

over another in view of their actions,

as well as whatever else about them is

good, there can be one method for

both. First, let it be established that

comparisons are made not with mat-

ters that diff er greatly from one

another … but with ma!ers that are

similar and concerning which we dis-agree about which of the two we

must prefer because we see no supe-

riority of one over the other. So then,

when we compare characters, we will

first set side by side their noble birth,

their education, their children, their

public offices, their reputation, their

bodily health.… Aer these items, we

will compare their actions by choos-

ing those which are more noble and

the reasons for the numerous andgreater blessings, those actions that

are more reliable, those that are more

enduring, those that were done at the

proper time, those from which great

harm resulted when they have not

been done, those that were done with

a motive rather than those done

because of compulsion or chance,

those which few have done rather

than those that many have done (for

the common and hackneyed are not

at all praiseworthy), those we have

done with eff ort rather than easily,

and those we have performed that

were beyond our age and ability,

rather than those which we per-

formed when it was possible. (10.1–26,

in Malina and Neyrey 1996:49, citing

Bu!s 1986)

The context of comparison, Theon says, is

praise and blame: “what is be!er and what isworse.” Two similar characters are com-

pared: two warriors or two proclaimed of the

gospel. Then their actions are compared,

whether reliable and enduring, beneficial or

harmful, free or under compulsion, requir-

ing courage or not, or rare or commonplace.








This more extended view of “comparison”

greatly aids our reading of 2:11–14. At the

very least we can say that in 2:11–14 one per-

son is blamed and another praised, just as

Hermogenes and Theon indicate should be

the case. Paul blames Peter: “I opposed himto his face.… He stood condemned” (2:11). If

Peter is blamed, then Paul is to be praised.

Second, Peter is blamed for inconsistency

and unreliability, hence “insincerity,” which

infected others in the group ( synypekrithē san,

2:13a; hypokrisei, 2:13b).

In contrast, when Paul claims that Peter

and others were “not acting consistently

with the truth of the gospel” (2:14), he posi-

tions himself as one who is “sincere” and

who acts straightforwardly. Peter, moreover,acted out of “fear” of the circumcision party

(2:12). “Fear” is one of the cardinal vices, a

term sure to draw blame upon Peter. In con-

trast, Paul demonstrated “courage” by

boldly challenging Peter in public and by

steadfastly defending the truth. In this Paul

can be seen to engage in “comparison” in

which he first puts him on par with Peter

(2:1–10) and then exalts himself over Peter

(2:11–14). His gospel and his manner of living

are “straightforward,” “approved by the

church,” and “consistent.” If Peter might be

charged with “pleasing men” by returning to

his kosher obligations and once more not eat-

ing with non-Judean Jesus-group members,

Paul can claim consistency in his approach

and boast that he was not “pleasing men.”

Otherwise, he would never have publicly

challenged Peter.Meals.

From the foregoing considerations, it

seems that the encomium looms large as themodel according to which Paul cast his

remarks about himself in this passage from

Galatians. Most of the prescribed elements of

an encomium are present: (a) birth and

a!endant divine ascription of honor (1:15–16);

(b) manner of life as an advanced and obser-

vant Pharisee (1:13–14); (c) education not by

mortals but “taught by God” (1:16–19); (d)

accomplishments and deeds: deeds of the

soul, for example, righteousness demon-

strated by piety and faithfulness (1:21–24;

2:1–10) and courage (2:11–14), and deeds of for-tune, for example, friends, fame, fortune, and

honor; and (e) comparison between Paul’s

consistency and correctness and Peter’s

inconsistency (2:11–14). Further, the function

of 1:13–2:14 is fully in accord with the aims of

an encomium, to praise and to blame.

“Praise” is analogous to apology or defense,

just as “blame” corresponds to polemic.

These observations on the encomiastic shape

of Galatians 1–2 are not at all in conflict with

other arguments about the larger rhetoricalshape of the le!er. But it is essential to note

the presence and function of encomium fea-

tures in this part of Paul’s argument.






Documents

Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul