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: "Andrew Goddard" <andrew.goddard AT wycliffe-hall.oxford.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark's Article for Review
  • Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:58:54 +0100

Mark or Troy - I've just joined the list in the last few days and so have not seen the thread of which this is part.  Is there anyway of accessing the article on Galatians referred to ?

Thanks,
Andrew.
 
***********************
Andrew Goddard,
Wycliffe Hall,
54 Banbury Rd,
Oxford,
OX2 6PW
andrew.goddard AT wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 2:49 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Mark's Article for Review

Greetings Mark.

I apologize for my delayed response to your last post.  Some pressing deadlines  hindered a prompt response.  I offer the following comments on the points you raised in that post.

Mark D. Nanos wrote: I hope at this point to have simply made the case that one cannot "know" that this other message of good was about Christ on the basis of this language in 1:6-7, since any kind of message could be implied in the use of hETEROS/ALLOS, whether this is taken to be synonymous as I do, or in either of the directions that have been argued by other interpreters, including the one you support: it is another message of good, a different kind of message of good . . . any Jewish message providing for the inclusion of gentiles could be in view, since it is a different message than Paul's. . . .

I think you have made your case at the semantic level.  The overlap of the semantic domain of hETEROS/ALLOS makes your interpretation possible, but I hesitate to identify these domains as "synonymous."  There are times when the domains do not overlap, and the issue in 1:6-7 is whether this text is one of those times.  I think the issue is whether or not the syntax "hETEROS not ALLOS" permits a synonymous meaning of these two terms.  My experience with this syntax indicates a distinction between the meaning of these two words.  I think you need to establish your case at the syntactic  level by demonstrating that the syntactical contrast of hETEROS and ALLOS permits these two words to be synonymous.  I think the syntax indicates a distinction in the meaning of the words, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.  Paul knows of another (ALL0S) gospel that is compatible with his gospel for the uncircumcision; namely the gospel for the circumcision (2:7).   When the gospel for the circumcision is forced upon the uncircumcision, however, it is hETEROS not ALLOS.  At least, this is the way I understand 1:6-7.

I think you have also made your case that EUAGGELION has a semantic range that exceeds the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The question is whether or not this broader semantic range is possible in the context of 1:6-7.  Does EUAGGELION occur elsewhere in a Christian writing as a reference to the Jewish message of proselyte conversion of non-Jews?  If this term were used this way in Christian circles, wouldn't an author need to specify which meaning is in view?  I am thinking of a passage like Rom 1:16-17, which is a reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ even though the term EUAGGELION is not specified.  I think you have made your case at the semantic level, but I still have problems at the syntactical and contextual level.
 

Moving on to the other points, you wrote:  On the question of categories, I like your proposal of accusation and argument, although it suffers from the same problem as those of direct and narrative. . . . The problem is
that the entire letter constitutes argument, in your case even if some
parts may be accusatory in nature. . . .By your separation, I am unclear why accusation would not be characteristic, and equally so, by the language of 3:1-5; 4:12-20; 4:21; 5:7-15. How are 1:6-9 and 4:8-11 any "different in kind," so as to be given priority for the task of providing situational information?
I am not so sure that my categories suffer from the same problem as the categories of direct and narrative.  Direct and narrative are etic categories whereas accusation and argument are emic categories arising out of the ancient discussion of stasis theory.  Whereas the direct category is determined by content and the narrative category is determined by form, the categories of accusation and argument are each determined by both content and form.  I think we need to be careful not to equivocate on the term "argument."  To say  that the entire letter functions as an "argument" for Paul's position is not to say that all the statements are formally "arguments."  You are quite right to point to accusations in addition to those in 1:6-9 and 4:8-11.   Stasis theory distinguishes between the primary stasis and the secondary stases.  On pages 438-439 of  my article "Apostasy to Paganism," I explain, "The development of a stasis produces a controversy in which two parties disagree.  The stasis of the disagreement is determined by joining the accusing statement made by the first party with the defensive response of the second party. . . . This process of accusation and defense generates secondary stases that represent subsequent contrary positions taken by both parties in the debate.  This process continues until the controversy is resolved  or until the parties despair of resolution."  Stasis theory thus accounts for several accusations in Galatians in addition to 1:6-9 and 4:8-11.  I single out these two because stasis created by the accusation in 4:8-11 provides the containment of the controversy and is thus the principle stasis (see pp. 442-443) while the accusation in 1:6-9 creates the most important of the secondary stases.  For these reasons, I do not consider my categories to suffer from the same problems as the categories of direct and narrative.
You wrote: I think that the ironic language of 4:8-11 is predicated upon their
knowledge that Paul is not against Jewish observance or even proselyte
conversion per se, but he is against converting in this way "for
themselves," in view of the fact that they, although gentiles, have already
gained what this conversion promises them. . . .
Our difference of opinion about ironic surfaces again.  I agree there is a contrast here between before and now.  Is this all you mean by ironic or is there more?

I would like to explore your notion that Paul was not against "proselyte conversion per se."  My agreement with you on this point creates a problem for me.  If Paul is not opposed to proselyte conversion, why is he so opposed to non-Jewish Christians deciding to live out their Christianity in the same way as Jewish Christians?  Your answer to this question is twofold.  First, you assert that their submitting to proselyte conversion would deny their standing in Christ.  When I read 1 Cor 7:17-40 about remaining in the state in which one is called, I am not sure Paul would agree that proselyte conversion would deny their standing in Christ.  Paul admonishes an uncircumcised Christian to remain uncircumcised (7:18) but then states that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything (7:19).  Paul even specifically states that slaves and the married and unmaried may change their status without denying their calling.  I wonder if Paul viewed submission to circumcision as a denial of one's calling.  Second, you assert that Paul objects to the Galatians' submission to proselyte conversion because both Jew and Gentile must become the people of God in the new age.  I agree this point is important for Paul, but I wonder if he would have been so upset with a few Gentiles converting to Judaism as long as they maintained their Christianity.  Were there not enough Gentiles to fill out the number of the people of God even if a few converted to Judaism?  Doesn't the Jewish part of this people of God require some proselytes?  These are just some obstacles I perceive with you view.  In my reading, Paul's concern lies not with proselyte conversion but with apostasy from Christianity altogether.

A response to the other issues of paraenesis and of your understanding of my own proposal for the situation at Galatia, I must defer to a later post.
A Co-Interested Interpreter of Paul,Troy
---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: martin AT sxu.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
 

--
MZ
 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page