Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT csi.com>]

On May 29, 1998, Jon Peter said:

>>I do see how it interrupts the basic analogy Paul is making. In essence,
Paul is using a siblings metaphor, saying the 2 boys represent Freedom and
Bondage respectively. The presumed interpolator is extending/interpreting
this to say they kids represent the covenant(s) (diatheke). Paul stops short
of using that particular term himself.<<

Actually, I said that I thought a redactor made that analogy, not "Paul".

>>Your view may well be right. However (& there's always a 'however'), such an
interruption or digression as is made by v 24-27 may also be deliberate
intercalation by Paul. These style devices are not uncommon HB / NT as you
know. I'm no expert, but I have assembled various lists of them in the
Bible, reported by others. What the device accomplishes, I don't know --
perhaps dramatic suspense or estosteric purpose we no longer understand. I'm
not saying that Paul is intercalating here, because I haven't studied the
subject enough to make such a conclusion. But it's a possiblity.<<

I am not an expert on intercalation, but I do know it exists as a rhetorical
device. Even so, I would expect such use in the case where new ideas are being
introduced in contrast to old, and especially in the case of the reworking of
existing materials, but perhaps someone else can clarify this for us? If this
material was indeed intercalated for rhetorical purposes, it is for a reason
that escapes us. If it is through the hand of a redactor, the reason is
intelligible to us. Given a choice, I will choose the intelligible option. <g>

>>The more practical approach to this issue may be to ask, 'So what?' Suppose
you're right, that verses 24-27 are inauthentic. What, then, is the
interpolator really adding to (or distorting in) the larger subject?

The answer, in this case, is really nothing of consequence. Paul's basic
analogy -- which is that Law-keepers are the children of Bondage (Hagar) --
still negates the legitimacy of Lawkeeping in the context of his argument.
Paul's assertion and conclusion -- that "You Galatians must expel lawkeepers
from your midst" -- remains unchanged where the interpolation exists or not.
Anti-legalism is Paul's entire point, illustrated by several figures of
speech and metaphors.<<

But it is of consequence. An argument that has the aim of establishing faith
in promises as the factor that determines who can claim them is not paralleled
by one that claims that one class of believers are to be rejected on the basis
of their enduring enslavement (through war) and their opposition to gentiles
believers. Also, none of the passages in Galatians rejects the law. There are
passages in the Pauline epistles which make a point that law does not in
itself justify someone. However, wherever we find statements that condemn the
law or Judaism, we also find this strange dislocation of the idea. It is never
a natural part of the argument being developed, but always at variance with
it.

>>The insignificance of v 24-27 therefore suggests to me that this is not a
distortive interpolation after all. If a humble copyist was guilty of
embellishing Paul here and added his own material, he did no damage to
Paul's message and was simply drawing out the obvious analogy a bit further.<<

The only part of vv 24-27 I will ascribe to a copyist's gloss might be vs 27,
which really does not seem to connect especially well with either of the two
arguments I suggested are present in this section of Galatians.

>>But is every such anti-Jewish verse an interpolation by post-70s Gentiles
who are Jewish wannabes? I don't think so, because Paul articulates that his
Gospel ultimately goes back to a much earlier pre-Siniatic time when anyone
could join God's plan regardless of lineage, merely by believing the Promise
to Abraham. That is the authentic original covenant *as well as* the true
"Jewish" lineage in God's eyes. It is an entirely spiritual condition having
nothing to do with pedigree.

[snip]

This doctrine is consistent in Paul's writings. It is also a plausible
exegesis of Genesis, in which inclusiveness of Gentiles was anticipated long
before Paul. Hence, I see no reason to regard his pro-Gentile statements as
forgeries.<<

I would say that it is a bit too extreme to call these expansions "forgeries",
at least in the eyes of this possible redactor. He may very well have believed
that Paul -did- hold these positions, and thought that the texts he had in his
possession were not clear enough or perhaps even corrupted by "Judaizers".
This is clearly what Marcion thought of the epistles he included in his canon,
since he edited out as much specifically Jewish content as he could.

But why characterize this proposed redactor's circle as "Jewish wannabes"? It
was the original writer who did not think that gentiles needed to convert to
be included in the covenant with Abraham. I think that you have misread what I
had stated.

This deviates from the gist of this thread by entering into questions of
historical development, but I will acknowledge that his circle was
knowledgeable about Judaism (although with a fair number of misconceptions).
However, I will also emphasize that they thought of themselves as the rightful
heirs of what God promised to the descendants of Abraham, and completely
repudiated the validity of Judaism. I see this as only possible in a time of
upheaval within Judaism and its relationship to the gentile world, such as in
the decades following the war.

I am more at ease with the idea that a redactor has (or redactors have) been
active than the idea that Paul mental state was so volatile that he could hold
wildly differing concepts simultaneously and not be aware of it.

Regards,