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, 29 Sep 2000 11:22:46 -0500


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

Richard replied:
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?

[Mark now writes]
Richard,
What is different is our assumptions about what the rhetorical appeal implies. I do not think Paul's construction of these narratives suggests that he wants "to challenge the view that they were the source of his gospel," as you do. The question is not being asked in Galatia about whether Paul's gospel is from the other apostles or not, but this issue arises rather in the construction of Paul's approach to the problem as he perceives it, that is, whether the authority of the prevailing norms to which the addressees are being influenced by others in Galatia (who do so apart from any concern with Jesus or Jerusalem) is sufficient to begin a course of compliance with those norms in addition to those norms they had learned from Paul. Paul thus contrast norms which appeal to human consensus, such as he would have done when a Pharisee, for example, 1:13-14, and the norms which appeal to a new revelation, when these two standards clash. The other apostles likewise appeal to revelation, not human consensus. Each of them came to the same conclusion by revelation from God in Christ, and as it concerns the addressees in Galatia, there is thus a concensus among all of the leaders of this minority coalition in the face of pressure from representatives of the dominant group norms (the "big" consensus group, among whom Paul had been a star by the way), such as they now face in Galatia, that they must resist the pressure to comply. Thus the narratives support Paul's position on what should and should not be done among the addressees now, in view of the revelation of Christ.

Richard wrote:
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.

Mark replies:
But I would answer "yes" to your questions. 1:10-24 serve the purpose of showing the addressees that Paul can empathize with their plight, the problem of being all alone out on a limb with appeal only to the revelation of Christ in the face of pressure arising from those who believe in and uphold the traditional norms, and who have all the power and goods. Like themselves, he did not even have (much) help from other's of similar faith and situation. The clash with Peter shows what happens even to leaders of this coalition if they seek to comply with both sets of norms; hypocrisy that undermines the meaning of Christ's death is the result. But Peter learned his lesson the hard way, just as they are now, with Paul's public rebuke.

Finally, on my reading the "humans" Paul contrasts his authority with are not the other apostles, but representatives of the prevailing norms, not from this coalition of Christ-believers, and that is a fundamental assumption for how we read this differently in our discussion, and several other discussions with others on the list as well. Who the "humans" are is a question of interpretation, since Paul does not make the connection explicit. The traditional and virtually unchallenged (except by myself?) prevailing view is that "humans" and "human" in 1:1, 10-12 refer to the Jer. apostles; but I see the transition is first to those "humans" and "human agencies" such as Paul "formerly" represented instead (1:13-16).

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page