Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: SV: Re: was:Paul Not a Pharisee?

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: SV: Re: was:Paul Not a Pharisee?
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:36:45 -0600


Dear Dieter,

Thank you very much for the interaction on these things. Now this is fun. Who says we can't start a meaningful conversation by this medium? Yet I do wish we could do so over a table with a beverage of choice at hand! I will reply to a few of your comments below. Again, I appreciate that we are on a similar page in terms of methodology (I find yours welcome for interpretation on Galatians indeed), which makes for a precise consideration of how we interpret the material in this letter, and a basis to hold each other to in our response.


If we read Galatians, we find, that Paul is never hesitant to make a point with regard to his position in the church, or in Christ for that matter, and to make his position unequivocally clear and explicit, except for a couple of places, namely those we are discussing and possibly also 2.5. You may want to look at 1.1 (divinely appointed apostle), 1.11-12 (unique recipient of the gospel), 13-14 (superior zelot for the traditions of the fathers), 15-16a (God's son revealed in him), 16b-17 (complete independence). 6.17 (bearer of the stigmata of Christ)... I could go on and on, but these references may suffice.

Unfortunately these do not suffice without explanation; it is the interpretation of all of this data that is of concern, to which you now turn...

In light of these tendencies in the letter as a whole, it would seem a secondary procedure, to ask whether or not the recipients had or had no knowledge of all of these affirmations, i.e. did Paul only want to fill in their blanks? My answer would be: No. Instead, Paul is extremely interested in listing every point possible in order to establish an overwhelming ethos, thus preparing the addressees for the rather unpleasant things he will be dealing with in ch 3-5 especially.

We need to tease out the assumptions here. I do not think that in this rather short letter Paul actually gave very full explanations, or wrote many things he would have liked to if he had the time, or more clearly, if he could be present "and change his tone" (4:20). (Since you are working with psychological methodology, as I am myself, I offer my own take on this, and invite your response.)

In fact, it is just that tone that biases the information so greatly, and I think adjusts what the interpreter can expect to be confident of "knowing." That tone is ironic rebuke in the parental (he calls it maternal: 4:19-20) style, like when catching a teenager in a compromising situation. They should have known better based on what they have learned from teaching and example in the family, but now, in the immediacy of peer pressure find so confusing. When so engaged the emotions are attacked, which is what we find Paul doing in much of the situational discourse (e.g., 1:1, 6-12; 3:1-5; 4:8-21; 5:1-5; 6:12-17). It is a time to introduce stories of the parents' own similar struggles (ethos). Not so much to teach new lessons, but to try to relate (identify) and thus convince in the thick of the "unsettled" teenagers life, when the appeal of reason to the family norms has begun to lose its power to conform (to avoid the risk of shame), because an alternate court of reputation beckons with very attractive solutions to the identity crisis at hand (the promise of honor/acceptance on their terms). Here the failure to consider consequences is often the target, and that is where Paul goes as well. Do they realize what will be compromised? No, so Paul seeks to set them straight. But he does not actually explain why the meaning of Christ's death is compromised; simply making the point seems to be enough to believe that this will get their attention; they apparently did not consider that the consequences of a little compromise was of such significant weight!

Thus I think that you are right to conclude that Paul's ethos appeal is very important, but far from exhaustive. It is rather very brief, and leaves much to us to spend countless hours trying to fill in actually. Moreover, the "rather unpleasant things," what I would call ironic rebuke or ridicule, does not wait for the ethos appeal of 1:13-2:21, but begins in a way in 1:1 (of course an ethos appeal), and is quite direct in 1:6-9. Paul says already in effect, by way of "feigned ignorance," a favorite parental tactic!: "who do you think you are!" and "who do you think they are!" and even "who do you thing they are!" His argument, as I see it, is overall a pathos appeal in the situational discourses, with an ethos appeal in the narrative to which your comments point.

(I have delt extensively with a communication-psychological analysis of Gal in my book, see below.)

Of this I am excited to learn, and can't wait to engage.

In three cases of crucial importance, circumcision (2.5), authority (2.6-9) and conflict management (2.11-14), his persuasion strategy is obvious, yet his argumentation is dubious at crucial points.
On the basis of the overall tendencies in his self-presentation, it would seem plausible to me, even if the addresses may have heard it before, that he would not have left out, to cite a decision in Jerusalem that had accredited to him the authority of apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Neither would he have left out to emphasize (once again), the fact of his victory over Peter in Antioch. However, he constructed his argument in such a way, that, given the conditions of oral presentation, the crucial weeknesses of the arguments will be overlooked.

I just don't agree with you here, and see no reason to do so on the explanation given. Do you have a psychological methodology on which this is based, or a rhetorical or epistolary theory? Your conclusion assumes that Paul's apostleship was in dispute with the other apostles. This sounds like it relies on larger constructions of Paul (e.g., Baur et al.). If so, then this will prove to be an obstacle that we will need to work through at every turn, for I do not find this hypothesis confirmed in Galatians, or Paul's other letters for that matter.

I think Paul's argument assumes that the legitimacy of his apostleship was not a matter of dispute with the other apostles, and that it would be clear that he put Peter in his place. The rhetorical approach assumes he was fully within his rights to do this, since his too is an apostle of God who had received the same revelation as themselves. This has resulted in a status as an apostle of this coalition, a status with which all inside this coalition agree.

Although the conclusions of Paul and the other apostles where independently reached, they are dyadically (co-dependently) linked, and this was confirmed when necessary some years later: when Pual went up to Jerusalem some years later to subordinate his gospel to their review they found they had all came to the same basic conclusions. They then worked out any differences that arose because of the different contexts of their ministries (I like Koptak's work from K. Burke here). Thus the strength of the message for these "unsettled" teenagers: all of the leaders of the Christ-believing coalition agree on the truth of the gospel--that gentiles do not become Israelites (i.e., proselytes), but nevertheless equal co-members of the righteous ones of God with Israelites--even if some of the leaders (Peter at Antioch, and then the others present) may find themselves tempted, just as are you, to compromise in the face of pressure to conform with the norms of other reference groups. But it must not be done; and even Peter is not above being "publicly rebuked" when he fails to live according to the principles of this truth; so too now in this letter are you being rebuked. I did not allow the Antiochene gentiles to be shamed then for holding onto this truth, and I will not let you compromise this truth for which we have all suffered now without public rebuke (albeit stuck with a letter to do so) Am I now your enemy for telling you the truth? The message of the letter: Do not give in: 5:1; stand fast, therefore.


We could go through the other conflict reports in ch 1 and 2 and ch 4, 5 and 6 and nowhere is there, as far as I can see, any hesitance with regard to repetition of accusation (or curse for that matter), but rather (if one considers ch 4 especially) a tendency to be over-explicit to the point of making a personally not involved reader feel uncomfortable. Thus, the explicit evidence of the letter, I believe, speaks strongly against your suggestion regarding compliance with ancient cultural conventions. If it was dishonorable to gloat, then Paul's explicit remarks do not, as far as I can see, square with such a convention. But then again, who can draw the line between gloating, paradigmatic self-conception, self-stigmatisation and so on? And also, could there not be considerations of overriding importance on the part of the sender?

I do not follow you here. Perhaps I have been too brief, as I was trying to frame the challenge for you, not explain my own view. Where does Paul gloat in this letter? I do not mean to argue that Paul is not confident; and he seems to me to be a convert or fanatical type who does not see a place for compromise of principles held dear. But in this letter he upholds himself as an example of resistance, willing to suffer persecution, to which he calls the addressees, for the resistance that is appropriate to their core faith in the meaning of Christ's death for themselves as gentiles. But even in 2:5 it is "we" who did not yield, and 2:2 is remarkably humble, an admission of the dyadic personality of Paul it seems to me. It is his marks for Jesus to which he appeals. Even his revelation of Christ is couched in the admission of his failure to realize what he now tells the addressees to endure suffering for, when he had himself been "formerly" one extremely honored by human agents and agency. I think this is what 1:1, 10-11 anticipates: a contrast with the non-Christ agents and agencies, of which he was a former hot shot, but now a marginalized and persecuted pest (just like a parent trying to relate the appeal of "coolness" that they resisted or even gave up, at just the same point the teenager now faces the temptation to compromise in order to achieve).

I see no opposition between Paul as apostle and the other apostles of this coalition in Galatians; and I think his argument implies that there is none, and the addressees know that from knowing Paul's spin on things before (as "we" have said before, 1:9; for you have heard of my former, 1:13; I testify "again," 5:3). In fact I do not think that the situation in Galatia has anything to do with anything in Jerusalem, except as Paul introduces the place to make this ethos appeal! It is never mentioned outside of the narratives (only in ethos appeals of 1:13--2:21; allegory of 4:22-30); never a point of reference in the situational discourse.

If Paul won the honor challenge at Antioch, then this is a rather modest way to approach the case. But this explanation may be anachronistic, based on our social conventions and logic, not those of him and his addressees. I have another idea, but this post is long enough!


As you can see, my methodological procedure is to move from patterns and tendencies to inferences in cases of divertion.

Let me just mention, in order to stick to my own rules, the hermeneutical position I have chosen for these anlyses. Already in 1934 W Bauer wrote the famous sentence in his book on the early heretics (Rechtgläubigkeit...): 'Muss der Geschichtsschreiber nicht ebenso über den Parteien stehen und das audiatur et altera pars as höchsten Grundsatz haben?' I would add to that: if we have to wait for an impartial judge, we will wait forever. Instead, we need, at least, a public defender for the accused, however partial that analysis may turn out to be. Then, let there be a jury of readers. It has been my strategy for a couple of years to read Galatians with the ears of the accused, which has made me change my opinion on both Paul, the opponents and the letter recipients.

We are engaged in the same task it would seem, of which I am very grateful to learn. As a Jewish reader of Paul I want to understand those who are influencing his addressees on their own terms. That is what my recent and forthcoming work is about. I think that understanding these people or groups will pay off not only for understanding the addressees, and Paul, in terms of the various views of the exigence in Galatia, but in terms of re-reading his message in an intra- and inter-Jewish context, instead of intra- and inter- Christian one, which turns out to be not that different, it seems to me, from the traditional Christian against Jewish one. The benefits are not only rhetorical and historical, but may help to bring a new possibilities, and, ironically, a new level of respect between Christian and Jewish people and faiths. I look forward to engaging your work in this endeavor.

Response to the above welcome. Thanks. Perhaps we can introduce ourselves off-line and take this further; I hope you won't find it too forward if I send you a note along with this response on the list.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page