Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Who are the human agents in Gal 1? [to Mark Nanos]

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Who are the human agents in Gal 1? [to Mark Nanos]
  • Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:43:11 -0500 (CDT)


Jonathan Ryder wrote:
>An interesting take, Mark. Can you give us references to anyone else who
>reads
>the 'of men/by man/according to man/received from men' etc. of Gal 1:1 and
>1:11-12 as referring to Paul denying that his Gospel originated in/was
>commensurate with the traditions of his fathers, ie through the agency of his
>fellow 'zealots' and those who taught him prior to his 'conversion' etc. etc.
>
>I ask because as you're well aware the 'usual' take on these verses is
>that Paul
>here refers to accusations by his opponents that his gospel was derived from
>'those apostles before me' (1:17) or some other equivalent human source ie
>there
>is an assumption that such a source would be Christian (if that is not
>anachronistic at this stage).
>
>Of course it's perfectly possible that you are right and the 'usual'
>interpretation is wrong, but I'd be happier if you could refer me either to
>others who hold the same interpretation or to somewhere where you might
>have set
>out this interpretation 'in full' (ie in dialogue with the 'usual' view).

I am in the process of working through this argument as one piece of the
puzzle within a project entitled The Intra-Jewish Identity of the
Influencers in Galatia. I am thus only too aware of how my proposed reading
differs from the consensus, now, and over the course of "Christian"
interpretation. There are places that others support particular points, but
the construction is apparently new as far as I can tell. This is an
ostensible weakness, but I believe it is easily accounted for by way of the
direction Christian thought took very early with regard to Paul and Jewish
identity and behavior, so that I am comfortable exploring this view as
legitimate in the time before these interpreters were coming from a
perspective I suggest that Paul would not have shared.

As I tried to catch up on a few weeks of list correspondence this
particular point seemed relevant to two major threads, since all the
participants seemed to share the view that this contrast implied that the
human agents were the other apostles, which is profoundly influential for
interpretation of Paul's rhetorical intent. It is actually working backward
from this via mirror-reading that the proposition that Paul has been
accused of anything, usually taken to be dependence, though some argue
instead, that he was accused of independence, and a few argue that he was
accused of both dependence and independence on various points. (The other
thread on whether Paul's view of justification by faith for gentiles was
preceded/anticipated by others or not also appealed to this material in
Galatians).

I suggest that the naivete he confronts among his addressees implies that
he has not been directly challenged or accused by those influencing the
Galatian gentile believers in Christ, for they have failed to grasp the
level to which this "other" message of good undermines the message of
Christ in which they have believed, and think they are remaining believers
in. Thus his approach by way of ironic rebuke is effective, capturing them
in the spotlight, and exposing the compromise implicit in the contrast of
choices where they have failed to perceive there was one of such
significance. He can appeal to a shared premise that the death of Christ
has meaning for themselves which they would not wish to undermine, yet
without having to explain it (e.g., 2:21--3:5).

If Paul is on the attack for an unrealized level of compromise, then it is
not necessary to suppose he has some accusation to defend himself from, but
rather, he is the accuser who must make the dangerous level of the
compromise salient to those addressed, since they have not until now
realized this. Much like a parent must confront a teenager trying to get
away with compromising the family values to fulfill the powerful urge to be
accepted by their peers, who think, why not, they will never know. They
know they are compromising, but fail to consider fully the consequences
from the parents point of view, the danger to themselves involved in an
"innocent" act. If caught, the parents may employ ironic rebuke to attack
the case at the level of emotion, seeking to shame the child into realizing
the importance of remaining faithful to the family values they have been
taught, and the enormous level of danger their compromise involves. They
might tell a story of their own temptation to compromise similarly when a
teenager, identifying with the child, and clarifying the appropriate
response. That is what I suggest we find Paul doing in this
autobiographical material. He has not been accused, but his advice is being
suddenly ignored (1:6-9; 3:1; 5:7, 21), and he calls them back to
faithfulness.

I believe that the template he constructs in the autobiographical material
of chapters 1--2 is to enlighten the Galatians that their current
intra-Jewish context, much removed from developments elsewhere, is similar,
in that tension with the dominant Jewish communal norms arises over the
issue of how gentiles are to negotiate righteous identity, but that this
"truth of the gospel of Christ" has been upheld continuously and must be
upheld, otherwise the legitimacy of faith in Christ for this coalition is
undermined, thus nullifying the meaning of the death of Christ for
themselves. All the leaders of this coalition agree with Paul, even though
they may have arrived at this united view independently at the first.
Although this may have the effect of marginalizing these gentiles, and
those Jewish proclaimers of this view--like Paul, who bears in his body the
marks of Jesus--they must pull together, resisting the dominant view by
standing fast and helping each other (the point of chapters 5--6).

I believe we are reading the rhetoric of a minority coalition in distress
for perceived threat to the majority norms, a reform movement at a critical
stage of engagement with the reality of the task.

Several recent works have noted the character of the letter as ironic
rebuke, e.g. Hanson, following an unpublished paper by N. Dahl, who drew
from work of the Pauline seminar around 30 years ago, particularly the work
of T. Mullins and J. White. But I suggest that the implications for
re-imagining the rhetorical situation have yet to be considered, instead
the existing assumptions have remained influential for interpretation. The
rhetorical work of Paul Koptak, "Rhetorical Identification in Paul's
Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1.13--2.14," JSNT 40:97-115, is also
supportive of my rereading, as he notes that it is not independence that
Paul ultimately argues for, but consubstantial unity, drawing upon the
methodological work of K. Burke. Although very different drawing this into
a conflict between Christianity and Judaism rather than intra-Jewish as I
see it, there is some support in N. Walter, 1986, "Paulus und die Gegner
des Christusevangeliums in Galatien," in L'Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style
et Conception du Ministére, Ed. A. Vanhoye. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, Pp. 351-56.

Perhaps the question I should ask of those who think the human agents Paul
contrasts his authority and gospel with are the Jerusalem apostles is,
What connections in the text make this view so compelling? And what textual
references make my view problematic?

Regards,
Mark Nanos







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page