Nomos and the Dispute in Galatians 2: A Case of Conflicting By-Laws

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a superb study, engaging and critical, and highly well-written. I have some minor quibbles, but nothing that taints the article: it can be published as is.

- As to the status of the law in Second Temple Judaism: I am not sure we need to refer to a codified text in the making ("ur-Mishnah"), at this early stage. "Proto-halakhah" might be more accurate (and consider Shemesh and Noam in this context).

- Likewise, I am not sure about the identification of Pharisees and Rabbis, as implied by the text, especially in reference to Josephus: while he explicitly claims he came closer to them, his description of them in this testimony is quite remote from anything we would associate with the rabbis. He might very well be accommodating his audience, but the incongruity leaves room for doubt. As always, consider Shaye Cohen on the Pharisees.

 

Also, there are some studies I think the author would enjoy adding and considering to further refine the argument.

In particular, I am thinking of:

- Westerholm, "Torah, Nomos, and Law," Studies in Rleigion 15.3 (1986): 327-336.

- Fredriksen, "Judaism, the Circumcision of the Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope," JThS 42.2 (1991): 532-64.

- Thiessen, A Jewish Paul (Baker Academic, 2023) - esp. chapter 5.

 

Thanks for a fascinating paper!

Author Response

I have removed the references to "ur-mishnah" in agreement with the reviewer's concerns about the designation. In general, I have included a much more thorough treatment of Pharisees and Rabbis vis-a-vis their historical development, relying on recent studies to sketch the relationships in more detail. I have also included comparative analyses of the meaning of "nomos" in the Second temple period.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting proposal for a new way of reading Galatians 2. I think the quality of source engagement is good as is the general argument. Here are some places where I think the argument could be tightened. 

1. On p. 7 the third full paragraph seems unnecessary to your larger argument. The discussion of interpersonal religious conflict and the sources in social psychology seems oddly placed in this paper and distracts more than adds. 

2. I am unsure that all the literal translations add to the essay. I don't think they have to be removed; I do think it is an edge case. 

3. I believe it would be helpful to readers to clarify how a Galatian Christian would understand their belonging to an association vs. belonging to the local gathering of Christians (i.e., a church). Are they the same thing? Different? The same for a Jew and their belonging to an association vs. a synagogue. Some extra clarity would help the reader better understand the argument. 

4. On p. 11 I was not sure why the space was given to Hultin's argument. It seems on p. 12 you don't use it as your own understanding of the passage when you give a literal reading that doesn't use Hultin's argument for an extended quotation. I would remove it and focus on arguments for your own reading. 

5. Some discussion of if there is a universal Judean nomoi prohibiting Jewish/Gentile eating together would be helpful. Is such a prohibition only a by-law of a particular association? This seems like the heart of your argument and I would spend more time here. For example, Acts 10:28 - is that a universal nomoi or association by-law? See also Jub 22.16. I know you talk about this a bit, but I think fuller engagement would be helpful. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few minor revisions needed throughout. 

Author Response

I have found the reviewer's comments helpful in formatting a more intelligible article with regard to the use of language. I agree with the reviewer's comments about the distractions of non-normative terminology and have reverted to more familiar terms of "Jew/ish" "Gentile" etc. to aid the reader's understanding of the conclusions of the article. I have included a more robust exploration of the issue of belonging in the assembly with reflections from Frederiksen's article on the subject.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I agree with the reviewer's comments vis-a-vis the lack of secondary research in certain parts of the article and have endeavored to include a more robust exploration of nomos in the Second Temple period, especially in comparison with physis, and its use in Philo, apocalyptic literature, etc. I expanded the section on the historical background with regard to the Pharisees and Rabbis and included a section explaining current thinking about the dating of rabbinic traditions and acknowledging the problematic nature of those sources. The essay was also enriched by recently published sources, including a 2023 volume on Paul within Judaism that was released after the author received the reviews.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author is to be commended for the substantial revision of this draft

 Delighted to have been offered this to read, but you need to be a bit less pushy with your deadlines.