Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Mark's Article for Review

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: Mark's Article for Review
  • Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:32:06 -0500


Troy,
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to address a few comments below.

>Your major criticism of the consensus interpretation is that it
>identifies the "influencers" as Christ-believing Jews who desire to make
>Christ-believing Gentiles into full proselytes. You suggest instead
>that the influencers are themselves proselytes who are not members of
>the Christ-believing coalitions. You further assert that the
>Christ-believing Gentiles are seeking integration into the larger Jewish
>communities of Galatia and have aroused the envy of the full Jewish
>proselytes. The issue is then whether or not the "influencers" are
>Christ-believing Jews or Jewish proselytes who do not believe Jesus is
>the Christ.

This basically states some aspects of my view of the implied rhetorical
situation. I do believe that the identity of the influencers is pivotal for
sketching the situation of the addressees, and thus for the way the purpose
and message of the letter are understood. I do not actually think the
"Christ-believing" or not identity of them is the major criticism of the
consensus interpretations, but it is a major one, and a necessarily
important one at the beginning of a larger project of challenging the
reading of the message of the letter, which is in the end more important
for most people who concern themselves with reading this letter anyway.
When I began this project, by the way, I assumed that the influencers were
Christ-believers, with the consensus, and I thought that this was
advantageous ideologically, for Jewish-Christian relations, for example.
But study of the text has convinced me otherwise, and I also now see some
advantages, along with disadvantages to be sure, with my current view; I
wrote to this matter briefly in the final section of the paper under
discussion.

The matter of the reaction of these "influencers" is actually much more
sympathetic than your statement might make it appear. Paul does accuse them
of envious intentions in 3:1 (who has evil eyed you?), and generally of
self-serving motives in e.g., 4:17 (shutting out to be sought after);
6:12-13 (promoting their own honor rating). I read these with suspicion.

I think we should approach them as people, and at least as concerned with
the interests of these gentiles as Paul. Although their ideas and actions
are based upon a perspective different from Paul's "now," when he writes,
they are perhaps much more similar to his own than is usually granted. They
may even be precisely the same as his in his "former" way of promoting
Jewish life, a way of life that he used to believe quite honorable, rather
than his current way of promoting Jewish life. If we had a letter from them
in response to Paul's letter, it may well refer to him as a trouble-maker,
agitator, etc., and seek to reveal the self-interest of his motives and
strategies of manipulation to persuade the addressees that is quite similar
to Paul's. Would we gain an accurate picture of Paul from this letter
alone, that is, read in isolation and without asking these kinds of
questions of the implied parties and situation of the rhetoric employed?

I doubt that these were their motives from their perspective, even if they
might admit to some self-interest; who is entirely above this? Paul refers
to them being evil eyed, which is bound up with the fear of another's
envious response to "seeing" one's good fortune. As I read it, admittedly a
reading that is not found elsewhere to my knowledge, Paul's accusation of
envy--of them being evil eyed--is aroused by the "Johnnies-come-lately"
experiences of the addressees; experiences the influencers would apparently
not expect to occur among gentiles before they completed the ritual process
of conversion (cf. 3:1-5). And Paul seems to appeal to the current
suffering of the addressees as a result of this glance, although his ironic
rebuking style (Socratic questions and insults) is grounded in the
addressees' failure to suspect that their recent misfortunes were the
result of the influencers' gaze. That is the naiveté that the ironic
rebuking style reveals. They should be suspicious of the influencers, but
they have not been.

Actually, this accusation of envy toward the advances of the gentiles is
one of the reasons I suggest that the influencers are themselves
proselytes, that is, former gentiles who have paid their dues, if you will,
to gain the advantage that comes with their new status. And thus it is a
natural and salient response to the claims of the gentile addressees to
equal status and access to goods (including miraculous activities) without
paying their dues. In a culture in which the system of honor and shame
functions with a concern and even ritualized manner of avoiding envy that
is aroused by such comparisons, this kind of accusation may not seem as
nasty as it might to interpreters from other cultures. For example, it need
not be at the level of intention; it is a natural response to the advancing
of another's honor (Paul speaks against playing this honor challenge game
on the same terms in 5:26). But it is nevertheless an accusation seeking to
undermine the addressees trust in the influencers interests in themselves
becoming proselytes. Instead of advancing the addressees' interests, Paul
suggests that the influencers are putting them in their place, a place
beneath themselves, which serves the influencers' own interests instead.
That is common to ritualized distinctions of identity, regardless of
context: these differences often lead to discrimination.

It seems that the influencers have responded to the status problem of the
addressees--a problem that, ironically, Paul's message that they have
become full children of Abraham, of God, apart from becoming Israelite
proselytes, has perhaps actually created!--by seeking to help them
negotiate this identity boundary on the traditional terms. This seems to me
to be a noble response and intention, regardless of the fact that Paul sees
it otherwise because of his perspective and interests. His perspective has
been altered by believing the time for this traditional way of including
representatives of the nations has changed with the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. Thus his polemical approach to their persuasive influence
upon his "children" in Galatia.

But I think we, as interpreters, should approach their identity and
interests with a little more respect, at least in forming some of our
hypotheses, until it is proven otherwise by testing them. Thus I have
challenged the negative labels and stereotyping taken from privileging the
polemical rhetorical interests of Paul, with which interpretations of
Galatians "begin." Does not the positive response and trust of the
addressees in the influencers, a response that has so threatened Paul that
he resorts even to curse wishes and castration sarcasm and evil eye
accusations to seek to undermine this trust, suggest that at least the
possibility exists that the influencers are themselves motivated by more
noble interests, and acting in a more respectful manner toward the
addressees than is permitted by naming them opponents, agitators,
trouble-makers, judaizers (when loaded with ideologically negative views of
things Jewish anyway), etc.? (Properly speaking, it seems also that
judaizing is something gentiles do when they become Jewish, proselytes, but
not something Jewish people do. So too, Hellenizing is something non-Greeks
do, but not what Greeks do; they are Hellenes. Anyway, the freight of this
label has been ideologically charged with a Christian gentile perspective
against Jewish identity and behavior as an understood threat to Christian
identity; so it does not, on this level, bother me as a label for
proselytes if disassociated from this perspective, which I do not share).

>
>The crucial passage deciding the issue for me is 1:6-9, which states
>that the "influencers" proclaim a gospel. The surface reading of this
>passage supports the consensus interpretation that the influencers are
>Christ-believing Jews. However, you use irony to invert the surface
>meaning of this passage, and you present four arguments to legitimate
>your ironic reading of this passage and especially Paul's use of
>eujagge/lion. First, you designate qauma/zw as "an ironic marker."
>Even though this verb is sometimes used ironically, it is not always so
>used. This argument is only persuasive if quama/zw is always used
>ironically, and it is not. It is the context and not the presence of
>this verb that establishes the presence or absence of irony. I consider
>the presence of this verb neutral rather than decisive.

You rightly note that I appeal to the usage of thaumatzw in 1:6. Although
no full treatment of this point was offered in the paper, it is planned in
forthcoming work. One may consult the work of G. Walter Hanson on Abraham
and Galatians at the moment for the basic data (or the essays of T.
Mullins, J. White, N. Dahl, on the topic). This was a common convention for
letter-writing, such as we readily understand the form of a "dear John"
letter. It is not necessary, however, to prove all instances of dear John
are this kind of letter, anymore than it is necessary for thaumatzo. Other
elements combine to indicate this kind of letter; as you admit, the context
is decisive.

Second, you
>write that eujagge/lion "is qualified as 'another,' which is a part of
>word play differentiation." I am unsure what you mean or what argument
>you are advancing and thus cannot evaluate this second point.

This is one of the elements of irony; discussion in W. Booth, A Rhetoric of
Irony. It is not that important at the moment for the discussion.

Third,
>you write, "Within the same sentence it [eujagge/lion?] is immediately
>followed by the denial that this other message is 'another.' That is,
>it is not actually a eujagge/lion!" The irony you identify works in the
>English translation since English has only a single word for "another."
>Greek, however, has two words, and both are used here. The Greek
>wording translates that the Galatians have quickly deserted the one who
>called them "for another (he/teron) gospel of a different kind which is
>not another (a/llo) gospel of the same kind." The figure of speech is
>not irony but litotes for the purpose of emphasis. Paul merely states
>in negative form what he stated in positive form. This third argument
>for irony does not work in the Greek.

I am afraid that I must disagree with you here. I have posted to B-Greek a
full discussion of these two Greek words for other/another, and discussed
the freight they have been asked to carry in this context, but simply
cannot. The play into ironic inversion in Greek quite nicely. If you or
others would like, I could copy this argument in a later post; it should be
in the B-Greek archives from spring of this year.

Fourth, you assert that the
>exception clause in verse 7 "informs the Galatians that the reason this
>other message may be now compared to the good news of Christ in Paul's
>rebuke is their own doing: they have let it so function for
>themselves." This argument is circular and assumes what it attempts to
>prove; namely, that the "influencers" did not refer to their own message
>as a euagge/lion and thus Paul's use of this term is ironic. As they
>stand, it seems to me, none of these arguments legitimates an ironic
>reading of this passage.

You are correct to note the circularity of this point; but it is the same
circularity that you must appeal to if you assert the opposite. J. L.
Martyn can even provide you with the contents of that "necessarily"
Christ-based euangelion, if you like. But Paul does not say they called it
one, or detail the contents thereof. We are left to constructing and
testing hypotheses on this matter; mine is different, but not ruled out a
priori. And my point will stand even if they have used the label euangelion
of their non-Christ based message of the "good news" of proselyte
conversion for the addressees. But I think the surprise is increased in
Paul's rebuke if the addressees have failed to think of this "other"
message in terms paralleling and thus antithetical to the good news of
Christ, but rather as "another" message that they have convinced themselves
could be responded to "alongside" or "in addition to" the message of good
in Christ in which they have already believed.

>
>Neither, it seems to me, does your attempt to read Galatians as an
>ironic letter of rebuke. The passages you cite as examples of ironic
>rebuke (3;1-5; 4:8-11, 12-21; 5:7-15) may contain rebuke, but I fail to
>see the irony. Paul's rebuke of Cephas in Antioch contains an element
>of irony, but the irony functions at the level of characterization and
>not at the textual level. Paul means what he says to him. There is no
>irony in Paul's words even though it is ironic that Paul must rebuke
>Cephas in regard to the gospel. Considering the straightforward
>statements in Galatians, I find it surprising that you understand the
>letter as ironic. Perhaps, we are operating with differing definitions
>of irony. This literary device is often complex and difficult to
>recognize as Karl Plank has explained. It would help if you defined
>what you mean by irony.

This is a rather involved topic. It provides the tentative title of my
forthcoming Fortress project: The Irony of Galatians. Irony is many
faceted. Oversimplified, irony involves inversion; playing two or more
meanings off of one another. It often occurs in the oscillation between
these two or more meanings. It is communal in nature, appealing to shared
understandings. The recognition of irony or not may tell as much about an
interpreter's presuppositions/working hypotheses as it does about the one
being interpreted. For example, as long as one "knows" that the other
message was a gospel of Christ plus Law, they will not be listening to the
ironic inversion of this other message, as I noted briefly above.

To name just a few examples, do you not recognize the ironic "appearance
[dokew]" and "reality [einai]" in the Jerusalem example of chapter 2, or in
the way Paul argues with Peter (reconstructed) in vv. 14ff., appealing to
their shared Jewish identity to undermine Peter's hypocritical action, as
though that identity was compromised, downgrading them to that of gentile
sinners, by Christ? Do you not see the Socratic style of Paul's "only one
question" in 3:2, undermining their own knowledge and experiences in order
to make them realize the implicit compromise thereof their "other" choice
involves? I know from your article on 4:8-10 that it will take some
argument to show you the ironic level here; I will leave this aside for the
moment, but it has much to do with the working assumptions of the writer
and his addressees. Does not the ironic element of his attack in 4:12-20
stand out rather clearly? To name just one example: that for telling them
the truth for their own good they might find him to be their enemy, while
the influencers who are shutting them out in order to advance their own
interests are thought to be their friends (do we not tell our children this
when we discipline or rebuke them for trusting their peers when this runs
against the standards of the family?: "am I denying you this in order to
hurt you?..."). Do you not see the irony of 5:15 in context, that by trying
to gain honor with each other they are, instead of serving one another,
which is the true intent of the Jewish Law, instead tearing one another
down, and in the end this will lead to their own undoing as well? A kind of
cruel irony, sarcasm actually, is in verse 12's castration wish. And
litotes, which you mention, is a form of irony.

>
>Failing to read 1:6-9 as ironic, I am more persuaded at the present by
>the consensus interpretation than your interpretation. Furthermore, it
>seems to me that par' ho/ in 1:9 specifies the difference between Paul's
>gospel and the gospel proclaimed by the "influencers." This phrase
>indicates that this other gospel places additional requirements on the
>gospel proclaimed by Paul. These additional requirements are clearly
>expressed in the remainder of the letter as circumcision and observance
>of the law. Both of which figure prominently into Paul's argument. If
>the message of the "influencers" denied that Jesus was the Christ as you
>suggest, I would expect a very different argument in the remainder of
>the letter; namely, that Jesus is the Christ. This issue, however,
>never surfaces in the letter. Given your reading, why not?

Yes, 1:9 and elsewhere the issue does seem to be that something in addition
to their faith in Christ, namely, proselyte conversion, is in view in this
other message. But that it is a message of "Christ plus" need not be
implied. It is "plus" because they already believe in Christ, and this
belief is what has led the addressees to believe that they had an identity
as children of God that the traditional Jewish community keepers of the
norms (as far as we know them) would have found surprising if not
objectionable, that is, apart from "completing" that which faith in Christ
had begun for these gentiles. Namely, completion of proselyte conversion.
They need not be concerned with Christ or belief in him to hold this view.

As for the second point, I offer back to you just one example that I do not
understand how their identity as Christ-believers explains, even if
Christ-plus believers. Why would the singular "seed" be objectionable to
other Christ-believers in the midrashic appeal to Abraham? Would not "all"
Christ-believers agree with this? Those who would disagree would be
disagreeing about the role of Christ, would they not? The issue here is not
believing in Christ-plus, but in Christ at all, it seems to me.

>
>My own problem with the consensus interpretation is why none of the
>Galatians has submitted to circumcision by the time Paul writes the
>letter and why Paul does not address those who may already have become
>circumcised. His rhetoric throughout the letter assumes that none of
>them has become circumcised. This reticence suggests to me that the
>Galatians are not eager to submit to circumcision.

This point need not follow; it is the culmination of a ritual process of
conversion. I think that Paul's style and argument indicate that their
desires have been engaged, and at points he says as much. What do you do
with, e.g., 4:21?: you who desire (thelontes) to be under the Law (i.e.,
become proselytes). And what do you make of the implication in 3:2-3 that
they are seeking to end in the flesh, which I take to indicate proselyte
conversion (circumcision of the flesh), what they had begun by faith? Does
not the force of this suggest that they are still engaged by this idea,
rather than having dismissed it?

Their acceptance of
>the circumcision gospel is a separate issue from their decision to
>become circumcised. It is possible that the Galatians accept the
>circumcision gospel as the valid Christian gospel and then decide to
>abandon Christianity altogether and return to their paganism rather than
>submit to circumcision. I have explained this possibility at length in
>my article "Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian
>Controversy," JBL 114(1995):437-461. Paul's sharp rebuke in Galatians
>does not arise because the Galatians are considering becoming Jewish
>proselyte Christians but because they are abandoning Christianity
>altogether in favor of Paganism. At any rate, my assessment of the
>deficiency of the consensus interpretation is different than your own
>even though we both agree the consensus interpretation merits
>reevaluation.
>
>In a later posting, perhaps, I can discuss the other two areas of broad
>agreement in our work on Galatians. Until then, thank you for
>stimulating my thinking.

By the way, I found your article's appeal to stasis theory very useful,
even if the results of this study, because of the different working
hypotheses, differ from my own. To me it seems that the bedrock of Paul's
appeal is the shared value of the meaning of the death of Christ (which he
does not really explain) that he is certain the addressees would not
compromise (turn upside down, render vain, nullify, make gratuitous), and
thus his purpose is to make clear to them that this other course
necessarily does, so that, in the end, he may "have confidence in the Lord
that [they] will take no other view than [his own]" (5:10).

Thank you for taking the time to interact with my posted paper.

I look forward to additional comments; what are the other two areas?

Mark Nanos
Kansas City






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page