Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Who are the human agents in Gal 1? [to Mark Nanos]

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jonathan Ryder <jpr1001 AT cam.ac.uk>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Who are the human agents in Gal 1? [to Mark Nanos]
  • Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:09:40 +0100


"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:

[much snipped]

> An interesting thing is that Paul argues in the autobiographical narrative
> of chapters 1--2 that, while he came to have this authority independent of
> the other apostles, that when he submitted his view to the review of the
> other apostles, it was found that they too had come to the same conclusion,
> also by revelation (2:7-8) from God, and not by way of the traditional
> interpretation. Thus the contrast is not ultimately between Paul and the
> other apostles, but between the Christ-believing apostles (who are united
> on this point, even if they have arrived at their understandings
> independently) and other authorities who do not share this revelation and
> thus maintain the traditional view, i.e., gentiles may negotiate this
> boundary, but this is done by the traditional way of the present age, by
> proselyte conversion.
>
> So Paul's juxtaposition is based on an identification of the human agents
> and human agencies which maintain the traditional view of how gentiles
> become righteous ones independent of any belief that Christ's death has
> changed this way of negotiating inclusiveness. The are contrasted with
> those who have received revelation of Christ and thus believe that the
> traditions of the fathers must be reinterpreted to mean that the age to
> come has dawned, and thus that such proselyte conversion no longer pertains
> to gentiles in Christ.
>
> The implied or rhetorical situation suggests to me that the contrast does
> not indicate that tradition is not based upon revelation (it claims the
> same authority of revelation after all), and that the issue is not whether
> Paul got information from others or not. But that on this matter the
> traditional view, which Paul had once been a zealous advocate of, has been
> in force until the dawning of the age to come, which was revealed in
> Christ. This view of the good news of Christ is shared by the other
> authorities of this coalition as well, to which Paul appeals in his case
> for the authority to instruct the Galatians that they must not compromise
> on this matter, i.e., they must not think they can both become
> Christ-people and proselyte people, for these are the solutions of two
> different ages and thus undermine the authority of each other for their own
> appropriate time. Thus gentiles no longer become Israelites to become
> righteous ones of God, for Israel and the nations are all being redeemed
> together as one by the Creator God of all humankind. This coalition is
> still a Judaism in the situation and in Paul's view, but one coalesced
> around Christ.
>
> I thus suggest that Paul is not really concerned with arguing that he got
> this information without human involvement (and thus 1 Cor. 15 presents no
> real conundrum). The issue is a particular interpretation of the
> traditional authorities (which Paul had zealously shared), but which is now
> dated (in the opinion of this coalition) in view of the revelation of God
> in Christ, on the matter of the truth of the good news that gentiles too
> become righteous ones by faith in/of Christ and not by proselyte
> conversion. That is the view of this coalition shared by the other
> apostles, they are co-dependent now, for this has been confirmed
> dyadically, albeit belatedly, when they have met and agreed on this matter.
>
> In other words, it is not the other apostles that Paul refers to in the
> contrast as human agents, but those whom he had formerly been a most
> zealous representative of, the keepers of the traditional view on this
> matter of how gentiles may become righteous ones. The "human agents" are
> not the other apostles, they are not Christ-believers at all.
>
> This coalition of Christ-believers is running into problems with the
> keepers of the traditional interpretation of the fathers on this point, and
> the gentiles addressed have been caught in the crossfire. Paul seeks to win
> their resolve to remain in this marginalized state on the traditional and
> dominant view, and thus this letter is an appeal to the authority of God
> invested in the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves, which would
> be undermined if they chose to also become proselytes in order to gain
> approved status on the traditional view to escape this disputed identity on
> the part of the dominant community and its social control agents who are
> seeking to bring this (dangerous) deviance into compliance.
>

[rest snipped]

An interesting take, Mark. Can you give us references to anyone else who reads
the 'of men/by man/according to man/received from men' etc. of Gal 1:1 and
1:11-12 as referring to Paul denying that his Gospel originated in/was
commensurate with the traditions of his fathers, ie through the agency of his
fellow 'zealots' and those who taught him prior to his 'conversion' etc. etc.

I ask because as you're well aware the 'usual' take on these verses is that
Paul
here refers to accusations by his opponents that his gospel was derived from
'those apostles before me' (1:17) or some other equivalent human source ie
there
is an assumption that such a source would be Christian (if that is not
anachronistic at this stage).

Of course it's perfectly possible that you are right and the 'usual'
interpretation is wrong, but I'd be happier if you could refer me either to
others who hold the same interpretation or to somewhere where you might have
set
out this interpretation 'in full' (ie in dialogue with the 'usual' view).


Jonathan Ryder
Cambridge
UK




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page