Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

I had written:
> >Of course the autobiographical material in this letter
>> may provide the best information available for a meeting Paul had in
>> Jerusalem and one in Antioch, in spite of whatever rhetorical limits may be
>> imposed because they are embedded in a story constructed for a particular
>> point or points he now seeks to illustrate for the Galatian addressees. But
>> my concern in this paper was only with the situation of those Galatian
>> addressees.
>
To which Robert Lee Foster replied:

>The trouble causers in Galatians are frequently referred to as "false
>brothers" but in the text of Galatians, the false brothers were in
>Jerusalem not in Galatia.  The trouble causers in Galatia are only
>talked about or referred to as "the agitators" (or some like term).
>
>This reference demonstrates the tendency to lump together the
>trouble causers of Jerusalem and Galatia.

You are right. The labels for the Jerusalem situation such as
"false-brethren" or "spies," or the Antioch situation such as "the ones
from James" or "the ones for circumcision" should not be used to describe
those in Galatia, at least not until some connection can be demonstrated.
In my view no rhetorical connection is made in terms of these specific
players between these narratives of incidents elsewhere and the situation
in Galatia now addressed. Nowhere in the Galatian direct situational
material is any explicit connection with Jerusalem or Antioch drawn. I do
not think any is implied either. The limitations that arise are not only
for imagining the situation in Galatia, but also in Jerusalem and Antioch,
if the Galatian situation is implied in those cases. Surely, at least at
the level of pre-suppositions, the interpreter need not limit the
activities everywhere to being of just one kind or the result of the
thoughts and actions of just one person or group.

In the paper the various terms used to describe the influencers were noted.
Perhaps a little elaboration here would be useful.

The prevailing terms have important limitations for the interpretive
process. As others have noted (e.g., Lyons, Gaston, Wilson, Dunn),
"Judaizers" is not very helpful for several reasons, not least that it
describes something gentiles do when they become Jewish, but not what
Jewish people do by being or promoting Jewishness.

"Opponents" involves a major presupposition that these people have opposed
Paul and his understanding of the gospel. But this is not necessarily the
case, as several interpreters have noted (e.g., Lyons, Howard, Dahl). Yes,
Paul opposes their influence upon the addressees, but they may not oppose
Paul. They might believe or promote that they are enhancing or finishing up
his work. Or, I suggest, they might not really concern themselves with him
or his teaching, but only with the communal norms that are not being
complied with by the addressees "if" they wish to consider themselves and
be considered and treated by these people "as though" they had the same
status as proselytes without having completed the ritual process by which
such status is gained according to the norms that guide the community.
Ironically, it may be Paul's influence with the addressees, persuading
these gentiles that they are "full" members with "full" rights as children
of Abraham, of God, that has led to the addressees interest in and
vulnerability to the influence of these people. For such an identity for
"gentiles" was generally reserved, in a Jewish communal setting, for
"former" gentiles who have completed the ritual process of proselyte
conversion, which the addressees have apparently not done. Thus Paul's
influence may provide the introduction, and while considered, perhaps,
incomplete, it may not be opposed, but even welcomed. (This would change
"after" the letter, it would seem!)

"Outsiders," while not as often used as a label, is almost always implied.
I do not think that the letter supports this identification. Anyway, it
needs to be argued. Because it limits the direction of constructions in a
major way, it is, at least, not a very good label.

The problem with terms such as "agitators" or "troublemakers" and others
along this line is that they 1) accept the limitations of their polemical
usage to describe people or a group of people who may not consider
themselves to be engaged in any such thing; 2) limit our historical
imagination for conceptualizing who they were or what was going on. These
are labels derived from the rhetorical strategies of Paul to subvert the
addressees confidence. Paul accuses them of such motives or actions, but he
does so to undermine the confidence the addressees are now showing toward
these people; that is, the addressees have not seen them in a negative or
self-serving or troublemaking way. After all, these people, at least after
Paul's letter, if it was made known to themselves, could just as well label
Paul in this way. Would the interpreter gain much insight into Paul if they
only had such a polemical label and description of his intentions or work?
There is much to be learned from Paul's rhetorical strategy for
hypothesizing the identity of these people, but as labels, they create
limitations instead.

"Teachers" is a better label for understanding them on their own terms
(Martyn); but it is limited in focus to a particular kind of activity. The
kind of influence that these people are having on the addressees does seem
to involve "persuasion," and "teaching." Yet such influence may occur as
the result of other social roles and interaction, or at least be but one
facet of why their influence upon the addressees seems to be so profound.
Is their identity limited to the classroom? To academic propositions? To
religion or religious study? It would seem that such "religious" interests
were embedded in relationships, e.g., kinship and communal interaction
(politics). The addressees seek their acceptance, which may consist of much
more than wanting a good grade, you might say.

I have suggested "influencers." One of the goals of the investigation of
the situation in Galatia is to conceptualize the possible identity of these
people on their own terms. There is little to no evidence that Jewish
social control agents "missionized" among gentiles who did not first seek
association in such a way that providing this means for negotiating
communal inclusion was rather a response (Goodman, McKnight). If this was
the case, then they may be trying to "help" these gentiles caught in the
middle as a result of two conflicting understandings of who they are or how
they fit in. Whatever the case might have been, it seems useful to expand
rather than decrease the possibilities for imagining the situation. At
least one small step would seem to be how we label these people or group/s;
and thus, importantly: how we do not label them.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City