Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: North/South Galatian Theory

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: North/South Galatian Theory
  • Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:09:53 -0600

I am curious, Mark, about one thing: Do you have an interest in reconstructing the history of Paul's career?

Hochachtungsvoll,
Ed Krentz

Good question, Ed; yes, but not yet. I appreciate the Pauline seminar's observation that each of Paul's letters should be taken first on their own terms. I have not managed to get past Romans and Galatians yet, so I'm a long way from being able to bring the results to bear upon a construction of Paul that will provide the basis for the many decisions one must make to structure a chronology of Paul's career and letters. I think conclusions must be made also about Luke's account that I have also only begin to consider. So I find myself presently in the comfortable place of questioning the theories of others, measured by the internal evidence of the documents they seek to bring into some kind of order, but often not convinced of the results of the analysis of the letters in question on their own terms. For example, I am far from convinced by the arguments of which I am aware for dating 1 Thess. first, or even early, simply on the basis of how the letter seems to me to read.

Thanks for asking, Ed; I wonder what aroused this question of me in particular?

By the way, I do not see any weight in the suggestion that the rebuke of 3:1 is especially suited to Celts. I wrote the following for a forthcoming project on Galatians, which may be of interest for the point at hand:

"On the basis of Paul's ridiculing comments, some interpreters have suggested that the addressees are backward. For example, Jerome took this accusation to literally mean that the addressees where stupid, and thus Gauls. This was on the basis of the comment of Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence, himself a Gaul, that the Gauls were indociles. Yet Lightfoot observes that this misses the point, as the Galatian addressees were known to be "intellectually quick enough," referring to a comment of their inquisitive nature for news in Caesar, Bell. Gall. 4.5, so that Lightfoot takes the reference to be not to their obtuseness, but their "fickleness and levity: the very versatility of their intellect was their snare." Lightfoot's first point is often noted, that is, the letter does imply a certain level of learning, or at least, unlike Hilary, the capacity to learn, although interpreters are not always clear just how their education is to be accounted for, especially by those who regarded them as rural or Celts, to whom they do not attribute much education or opportunity for learning. [see Betz, 1-3, 27) Against Jerome's view, it is cruel and sarcastic to call someone who is actually a fool a fool, and not the rhetorical nature of Paul's ironic rebuke here, which is to surprise. As the discussion of this kind of parental ridicule employed by Paul has and will further show, in addition to the discussion of the exigence, Lightfoot's solution does not work. It is not fickleness or levity that are attacked in Paul's rhetoric, but rather foolishness, the failure to appropriately judge their present situation, and the danger inherent in their consideration of adopting for themselves the other influential message of good."

Hope to see you in Nashville,
Mark Nanos


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page