Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:09:55 -0700



I wrote:
>>1. Neither Paul, nor the influencers, nor the addressees acknowledged the
>>authority of the Jerusalem apostles.

Mark replied:
>2. As for the influencers, Why would the influencers care, or even
>know about these people in Jerusalem, unless already proven that they
>are at least Christ-believers, or from Jerusalem themselves. But at
>this point you assume that the influencers know and care about the
>view of the apostles, even if in a contrary way. So while I agree
>with your statement about them, they have not acknowledged their
>authority, I take the implications of this statement very differently.

Let me clarify. I am suggesting the everybody knew that the Jerusalem
apostles did not require Gentiles to be circumcised. This would imply that
the influencers did not acknowledge the authority of the apostles on
matters of policy. I leave open the question of whether the influencers
even knew about the apostles.

Mark wrote:
>3. It is implied by Paul's appeal to these narratives that the
>authority of the Jerusalem apostles is of persuasive value for the
>addressees

You assume that the opinions of the apostles would have carried weight in
Galatia, and it is precisely that assumption that I wish to question. It
seems to me that the contradictions in the text are removed when we
eliminate that assumption. In chapter 1 (and I believe in chapter 2 as
well) Paul is explaining that his gospel was from God rather than from the
apostles. But if the Galatians had respect for the opinions of the
apostles, why would Paul be so concerned to challenge the view that they
were the source of his gospel? The standing of Paul's gospel in Galatia
would not have been undermined by the view that he got it from the apostles
if the views of those apostles carried weight in Galatia. Or have I missed
something here?

If the apostles had a high standing in Galatia the crisis would never have
arisen: the Galatians had been told of the decisions of the council by Paul
and Timothy (Acts 16.4). Moreover, as I have said, Paul would have cited
the Jerusalem accord in his letter.

I wrote:
>>From Paul, an apostle of God, not a messenger of the Jerusalem pillars
>>(1.1). Some people are throwing you into confusion by claiming that I was
>>preaching my gospel of Gentile liberty to please the pillars (1.7-10), and
>>that I really believe in circumcision (5.7-11). But my gospel did not come
>>from them, but came by revelation from God (1.11-12). It could not have
>>come from them, for I had very little contact with them (1.15-24). My
>>gospel is independent of them, for it was _I_ who presented it to _them_,
>>and I did not even know whether they would accept it (2.2). I was certainly
>>not preaching it to please them, for their status means nothing to me (2.6)
>>and I actually opposed them because they were not strong enough in their
>>support for the gospel (2.11-13). They did not give me my gospel (2.6b,10).
>>On the contrary, they merely recognised the vocation that I already had
>>(2.7-9).

Mark replied:
>This creative reading resonates with that of George Howard, Paul:
>Crisis in Galatia

Actually no. Howard's reconstruction is complicated and rather different.

Mark wrote:
>So in a sense there is some agreement between us, but I see Paul
>explaining his independence as well as dependence upon the authority
>of the Jerusalem apostles, since both serve the purpose of persuading
>the addressees that everyone of importance "within" this coalition
>agrees on this matter, even though they have had to suffer for this
>minority deviant view.

While I agree that Paul and the apostles were in agreement (on the
fundamental issue at least), I just don't see that it is Paul's purpose to
persuade the Galatians of the fact. How does Paul's proclamation of
independence in 1.10-24 serve the purpose of persuading the addressees that
everyone within the coalition is in agreement? When Paul describes his
clash with Peter is his purpose really to demonstrate that he and the
apostles were in agreement? No, his consistent purpose is to demonstrate
that in preaching his gospel he was not acting as messenger for the
apostles: his gospel was not from mere men but from God.

>This implies that the influencers are not from
>within this coalition, and thus Paul seeks to mitigate the persuasive
>force of their message, because they have the advantage of presence,
>and of representing the traditional ("human") view, compelling forces
>when combined with the promise of the goods one wishes to possess but
>can not access because of failure to adopt the dominant view to date,
>having been convinced of a minority view by someone travelling
>through, and the small band of devotees he left in his wake, but who
>is no longer around to make this alternative reality sufficiently
>clear and compelling.

I think I agree.

I wrote:
>>This reconstruction strongly suggests that Mark is right to suppose that
>>the influencers were from Galatia rather than Judea. If they had been from
>>Judea they would have known that the non-circumcision gospel had not
>>originated with the Jerusalem apostles.

Mark replied:
>Interesting that we arrive at this agreement when we define the
>politics of the situation so differently. Indeed, but would they not
>have probably known this anyway if they were fellow Christ-believers,
>since they had to be influenced by someone in the movement, and there
>were not that many members of this coalition just yet?

I do not know whether the influencers were Christ-believers or not. If they
were Christ-believers, then they may have owed their faith to Barnabas and
Paul alone. Remember that we have no proof that they opposed Paul.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page