Summary:
Pope Benedict XVI recently gave a talk in which he commented on the dispute that arose between Sts. Peter and Paul at Antioch over table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity. The Holy Father’s commentary was straightforward and, as we would expect, hewed closely to the mainstream of traditional Catholic thought on this passage.
Robert Sungenis has responded negatively to the Pope’s address, asserting that “he is quite incorrect”, he “is simply shortsighted”, he has advanced a “non-traditional exegesis” which “falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic” and which contains more than one “exegetical blunder” (see here).
What has prompted Sungenis to castigate the Pope in such a public way? The answer will not be surprising to anyone who has followed the controversies over the past few years. It’s the Jews.
Although Sungenis advances his critique with characteristic self-assurance and even bravado, we believe that it is demonstrable that Sungenis has erred in numerous ways, while having the pluck to publicly upbraid the Pope. In this essay, we will establish the following points:
1. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion that Benedict XVI has advanced a “non-traditional exegesis” which “falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic”, in fact the Holy Father’s views on Galatians 2:11ff. fall well within the venerable Catholic exegetical tradition.
2. Sungenis casts St. Peter’s behavior in as severe a light as possible, whereas historical Catholic exegesis has taken it as a venial fault at most. This sort of severe treatment of St. Peter’s behavior is typically a feature of polemical Protestant works and finds no place in traditional Catholic exegesis.
3. Sungenis implies strongly that there is really only one exegesis of the passage throughout history: “Previous exegesis has taken the thesis-antithesis approach…” and “The only correct interpretation of the passage is what we see in the tradition”. He has made similar unsupported assertions on other passages, when the evidence is clearly against it.
4. Sungenis seems to claim that Pope Benedict was stating that St. Peter was faultless. This misrepresents the Pope’s address. In so doing, Sungenis omits important qualifiers in the Pope’s original address. In fact, he seems to have only critiqued a news report, without consulting the full address. Indeed, one of his points is based on a mistranslation in this news report, which is corrected in the official Vatican translation. This sort of sloppy research has, unfortunately, become habitual with Sungenis.
5. Sungenis calls the Pope’s exegesis “non-traditional” and claims that “I don’t know anyone in the history of the church [sic] who has taken his side on this passage”. The fact is that the Pope’s exposition of the text falls well in line with a perennial Catholic understanding. Sungenis, on the other hand, has taken contradictory views of the passage over the years and it is these that are actually non-traditional.
6. Sungenis claims that “opposite Pope Benedict’s claim, the Jews in Galatians 2:12-15 are not understood as ‘believers from Judaism.’ The text does not say whether they were believers. . . . the pope assumes the Jews had already accepted the Gospel, but there is no indication in the text that they had. Hence, the whole basis for the pope’s interpretation of the passage is built on an unproven foundation.” But in fact, both Catholic and Protestant exegetes are virtually unanimous that these individuals were in fact converts from Judaism and cite evidence within the text to support that view. Sungenis offers a bare, unsupported assertion.
7. Sungenis claims that the Pope makes a “blunder” when comparing the context of Gal 2:11ff and Rom 14:1ff. But the Pope’s comparison is backed up by well-respected Catholic (and even non-Catholic) exegetes. Ironically, it is Sungenis himself who has in the past made an elementary blunder with respect to the context of the Epistle to the Romans--he has told his readers on more than one occasion that the context of Romans 11 includes an event that took place more than twelve years after Romans 11 was written and more than three years after St. Paul was dead.
8. What has really prompted Sungenis to write at such length and with such vigor against the Pope (and in doing, to contradict himself and commit so many of his own blunders)? Jews. This recent attack on the Holy Father serves only to reinforce our view that Robert Sungenis is simply incapable of handling Jewish issues in a responsible and fair manner.
Below, each of these points will be expanded upon:
1. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion that Benedict XVI has advanced a “non-traditional exegesis” which “falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic”, in fact the Holy Father’s views on Galatians 2:11ff. demonstrably fall well within the venerable Catholic exegetical tradition.
Pope Benedict's recent talk is perfectly well in line with the mainstream of prior Catholic exegesis:
At the outset Cephas, Peter, shared meals with both; but with the arrival of certain Christians associated with James, "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1: 19), Peter began to avoid contact with Gentiles at table in order not to shock those who were continuing to observe the laws governing the cleanliness of food and his decision was shared by Barnabas (link).
But, as the Holy Father pointed out, this behavior by St. Peter had unintended, yet significant, negative consequences for the Church:
This decision profoundly divided the Christians who had come from circumcision and the Christians who came from paganism. This behaviour, that was a real threat to the unity and freedom of the Church, provoked a passionate reaction in Paul who even accused Peter and the others of hypocrisy (Ibid.; emphasis added).
The Pope noted, however, that the motives for this behavior on the part of St. Peter were good and that he and St. Paul were approaching the matter of dispute from very different perspectives:
In fact, the thought of Paul on the one hand, and of Peter and Barnabas on the other, were different: for the latter the separation from the Gentiles was a way to safeguard and not to shock believers who came from Judaism; on the contrary, for Paul it constituted the danger of a misunderstanding of the universal salvation in Christ, offered both to Gentiles and Jews. If justification is only achieved by virtue of faith in Christ, of conformity with him, regardless of any effect of the Law, what is the point of continuing to observe the cleanliness of foods at shared meals? In all likelihood the approaches of Peter and Paul were different: the former did not want to lose the Jews who had adhered to the Gospel, and the latter did not want to diminish the saving value of Christ's death for all believers (Ibid.).
And he points out that St. Paul himself had to wrestle with very similar issues of conscience vis-à-vis Christian converts who struggled with scruples concerning matters of clean and unclean foods:
It is strange to say but in writing to the Christians of Rome a few years later (in about the middle of the 50s a.D.), Paul was to find himself facing a similar situation and asked the strong not to eat unclean foods in order not to lose or scandalize the weak: "it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" (Rm 14: 21) (Ibid.).
Now, the passage from Galatians 2 upon which the Pope comments has received quite number of interpretations over the centuries. Some Fathers actually argued that the “Cephas” mentioned by St. Paul was not the Apostle, but a different Cephas. Other Fathers, including very prominent ones such as Sts. Jerome and Chrysostom, argued that Sts. Peter and Paul had only
simulated the dispute, so that they might give a lesson to their congregation:
Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies On Galatians 2)
Both of these interpretations have been ultimately set aside; the latter was the focus of a long correspondence between Sts. Augustine and Jerome at the end of which Augustine succeeded in changing Jerome’s mind. Tertullian, in the second century, put forth the view that has substantially been upheld by Catholic exegetes throughout history. Tertullian points out that St. Peter’s fault was certainly not one of doctrine—he and St. Paul held the same faith—but disagreed over a pastoral application of that faith:
Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. (Praesc. Adv. Haer. 23)
Tertullian points out that St. Paul himself eventually adopted a pastoral approach that was more or less the same as St. Peter’s. He writes:
And yet as Paul himself became all things to all men, 1 Corinthians 9:22 that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught. (Ad. Marc. 4.3)
The views put forth by Tertullian have been echoed throughout Church history by numerous Catholic exegetes. Fr. G. L. Haydock continues the commentary of Tertullian and cites other examples in which St. Paul’s behavior was similar to that of St. Peter:
Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter's fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter's charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52 [in the year A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? . . . the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. . . . Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion (link; emphasis added.)
The great Jesuit exegete and biblical theologian Fr. Fernand Prat writes:
What was the precise object of the conflict? On the question of principle the two apostles were fully agreed. . . . The spirit of conciliation led him [St. Peter] too far. . . . Paul knew the loyalty, humility and grandeur of soul which characterized the chief of the apostles. He did not, therefore, fear to reproach him publicly, not with a fault, but with a dangerous example; not with an error, but with an inconsistency. Peter certainly yielded to the arguments of Paul. (The Theology of Saint Paul. Westminster: The Newman Bookshop. 1952, vol. 1, pp. 51‑2).
The great exegete Fr. Cornelius a Lapide states:
It may be urged that in this act of Peter’s there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. . . . Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did. . . . To what has been said I add this: This sin of Peter’s was venial, or material only, arising from want of thought, or from want of light and prudence. He seems to have thought that, being the Apostle of the Jews especially, that he ought rather to avoid scandalising them than the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would readily recognise the rightfulness of this line of action. . . . Again, observe the following rule: When there is a just cause of concealing the truth, no falsehood is involved. Peter, in the act under discussion, had partly a just cause, viz., the fear of offending the Jews. His withdrawal from the Gentiles was not a formal declaration that he was a Judaiser, but only tantamount to saying that he preferred to serve the Jews rather than the Gentiles, the just cause of this preference being that he was more an Apostle of the former than of the latter. I say partly, for he was not wholly justified in so acting, inasmuch as he was bound, as universal pastor, to care for the Jews without neglecting the Gentiles. Hence it follows also that in one respect he sinned through want of due consideration. The infirmity of man’s mind, however, is such that he cannot always hit the exact mean, and under complex circumstances benefit one without harming another (link; emphasis mine.)
In more modern times, Fr. Bernard Orchard, OSB again hearkens back to Tertullian’s commentary and notes that: “Paul reproached Peter not with a doctrinal error, but with not holding firm in the principle which he recognizes, ‘conversationis vitium non praedicationis’ (Tert. De praescript. 23)” (
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: Nelson, 1953. p. 1116).
The exegesis of Galatians 2:11ff. which is sensitive to the real dilemma facing St. Peter is supported even by non-Catholic scholars, such as the prominent evangelical Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce. Bruce noted that St. Peter’s actions stemmed from precisely the same motivations that prompted St. Paul’s writing in Romans 14, in particular, the need to take care of a brother Christian’s weaker conscience in regard to dietary laws:
But in fact it is not difficult to imagine how Cephas would have defended his action. He would have claimed that he acted out of consideration for weaker brethren—the weaker brethren on this occasion being those back home in Jerusalem. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 1.20) read his motives thus, and put Paul’s critical reaction down to his immaturity: later on he points out, Paul ‘was to become in practice all things to all men—to those under the law, as under law’ (1 Cor. 9:20). The trouble was, however, that Cephas’s concern for the weaker brethren in Jerusalem conflicted with Paul’s concern for the Gentile brethren in Antioch, who were being made to feel like second-class citizens.
Again, Tertullian suggests that, ‘since Paul himself became “all things to all men in order to win them all”, Peter too may well have had this policy in mind in acting differently from what he was accustomed to teach’ (Adv. Marc. 4.3). That Cephas had some reason on his side was acknowledged by Barnabas, who followed his example (The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. p. 133).
And Catholic commentators see the same dynamic. The Navarre Bible commentary states:
In his dealings with Jews, St Paul sometimes gave way in secondary matters, provided this did not take from the essence of the Gospel: he had Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, circumcised “because of the Jews that were in those places” (Acts 16:3), and he himself kept to Jewish practices in order to allay suspicion and jealousy (cf. Acts 21:22-26). Similarly, he recommended patience and understanding towards those “weak” in the faith, that is, Christians of Jewish origin who held on to some Jewish observances connected with fast days, clean and unclean food and abstinence from the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols (cf. Rom 14:2-6; 1 Cor 10:23-30). But on the key issue of Christians’ freedom from the Mosaic Law, the Apostle was always firm and unambiguous, relying on the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.
Paul’s correction of Peter did not go against the latter’s authority. On the contrary, if it had been just anyone, the Teacher of the Gentiles might have let the matter pass; but because it was Cephas, that is, the “rock” of the Church, he had to take action in order to avoid the impression being given that Christians of Gentile origin were obliged to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. (Romans and Galatians. Four Courts Press, 1998. pp. 179-80.)
It is not that St. Peter was without fault; he certainly made a pastoral decision that created significant, negative consequences, as the Apostle Paul states. It seems that the heart of the matter is that St. Peter was free to follow the Jewish dietary laws if that would avoid scandalizing converts from Judaism. St. Paul on occasion followed these and other distinctively Jewish customs, for the same reason. It was St. Peter's separation from the converts from paganism that was the real problem. For that he had only partial and ultimately insufficient justification, because it involved not merely separating from food, which can't get confused and can't be scandalized, but separating from people, who can be both confused and scandalized. This was the fault and it was real. As Pope Benedict said, “This decision profoundly divided the Christians who had come from circumcision and the Christians who came from paganism.
This behaviour, that was a real threat to the unity and freedom of the Church, provoked a passionate reaction in Paul who even accused Peter and the others of hypocrisy” (
link; emphasis added).
But as upheld throughout the history of Catholic exegesis, his fault was at most venial, being very much tempered by the difficult and sometimes confusing circumstances in which he found himself. St. Augustine noted that Sts. Peter and Paul evangelized during the middle of three phases of the observance of distinctively Jewish precepts. The Navarre Bible commentary lays out Augustine’s thought, as summarized by St. Thomas:
We might say that there are three periods in observance of the prescriptions of the Law. In the first period, prior to Christ’s passion, the precepts of the Law were “alive”, that is, it was obligatory to keep them. A second period was between the Passion and the spread of the apostolic preaching: the Law’s precepts were already “dead”, no longer obligatory, but they were not “lethal”: Jewish converts could keep them provided that they did not rely on them, for Christ was already the basis of their hope. In the third stage, in which we find ourselves, observance of Jewish precepts as a means of salvation amounts to denying the redemptive power of Christ and therefore they could be termed “lethal” (cf. St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Gal, ad loc.) (Romans and Galatians, p. 181.)
Pope Benedict’s exposition of Galatians 2 is well in line with historical Catholic exegesis and, indeed, even with scholarly Protestant commentaries. In the ancient Church it was non-Catholic sects which sought to play up the division between Sts. Peter and Paul to the greatest extent possible. And in more recent times the strong anti-Catholic polemic put forth by certain Protestant apologists carries the same force and intent. So, for example, John Calvin stated:
But Peter Judaized in such a manner as to “compel the Gentiles” to suffer bondage, and at the same time to create a prejudice against Paul’s doctrine. He did not, therefore, observe the proper limit; for he was more desirous to please than to edify, and more solicitous to inquire what would gratify the Jews than what would be expedient for the whole body. . . . For the sake of the Jews, Peter had withdrawn himself from the Gentiles, in order to drive them from the communion of the Church, unless they would relinquish the liberty of the Gospel, and submit to the yoke of the Law (link).
And from the assertion of this stark contrast between Sts. Peter and Paul he claims the actual overthrow of the Catholic view of the papacy:
This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual chastises Peter, in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the chastisement. Nay, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy. . . (ibid.)
This exposition by the Pope is now the target of a commentary by Bob Sungenis which, on his web site, is entitled, “
Pope's Exegetical Blunder on Peter/Paul Conflict in Galatians 2”. Sungenis is highly critical of the Pope’s treatment of Galatians 2:11ff. stating that “he is quite incorrect”, he “is simply shortsighted”, he has advanced a “non-traditional exegesis” which “falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic” and which contains more than one “exegetical blunder”. The extent to which Pope Benedict XVI’s view of Gal 2:11ff. is in line with prior Catholic exegesis has already been demonstrated. And, ironically, there are numerous points on which Sungenis’ interpretation of the passage is quite out of line with historical Catholic exegesis, as well as being full of errors.
2. Sungenis casts St. Peter’s behavior in as severe a light as possible, whereas historical Catholic exegesis has taken it as a venial fault at most:
Although I admire Pope Benedict XVI, to be very honest, I believe he is quite incorrect in his analysis of the conflict between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2:11-16. I don’t know anyone in the history of the church who has taken his side on this passage. Previous exegesis has taken the thesis-antithesis approach wherein Paul presents a thesis, and Peter’s antithesis is not only wrong but it is akin to perverting the Gospel. Note the factual evidence the passage gives us: (1) Peter is to be condemned for leaving the Gentiles with whom he was eating when the Jews came to Antioch. (2) Paul adds that Peter engaged in this dissimulation because he “feared the Jews,” and that other Jews joined Peter in what Paul calls “hypocrisy.” (3) Paul adds that when Peter and fellow Jews did this deed, “they were not being straightforward about the truth of the Gospel.” These are serious indictments.
Although Catholic exegetes (and even non-Catholic exegetes like F. F. Bruce; see above) point out many mitigating factors which explain and/or partially excuse St. Peter’s behavior, Robert Sungenis can find no such mitigating factors at all:
Peter stands condemned for his hypocrisy and the passage offers him no defense.
There is no indication in the text that Peter was justified in his actions, or that he had the right to depart from the Gentiles to avoid a so-called “scandal” with the Jews.
If there was even the slightest hint in the passage that Peter was in the right, the pope would have at least some basis for making his non-traditional exegesis, but there is none. Everything in the Galatian epistle speaks loudly against Peter’s actions. I’m afraid to say that the pope’s understanding of this passage falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic that we have seen so often in the last forty years.
Ironically, although Sungenis labels the Pope’s exegesis as “non-traditional”, it is clear even from the limited survey cited above that it is
his own exegesis that departs from a traditional Catholic understanding of the passage and hews much more closely to the antagonism typically displayed by polemical anti-Catholic writers.
3. Sungenis implies strongly that there is really only one exegesis of the passage throughout history: “Previous exegesis has taken the thesis-antithesis approach…” and “The only correct interpretation of the passage is what we see in the tradition”. He has made similar assertions on other passages, when the evidence is clearly against it.
Sungenis is incorrect to imply that there has been one, homogeneous approach to this text of Scripture. We have seen above that, in fact, there have been quite a number of different approaches taken throughout the history of the Church. We have seen, too, that Catholic exegetes have typically not taken a strict “thesis-antithesis approach” in which St. Peter’s actions are “akin to perverting the Gospel”. Rather, St. Peter’s actions, while imprudent, have been seen in the context of a complex situation in which the scruples of Jewish converts to Christianity were indeed important to consider (as even St. Paul states and behaves) but only to the extent to which the principles of the Gospel are not possibly compromised. Sungenis sets aside the whole history of Catholic exegesis and imports the “thesis-antithesis approach” which, it seems most likely to us, he has simply brought forward from his days as a Protestant polemicist.
4. Sungenis seems to claim that Pope Benedict was stating that St. Peter was faultless. This misrepresents the Pope’s address. In so doing, Sungenis omits important qualifiers in the Pope’s original address. In fact, he seems to have only critiqued a news report, without consulting the full address. Indeed, one of his points is based on a mistranslation in this news report, which is corrected in the official Vatican translation. This sort of sloppy research has, unfortunately, become habitual with Sungenis.
Nowhere in Sungenis’ critique of the Pope’s address are these words quoted (drawing here on the Zenit.org translation Sungenis used):
This behavior, which truly threatened the unity and liberty of the Church, brought a fiery reaction from Paul, who arrived to the point of accusing Peter and the rest of hypocrisy." ("Paul's Dealings With Peter")
Another passage from the Holy Father’s address is helpful in clarifying exactly what he is saying (and puts him squarely in line with the venerable Catholic exegetical tradition on this passage):
Very probably the perspectives of Peter and Paul were different: for the first, not losing the Jews who had embraced the Gospel, for the second, not diminishing the salvific value of the death of Christ for all believers (Ibid.).
Neither of these passages is cited by Sungenis in his analysis of the Holy Father’s address. It would appear that the reason is that Sungenis relied exclusively on the news report from Zenit.org, which contained only
excerpts from the Pope’s address and not the complete text (see news article
here.) And so once again, we are faced with a sloppy and incomplete presentation of evidence based on secondary sources rather than primary ones. As we have documented in numerous cases, on certain topics Sungenis simply refuses to do adequate research or adhere to ordinary scholarly standards (for many documented instances of this, see
link1,
link2,
link3, and
link4)
Additionally, Sungenis states that:
Pope Benedict claims: “For [Peter], the separation of the pagans represented a way to teach and avoid scandalizing the believers coming from Judaism.” This is a stretch. There is no indication in the text that Peter was justified in his actions, or that he had the right to depart from the Gentiles to avoid a so-called “scandal” with the Jews.
For one to be so bold as to call the Holy Father’s view a “stretch”, it would at least have been appropriate to check if the translation is accurate. In this case, it appears that Zenit.org has slightly distorted this passage. The original Italian says: “per questi ultimi la separazione dai pagani rappresentava una modalità
per tutelare e per non scandalizzare i credenti provenienti dal giudaismo” (
link). Zenit.org translates
per tutelare as “to teach”, while the Vatican’s official translation has “for the latter the separation from the Gentiles was a way
to safeguard and not to shock believers who came from Judaism”. The Vatican’s translation is correct, since
tutelare means “to protect, ward, defend” and not “to teach” (
link). And as numerous Catholic exegetes have pointed out, that is precisely what St. Peter was doing and what St. Paul himself continued to do; seeking to safeguard the tender consciences of Jewish converts to the Faith with regard to dietary issues. The Holy Father, therefore, did not “stretch” in his teaching. Sungenis blundered in his accusation.
5. Sungenis calls the Pope’s exegesis “non-traditional” and claims that “I don’t know anyone in the history of the church [sic] who has taken his side on this passage”.
In fact, the Pope’s exegesis falls well within the boundaries of prior Catholic exegesis. If Sungenis doesn’t “know anyone in the history of the church [sic] who has taken his side of this passage” then it is clear that he has failed to adequately research the topic. Obviously, this is not any fault of the Pope’s. Unfortunately, Sungenis has become somewhat notorious for proclaiming that he just couldn’t find something, or that all writers are on his side, whereas the facts are quite different. For example, he once claimed with respect to Romans 11:25-27 that he could not find “one Catholic exegete in all of Church history” who had done a detailed exegesis of that passage. We were able to cite no less than sixteen full-length commentaries and numerous shorter studies by Catholic scholars doing precisely that (see
here).
There are other instances in which Sungenis has claimed that all of the evidence is on his side, when the reality is quite different. For example, he claims in his CASB2 that the identification of Jesus Christ with the olive tree of Romans 11:17-24 is “the constant teaching of the Fathers”. But, in fact, there are any number of Fathers who see the passage quite differently (see
here). Sungenis completely misrepresented the teaching of both St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom,
who said the opposite of what he claimed for them. Michael Forrest made Bob aware of St. John Chrysostom's real position in September 2006. Bob refused to change his book which quotes St. John Chrysostom as representative of the "consensus" of the Fathers regarding the identity of the olive tree. What is more, Ben Douglass provided Sungenis with the information about St. Augustine in an e-mail dated January 14, 2007—while he was still Sungenis' vice-president, by the way—and reminded him of it again on January 20, stating:
St. Augustine read the root of Romans 11 as Israel, and he says so in the immediate vicinity of the passages you quoted to argue that the root is Christ and not Israel. Again, you're lobbing softballs at your critics, and it's a good thing I caught this before they did. There could hardly be a clearer illustration of Forrest's thesis that your use of the Fathers is highly tendentious when the subject is Jews and Israel. (link)
This was a few months before the CASB2 was released. Yet Sungenis allowed the book to go to print without correcting this obvious error.
Perhaps the most troubling fact is that while Sungenis now claims that he does not know of anyone who has taken the Pope’s side on Galatians 2:11 ff., we have indisputable proof that he most certainly
used to know. Notice what Sungenis himself had to say about this very passage in a debate held in 1995:
In Galatians 2, as Mr. Zins pointed out, he says that Peter was upbraided by Paul for what Peter had done in perverting the Gospel, supposedly. Let me just give you some background on this issue.
Paul’s major concern in Acts 15:1 is that the Jews are commanding that the gentiles be circumcised before they come into the Church. That is his concern. That is also his concern in Galatians, chapter 2. We read that he didn’t want to circumcise Titus to give the Jews any space to say that, yes, we were falling back into the circumcision that we were denied.
That is the issue. Is that what Peter is doing in Galatians chapter 2? No, not at all. Paul accuses Peter of disfellowshiping with the Gentiles – a very minor infraction. Peter is not doing what Paul had accused him of. He is not perverting the Gospel. He is not circumcising anyone. Paul is over-reacting to Peter.
It is actually the very Paul who had decided to circumcise Timothy because he had an understanding of the Jews . He wanted to placate them. He circumcises Timothy so that it would be much smoother to approach the Jews.
Then he changes his mind in Galatians 2 and says that I didn’t circumcise Titus because I didn’t want to give any place to the Jews. Well, which is it, Paul? One or the other.
He does this both because Timothy is a Greek and Titus is a Greek. That’s the criterion that Paul uses.
Yes, Paul is over-reacting.
What is Paul’s address to? The Galatians, the Judaizers. These were the ones who were trying to circumcise Christians and say that they had to be circumcised – had to obey this law to become Christians.
When you read the rest of the Galatian epistle, that is his concern. As a matter of fact, he says “I wish they would circumcise their whole body…and leave me alone.”
His concern is not with Peter. Augustine says yes, Peter did have a moment of imprudence. But it wasn’t the destruction of the Gospel that we’re told that it is. (see link and link; emphasis added.)
Has Sungenis just innocently forgotten this information? Or is he simply suppressing evidence that does not suit his anti-Jewish agenda, as has too often been the case in the past?
Interestingly, his treatment here is actually far more exculpatory with respect to St. Peter’s actions than was even Pope Benedict XVI. Notice, too, that he knew perfectly well that St. Augustine, at least, called St. Peter’s action only a “moment of imprudence” and that it “wasn’t the destruction of the Gospel”.
Now, however,he has completely reversed himself on the passage. In 1995 he understood that both Sts. Peter and Paul were in a difficult situation and that there were circumstances in which it was appropriate to “placate the Jews”. He stated that for St. Peter to disfellowship with the Gentiles was “a very minor infraction” and that ultimately “[St. Paul’s] concern is not with Peter” but only with Judaizers who insisted on circumcision.
Now he insists that “Peter stands condemned for his hypocrisy and the passage offers him no defense” and that “Peter’s antithesis is not only wrong but it is akin to perverting the Gospel”.
To be fair, Sungenis is, of course, free to change his mind. But as another Catholic apologist has pointed out, the “non-traditional” interpretations of this passage are both
his: one in 1995 in which he says that St. Paul’s “concern is not with Peter” and the other in 2008 in which he claims that “Peter stands condemned for his hypocrisy and the passage offers him no defense.” And he certainly is not free to condemn a Pope by recklessly and baselessly charging him with “exegetical blunders” - especially when his own approach to the passage has been both inconsistent and untraditional.
6. Sungenis claims that “opposite Pope Benedict’s claim, the Jews in Galatians 2:12-15 are not understood as ‘believers from Judaism.’ The text does not say whether they were believers. . . . the pope assumes the Jews had already accepted the Gospel, but there is no indication in the text that they had. Hence, the whole basis for the pope’s interpretation of the passage is built on an unproven foundation.”
This is a strange assertion from one who claims to be well versed in biblical exegesis. In fact every commentary we consulted (and it was a couple of dozen, from both Catholic and Protestant scholars) expressly saw the Jews at issue as “believers from Judaism”. St. Paul says that they were “from James” and they were pressing St. Peter on the behavior of Jewish Christians vis-à-vis the Law, which would indeed indicate that they were Jewish converts and not unconverted Jews.
Our survey is hardly complete, but it would be interesting to see just what prominent Catholic scholar Sungenis could bring to the table in support of his bare assertion that “the Jews in Galatians 2:12-15 are not understood as ‘believers from Judaism’”. If Sungenis is going to pit his assertion against the Holy Father’s well-supported view then he should back it up with some argumentation and some explanation as to why he is taking a view opposed to the sweep of Catholic and non-Catholic exegesis throughout history.
7. Sungenis claims that the Pope makes a “blunder” when comparing the context of Gal 2:11ff and Rom 14:1ff.
But not only do both Catholic and Protestant exegetes see exactly the same parallels as the Holy Father (see the quotes from the Navarre Bible commentary and F. F. Bruce above), Sungenis himself is hardly the one to be pointing out failures to consider context given his own whopping, elementary blunder with regard to the context of Romans 11:
R. Sungenis4: . . . After God abolished the Old Covenant in 33 AD and destroyed the Jews in 70 AD for their unbelief, a curious observer might ask: “Well, does that mean the Jews can no longer be saved?” The answer comes back, “No, God has not forsaken the Jews, for I Paul, a Jew from Benjamin, have been saved; and even in the OT God had a remnant of Jewish believers that he saved, even though most of the nation was in apostasy.” That is the context of Romans 11:1-8. ("CAI Answers Its Critics", emphasis added.)
Here we see that, according to Sungenis, an integral part of “the context of Romans 11:1-8” includes an event which took place
at least twelve years after the chapter was written, indeed three years after St. Paul was dead! (Sungenis has repeated this error at least three times: in the Q&A cited above, in an article written for
The Latin Mass Magazine, and in the CASB2 volume which was denied an imprimatur by Bishop Rhoades; see
Endnote 1 for more details). As such, we believe that the Holy Father is safe in ignoring Sungenis’ analysis of the context of Romans 14 vis-à-vis Galatians 2.
8. What has really prompted Sungenis to write at such length and with such vigor against the Pope (and in doing, to contradict his previous position and to commit so many blunders himself)?
Anyone who has been following Sungenis’ work lately will readily guess the answer: Jews.
But even if the Jews in Galatians 2 were believers, shouldn’t they, all the more, be required to set aside their racial pride and accept Gentiles as neighbors, especially since Peter had befriended these Gentiles so as to win them over to the Gospel? Why does the pope give no consideration as to how the Gentiles will feel when they see Peter depart from them for no more than the Jews who think of themselves superior to Gentiles? Why is it, also, that Pope Benedict seems to have no qualms about scandalizing faithful Catholics by having an unconverted Jewish rabbi speak to the hundreds of bishops at the current Synod on Scripture, yet he allows for Peter to claim that the Jews would be scandalized by seeing Peter eat with Gentiles? I submit there is a double standard working here. It seems that the pope’s criterion in both cases is how the scene affects the Jews, not how it affects Gentiles.
Finally, Sungenis gets to the heart of his complaint. He is convinced that Pope Benedict is playing favorites - exonerating Jews and scandalizing Gentiles. This seems to be a common theme in Bob’s writing – sibling jealousy. He gratuitously asserts that the episode in Galatians 2:11ff. concerned Jewish “racial pride” and “Jews who think of themselves superior to Gentiles” (another common theme in Bob’s writings, of late.) But this is not correct. As Sungenis himself recognized back in 1995, there were two groups addressed by St. Paul in this epistle. There was an extreme “circumcision party” with whom St. Paul is occupied for the balance of the Epistle to the Galatians. But most Catholic exegetes do not equate this extreme group with those Jewish converts who “came from James” and convinced St. Peter to return to Jewish dietary practices.
Thus the specific issue between Sts. Peter and Paul wasn't truly a Jews/Gentiles matter in a "racial" sense. It was centered on religious
practice, not racial
identity. The issue facing the two Apostles was truly about differing views on tradition, about what was still binding and what was not. Some believed that more tradition was to be held onto, others thought less, at least for converts from Judaism. And in this specific dispute, no one—not even the most radical “circumcision party”—was arguing that Gentiles could not be admitted to the faith or that they were inferior once admitted.
The Holy Father’s address was not
per se about Jews and Gentiles either. It was about freedom in Christ and charity toward weaker brethren. But just as he has any number of times (such as when he falsely accused Robin Williams of being a Jew after Williams unfairly attacked the priesthood- click
here), it’s Bob who plays the race card. It’s Bob who sees the belief that the Jews are still “chosen” as a racist proposition (click
here). It’s Bob who, in this latest writing, introduces the complete non sequitur of a Jewish rabbi addressing the conference of bishops (as if that had some connection to Gal 2:11ff.) We submit that it’s really
Bob Sungenis who is behaving in a racist manner.
We believe that the evidence presented above confirms the claim made for the past two years at this blog, namely, that when discussing Jewish issues Robert Sungenis is demonstrably reckless and prejudiced. He is not the expert that he claims to be. And even in the area in which he claims greatest acumen, biblical exegesis, he sacrifices scholarly standards and commits elementary blunders in his zeal to thwart “the Jews” (see
The Theology of Prejudice). This becomes especially egregious when he publicly and disrespectfully upbraids the Pope for alleged “blunders”, when in fact it is his
own position that is incorrect on point after point.
The evidence remains clear that, on all matters Jewish, Bob’s work is little more than propaganda masquerading under the guise of authentic Catholic scholarship. And thus, Bishop Rhoades continues to be vindicated in directing him to refrain from using the name “Catholic” and from addressing Jewish issues entirely.
Endnotes:
1: Sungenis has repeated this whopping error on at least three occasions. As documented above, he first wrote about it in a written dialogue with Art Sippo. He repeated the error in an article for
The Latin Mass magazine in which he "reviewed" Roy Schoeman's book
Salvation is From the Jews (see below). And he has included this same fundamental blunder in his CASB2 volume. There he writes:
Romans 11:25 must be interpreted within these specific parameters, but this is an easy task once one understands the context St. Paul has set up in Romans 11:1-4. As we noted earlier, the logical question one would ask after the Temple curtain was miraculously torn in two at the exact moment of Christ's death on the cross (Mt. 27:51), followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans, is: Do the Jews have any future with God at all? Can any of them be saved any longer? We saw above that the answer is 'yes', but it is a qualified 'yes,', since only a remnant will be saved...St. Paul obviously has no delusions of grandeur regarding Jewish conversions. He anticipates saving only a portion of the Jews (CASB2, p. 138; emphasis added).
The obvious question is how an event which would not take place until after St. Paul is dead could possible have factored into the writing of Romans 11. In our article "
The Theology of Prejudice" we further document this elementary blunder on Bob's part. Here is the excerpt from that article dealing with this specific issue:
Bob’s personal Scriptural exegesis is the engine that drives his conclusions. And he sets out his own view of Romans 11 by giving the “context” of St. Paul’s remarks. This is very important because he falls into an elementary error and shows that his whole understanding of the chapter is characterized by a completely erroneous idea of what St. Paul is saying.
In his review of Roy Schoeman’s book
Salvation is From the Jews in the Fall 2005 issue of
The Latin Mass, Sungenis says,
The very reason Romans 11 was written is that, after God rejected and decimated the Jews in the first century, the question of whether any Jew could still be saved came to the fore, which is the very reason St. Paul opens the chapter with: “Has God foresaken the Jew?” (p. 54; emphasis added.)
The reader should be rubbing his eyes and reading that again. Does Bob actually mean what he says here? First, God “rejected . . . the Jews in the first century”? This is a plainly erroneous statement. Bob would not have had to go any further than verse 1 of Romans 11 to get the answer to that question: “God has not rejected His people, has He? By no means!” (Rom 11:1). St. Paul’s poses his question using the Greek particle
mē, which means that it expects the answer No. And this answer he supplies himself in the very next sentence—the emphatically negative answer,
mē genoito can be rendered in English as, “Absolutely not!”, “By no means!”, etc. So according to St. Paul, God had not rejected his people the Jews in the first century, whereas Sungenis said that He had. This is Bob’s first error. But the second is far worse.
Bob also asserts that God had “decimated” the Jews in the first century. Now it’s true that there was a great destruction of the Jewish nation in the first century. But when did this take place? In A.D. 70. And when was St. Paul executed? Around A.D. 66. And when was the Epistle to the Romans written? Scholars typically date it c. A.D. 56-58.
Incredibly,
Bob would have his readers believe that St. Paul wrote Romans 11 in reaction to an event which would not occur for another 14 years. It may be worth rereading that last sentence.
This is, of course, a
monumental error. Surely he can’t have made the elementary error of asserting that Romans 11 was written to answer a question that could only be raised by the destruction of the Jews in A.D. 70, right? Surely he would try to recast it by claiming that’s not what he meant by “decimated”, right? Wrong. He asserted this elsewhere, in an argument with Dr. Art Sippo, and made his monumental error explicit and undeniable:
R. Sungenis4: I personally don’t see what the difficulty is. The “gifts and call of God” that are “irrevocable” refers to the fact that God will never take away the possibility of salvation for the Jews, since he made an irrevocable promise to Abraham about their salvation.
Why would the salvation of the Jew be an issue that needed to be reiterated? Because Paul opens up the chapter by asking: “Has God forsaken the Jews?”
After God abolished the Old Covenant in 33 AD and destroyed the Jews in 70 AD for their unbelief, a curious observer might ask: “Well, does that mean the Jews can no longer be saved?” The answer comes back, “No, God has not forsaken the Jews, for I Paul, a Jew from Benjamin, have been saved; and even in the OT God had a remnant of Jewish believers that he saved, even though most of the nation was in apostasy.” That is the context of Romans 11:1-8. ("CAI Answers Its Critics", emphasis added.)
There it is in black and white. According to Sungenis, an integral part of “the context of Romans 11:1-8” includes
an event which took place at least twelve years after the chapter was written, indeed three years after St. Paul was dead! It is hard to express the magnitude of this error without lapsing into ridicule. And this from a man who is constantly reminding everyone about his accomplishments and academic credentials:
I have spent the last 32 years in intensive study and writing about theology and religion. Additionally, my books have received the Catholic Church’s imprimatur; my articles have been published by over a dozen reputable journals and periodicals; I have written and hosted television programs for EWTN; I have been a guest commentator on CNN and the BBC; I have debated the best and brightest of opposing religions before live audiences, and I continue to be a sought after speaker. ("My Ph.D.", pp. 5-6).
This fundamental error clearly demonstrates what so many have been saying all along. Bob Sungenis is not competent to engage Jewish issues because his deep bias and—to say it plainly—bigotry clouds his judgment and renders his writings on the topic full of serious errors.
