Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:01:37 +0200


Dear Mark
I appreciate both your agreements and disagreements and I enjoy interacting.
A few more comments on your last reply:

> I must say that
> identifying these people as "agitators" strikes me as a
> methodological flaw of a kind similar to those others you note, since
> it is a label based upon Paul's rhetoric which seeks to put them in
> bad light. Should not the historical critic wishing to identify these
> people/ interest groups begin with a neutral term of reference which
> allows the consideration of their identity in a way that they might
> accept/ share?

I agree absolutely. I was using inverted commas and making statements further
down in my reply, that show, I believe, that I do not support such a
designation. I think 'influencers' is quite good, but have myself been using
'advisors'. But as my understanding of your position improves, I can imagine,
that you would not be happy with that term.

> I have also avoided reference to the addressees of Paul's
> letter, e.g., as "the Galatians," since this may subtly continue the
> prevailing assumption that the influencers are not also "Galatians."

Yes, I have noticed that. Maybe I find that overdoing it a little. I don't
think anybody has ever thought of the addressees of a letter as being the
only or all the people living in that area, be it Galatia, Rome or Corinth.
And I don't think anybody has been led to think of influencers that are
criticised in the letters to the Corinthians to come from outside, because
the addressees are called Corinthians.

> Likewise I refrain from calling anyone in
> Galatia "Christians," as this suggests a later sectarian identity,
> rather than testing the letter to see if that is what one finds. I
> refer to them as Christ-believing addressees, members of the
> Christ-believing group or coalition, non-Christ-believing
> influencers, etc.

Here I agree in substance, and have to admit that I have been careless in my
own way of expressing myself.
> Perhaps the
> problem is the way you are limiting the use of "compel." Your second
> sentence, e.g., could read, "They may have been compelled on the
> basis of their own social and political circumstances and
> difficulties." I believe this usage is consistent with the Greek as
> well as the English domain.

Here I cannot agree. I will not comment on the English, not being a native
speaker of the language. The primary idea in the Greek seems to sugggest
something in the direction of force, though, as far as my knowledge goes. And
if you continue by saying that

> No one is forcing the addressees, someone
> is compelling them, which is what Paul expects his letter to do as
> well!
then I must comment: Paul is putting a lot of pressure on the addressees,
even to the point of threat. That I would say is force. Now if he, as you
say, is depicting others to compel just as he himself is, then that would
prove that my limiting use of compel, as you call it, is quite accurate!

> Is not Paul as close to "the pillars" as it gets?

Here I think our disagreement is complete. the way I read Gal 1-2, Paul is in
opposition to anyone who would claim equal authority. He only submits to
Christ who is in him. and what kind of a submission is that I ask? Isn't
that the message of ch 1? "Immediately(!) I did not consult flesh and blood,
nor go up to Jerusalem..." Wouldn't anyone in his right mind have done just
that? Not consulting those who are eye wittnesses, appointed apostles and
messengers by the risen Christ...? For observations like these, I do find it
very hard to agree to your finishing remarks (see below).

> I am sorry to have to disagree about what we agree upon, but I do not
> believe that the influencers in Galatia are Christ believers. We are
> left with the agreement that they are from Galatia, as are the
> addressees, as far as the information from Paul's letter allows
> anyway.

This I have to think some more about and read what you have written in your
dissertation before I respond.

> If Paul had an example from a
> meeting in Alexandria, e.g., that fit the rhetorical purpose of his
> use of narrative to support the argument he is making with the
> Galatian addressees, would it be compelling then to suppose that
> someone in Galatia is from Alexandria?

The people mentioned in Gal 2 seem to be mentioned because they are known to
the Galatians (even Barnabas...2.13). So, if the influencers had their
authority from those, whom Paul can show to have publically and successfully
corrected, then of course, if Paul's success is admitted for those cases, the
influence of the influencers must weaken. Please don't tell me that this is
not a good point (just kidding)

> this policy was the result of a
> process of agreements that were arrived at with some cost to the
> players, and even some mistakes were made along the way by important
> people in this coalition. But the present state of the question is
> clear, and thus the Galatians are bound by Paul's advice, as it now
> represents the view of all of the leaders of this coalition. In fact,
> I believe that this argues against any Christ-belief on the part of
> the influencers, who are not bound by the concerns of this
> Christ-believing coalition. But that begins another topic...

Very interesting! But, I just cannot see the harmony of your construction in
the text. Do you really mean that it is clear, that the conflict accounts did
result in agreements?

Regards,
Dieter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page