Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2
  • Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:48:05 -0500

Fred,
Your second text, Gal 2:9, seems to me to be ironic. The interesting
question this raises for me at least is what the ironic turn of phrase
signifies. (no small question)

The kind of irony suspected must of course be defined, and its context
established. I believe that this is classic Socratic irony, as it is
throughout the letter (The Irony of Galatians, Fortress, 2002). Such irony
is directed toward those expected to share one's point of view, to
recognized from the irony that they have been entertaining thoughts or
behavior that deviates from their valued and shared norms. It seeks to
undermine appearances by an appeal to a shared concept of reality, however,
at the moment, perhaps suppressed or trivialized. One expresses surprise,
uncertainty, and ask questions as though uninformed, naive, etc., when it is
the naivete of the other that the speaker/writer (who is not surprised,
uncertain, uninformed, or naive) seeks to expose.

That is, Paul knows who the apostles are and what foundation they represent
for the coalition of Christ-believers. This is the basis of his going to
Jerusalem and now writing about their agreement with himself (otherwise, why
bother to mention this example to support his message?), but he writes as
though he is "uncertain": what they "seem" to be. Pillars" hold things up,
but if they are themselves "shaky," then so too will be that which they are
"supposed" to hold up

The implication: the addressees should not finally trust even in the
examples Paul gives to the degree that humans--even apostles--can fail (and
do, as did Peter at Antioch; or come dangerously close to it in ways that
they should not, in Paul's view, allow, as in Jerusalem, by letting the
inspectors look into their private coalition meeting), but the addressees
should not; i.e., put your ultimate trust only in God.

--warning!: the rest is for amplification of the comment above, followed by
a summary, so if you don't want to read a long post...skip to the summary,
or stop here--

Since the apostles are represented here by Paul to have supported Paul's
position (2:5, 7-10), that non-Jewish Christ-believers should not become
proselytes, why does Paul cast doubt upon their identity as pillars of the
best sort?

Most interpreters of Galatians take it to mean Paul and the other apostles
referred to here are in "opposition" by the time of the writing of this
letter. This comment is then read as oppositional, that is, as an expression
that Paul does not accept their authority (variously defined by various
interpreters).

But Paul uses irony throughout the letter to express "disappointment."
Expression of disappointment toward his children for their seeking to find a
way to alleviate their being marginalized by those influencing them to
become proselytes in Galatia in order to gain that which they seek to claim.
He wants them to hold fast to the proposition (read "truth of the good news
of Christ") he has taught them instead. But they are facing marginalization
by those who uphold the prevailing norms (peer group leaders, in the
analogy) for maintaining the problematic identity proposition (i.e., the
good news of Christ) that apart from becoming proselytes they have
nevertheless become children of Abraham, of God (an identity reserved for
natural born Jews and proselytes according to prevailing Jewish norms; cf.
2:14).

Paul berates the addressees with ironic rebuke like a parent dealing with a
teenager seeking to alleviate peer pressure by adopting behavior considered
by the parent to be compromising. It is not in the parent's view possible to
satisfy the expectations of the peers and of the parents, although the child
may try to do so, as when thinking/saying, as long as they (the parents) do
not know about the adoption of the non-permitted behavior, no harm done. The
parent however, if learning of (or anticipating) this thinking/behavior, may
be expected to carry on much as does Paul in Galatians.

I do not think Paul is expressing opposition to the apostles with this
ironic comment, but rather the disappointment he has about the place that
these apostles are willing to entertain with those who do not share the view
of this coalition about not bringing their non-Jewish members into proselyte
identity. He went to Jerusalem for a private meeting, that is, with leaders
of this coalition only, a small group in the midst of the larger Jewish
communities of Jerusalem. They were facing pressure from outside (i.e., that
larger Jewish community) to give up this policy of non-proselyte conversion
for non-Jewish people who joined the coalition, and by allowing access by
inspectors (representing compliance with the prevailing norms) to this
private meeting they were dancing with fire, and should not do so, from
Paul's point of view. Yes, they got it right and did not capitulate ("so
that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you," the addressees;
2:5). But if they had, they would not be true pillars of this coalition, for
they would have capitulated to mere "human" pressure to comply with the
traditional norm of proselyte conversion instead of upholding the "divine"
revelation at the heart of this coalition's agenda--the message that the age
to come had dawned in Christ, when the nations, as nations, would join with
Israel in the worship of the One God of all humankind. Hence, the message of
1:8-9 is at play, even toward Paul himself, if he was to teach otherwise,
and toward the so-called pillars of this coalition on those same terms.

I thus suggest that this example as well as the following one in Antioch are
related by Paul in order to draw an analogy for the addressees for the
situation they face (albeit different, with no one from Jerusalem or
Antioch, but their own local communal constraints at play, which are similar
on the matter at hand). That situation is the pressure to comply with
prevailing norms and become proselytes if seeking full incorporation in the
Jewish communities of Galatia--"everybody does it that way, always has." I
do not think that the folks in Galatia upholding that view are part of the
Christ-believing coalitions, and are not related to the apostles in
Jerusalem, or appealing to them in any way. Christ-believing is not their
concern, but compliance with the communal norms on the issue at hand (cf.
5:11!). Paul is the one who appeals to them, yet even if they were to fail,
as did (for a moment) Peter "and the rest of the Jews" of this coalition in
Antioch (thus serving as an anti-model of properly upholding the truth of
the gospel), that would not change the fact that the addressees should not
capitulate.

Paul challenged the apostles when they were tempted or did surrender to
pressure from the proponents of the long-standing norms, and now he is
challenging the non-Jews he left in Galatia in the same way--(is he their
enemy for telling them the truth? was he the enemy of Peter or other Jews
for telling them the truth? An implied "no" is anticipated, of course). The
analogy is that even the Jewish believers in this coalition have to suffer
for this proposition, and can relate to what they are asking of the
non-Jews, indeed, they are all suffering for this decision. So become as
Paul--a Jew marginalized for this proposition--for he has become
marginalized just as they as non-Jews are (cf. 4:12; 5:11)--for this
proposition, i.e., claiming to be children of Abraham without becoming
proselytes.

"Stand fast" and stay "the course" is the message, and irony is employed to
undermine the alternative of seeking a way to work this out so everyone
accepts them, because they cannot "have their cake and eat it too," you
might say.

--In summary: What does this mean for the reference to James and the other
apostles mentioned in 2:9?

I think it suggests they are on the same team, but that the addressees
should not ultimately trust even them or himself if they were to fail to
uphold that which they have themselves experienced in the Spirit as
confirmation of the proposition that apart from proselyte conversion they
have become children of Abraham, and thus recipients of the promise of God
in Christ.

How does this match up with the picture in Acts (per T. Costa post)? As I
read ch. 21, for example, or ch. 15, it seems to match up rather well,
mutatis mutandis the different concerns and viewpoints of the documents and
their authors as well as audiences, including some probably 20-40 years of
separation. There were differences that arose in view of personality and
place, but they were on the same team, so to speak, participants suffering
and experiencing some success nevertheless for their respective roles as
champions of this coalition's proposition, the message of good for Israel
and the nations in Christ, the age to come community ruled by God dawning in
the midst of the present age of the Roman empire, so it "seemed" to most.

Sorry about the length, but I hope that clarity of issues and opinions--and
thus the advancing of discussion, and your research options--are the result.
Comments?

Regards,
Mark
-
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
co-moderator


>
> The second verse is Galatians 2:9, and the issue for me is how one should
> read OI DOKOUNTES STULOI EI NAI. The New Revised Standard translation, and
> many
> commentators seem to believe that this is a straight forward acknowledgement
> of
> James, Peter and John as upstanding leaders in the early church. I, however,
> see this as being made purposely ambiguous by Paul. It could alternatively
> be
> read as 'those who are supposed to be pillars' in a rather ironic, or
> sarcastic, tone of voice. I appreciate that both are perfectly possible
> readings of
> the Greek, but what do other list members think?
>
> Regards,
> Fred Rich.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page