Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

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: Galatian situation
  • Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:11:07 -0500

Dear Dieter,
Again I will reply below your comments, sometimes leaving mine to which you were responding.
I wrote:
> 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.

You wrote:
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!

My use of "force" for this contrast was unfortunate, and confuses the issue; sorry. I meant to communicate exertion of force in a physical way, or to the body so that it cannot be resisted, necessity, etc, in contrast to compelling reasons, arguments, social influence, etc., which can be compelling/coercive/forceful, but also turned away from if one chooses to suffer the "social" consequences that result (which includes bodily results such as hunger or deprivation of income/housing within the group, perhaps), but not, in Galatia, including striking the bodies of the addressees if they do not comply. Such words as we are discussing have many meanings in English as well as Greek, and much depends upon the context of usage.

The Greek word ANAGKATZW (6:12) has a breadth of usage determined by context. See, e.g., Acts 28:19, where it refers to the logical conclusion that Paul drew, compelled by the circumstance, but not actually coerced to make this particular choice; in fact those bringing pressure upon Paul would have liked the outcome to take a different direction than he was "compelled" by his own interests to go; see also 2 Cor. 12:11, where it refers to the response judged necessary because of the Corinthians misguided views; and Gal. 2:16, on my reading (cf. Mystery, 341-58). Yet it is used of coercion too, e.g., in Acts 26:11.

Some social scientists distinguish between conform and comply in English usage in a way that might be helpful. One may conform as in internalize as desirable, one may comply as in behave in the required manner, say the required statement, etc. With this distinction in view coercion is an aspect of compliance, not conformity. One may comply with a membership norm, in this case proselyte conversion, for any number of reasons deemed to be "compelling," including fear of being shamed, losing access to resources, etc. But to conform with membership norms is really to conform with reference group norms, to internalize them as good for oneself. One can also comply with membership norms but internalize the reference group norms of a different group. I believe that Paul is striking at the beginning stages of internalizing this other way to gain certain standing as members, arguing that this way undermines the membership group to which they have ascribed by way of the message of good in Christ, and thus undermines the reference group norm as well, the internalizing of what Christ means for them as gentiles. His rhetorical approach is to accuse the influencers of seeking only compliance, for their own selfish gain; thus he accuses them of "compelling." "But how could you do so...?" Paul asks in ridiculing irony, "do you mean to render the membership you have gained void, and thereby deny the meaning of God's act for yourselves in Christ?" (that is, render the reference group norm of the meaning of Christ for them meaningless). "But that is just what they 'want,' to 'turn-upside down' so as to render meaningless 'the good news of Christ' for you gentiles (cf. 1:6-7); I am surprised (read: disappointed beyond words) that this is what you want!"

I hope this helps clarify how we are using terms to understand what is implied when Paul says the addressees are being compelled by the influencers to become proselytes, and that Paul is seeking to make a compelling case in this letter as well.

> 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 see Paul's appeal in this narrative discourse of chs. 1--2 to be to the fact that even though he arrived at his understanding of this issue independently, and (perhaps implied) came to the addressees in Galatia while this was still the case, it has been confirmed as the only view of this coalition (on this matter), and any deviation due to social anxiety, such as Peter and the rest at Antioch, has been shown to be wrong, an anti-model to learn from when facing the temptation to mask their own beliefs now because of social pressure.

> 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).

You hang this point on the kai, which refers to Barnabas alone, do you not? Surely the addressees know of the other apostles, and why not of Barnabas, who traveled with Paul; they have been taught by Paul, after all, and these are important figures in this minority coalition (cf. 1:9, 13, indicate that he has taught them about these matters when among them). But I do not see how this contributes to drawing these figures into Galatia now, which is a long way from Judea or Antioch, after all, and depends upon an analogous connection between the players in the narratives and in the situation in Galatia that Paul does not draw. Why do you? Why do you (and the consensus of interpreters) find it so "compelling"?


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)

No comment!

> 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?

It is clear to me in the text, but I do not assume it is clear to others, or my argument would not be challenging the consensus views; thus we continue the discussion!

Regards,
Mark Nanos


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page