Corpus-Paul

["Troy W. Martin" <martin AT sxu.edu>]

Thank you Mark for providing us with a different way of reading
Galatians.

Let me begin with some areas of broad agreement between your work and my
own.  I agree with you that the consensus interpretation is inadequate
in some respects and merits a reassessment.  I agree that in
reconstructing the situation in Galatia from Paul's letter some criteria
are necessary to distinguish material that more directly illuminates the
situation in Galatia than other material.  I also agree that Galatians
should not be read as Christianity versus Judaism.  Within each of these
broad areas of agreement, specific differences arise.

Your major criticism of the consensus interpretation is that it
identifies the "influencers" as Christ-believing Jews who desire to make
Christ-believing Gentiles into full proselytes.  You suggest instead
that the influencers are themselves proselytes who are not members of
the Christ-believing coalitions.  You further assert that the
Christ-believing Gentiles are seeking integration into the larger Jewish
communities of Galatia and have aroused the envy of the full Jewish
proselytes.  The issue is then whether or not the "influencers" are
Christ-believing Jews or Jewish proselytes who do not believe Jesus is
the Christ.

The crucial passage deciding the issue for me is 1:6-9, which states
that the "influencers" proclaim a gospel.  The surface reading of this
passage supports the consensus interpretation that the influencers are
Christ-believing Jews.  However, you use irony to invert the surface
meaning of this passage, and you present four arguments to legitimate
your ironic reading of this passage and especially Paul's use of
eujagge/lion.  First, you designate qauma/zw as "an ironic marker."
Even though this verb is sometimes used ironically, it is not always so
used.  This argument is only persuasive if quama/zw is always used
ironically, and it is not.   It is the context and not the presence of
this verb that establishes the presence or absence of irony. I consider
the presence of this verb neutral rather than decisive.  Second, you
write that eujagge/lion "is qualified as 'another,' which is a part of
word play differentiation."  I am unsure what you mean or what argument
you are advancing and thus cannot evaluate this second point.  Third,
you write, "Within the same sentence it [eujagge/lion?] is immediately
followed by the denial that this other message is 'another.'  That is,
it is not actually a eujagge/lion!"  The irony you identify works in the
English translation since English has only a single word for "another."
Greek, however, has two words, and both are used here.  The Greek
wording translates that the Galatians have quickly deserted the one who
called them "for another (he/teron) gospel of a different kind which is
not another (a/llo) gospel of the same kind."  The figure of speech is
not irony but litotes for the purpose of emphasis.  Paul merely states
in negative form what he stated in positive form.  This third argument
for irony does not work in the Greek.  Fourth, you assert that the
exception clause in verse 7 "informs the Galatians that the reason this
other message may be now compared to the good news of Christ in Paul's
rebuke is their own doing: they have let it so function for
themselves."  This argument is circular and assumes what it attempts to
prove; namely, that the "influencers" did not refer to their own message
as a euagge/lion and thus Paul's use of this term is ironic.  As they
stand, it seems to me, none of these arguments legitimates an ironic
reading of this passage.

Neither, it seems to me, does your attempt to read Galatians as an
ironic letter of rebuke.  The passages you cite as examples of ironic
rebuke (3;1-5; 4:8-11, 12-21; 5:7-15) may contain rebuke, but I fail to
see the irony.  Paul's rebuke of Cephas in Antioch contains an element
of irony, but the irony functions at the level of characterization and
not at the textual level.  Paul means what he says to him.  There is no
irony in Paul's  words even though it is ironic that Paul must rebuke
Cephas in regard to the gospel.  Considering the straightforward
statements in Galatians, I find it surprising that you understand the
letter as ironic.  Perhaps, we are operating with differing definitions
of irony.  This literary device is often complex and difficult to
recognize as Karl Plank has explained.  It would help if you defined
what you mean by irony.

Failing to read 1:6-9 as ironic, I am more persuaded at the present by
the consensus interpretation than your interpretation.  Furthermore, it
seems to me that par' ho/ in 1:9 specifies the difference between Paul's
gospel and the gospel proclaimed by the "influencers."  This phrase
indicates that this other gospel places additional requirements on the
gospel proclaimed by Paul.  These additional requirements are clearly
expressed in the remainder of the letter as circumcision and observance
of the law.  Both of which figure prominently  into Paul's argument.  If
the message of the "influencers" denied that Jesus was the Christ as you
suggest, I would expect a very different argument in the remainder of
the letter; namely, that Jesus is the Christ.  This issue, however,
never surfaces in the letter.  Given your reading, why not?

My own problem with the consensus interpretation is why none of the
Galatians has submitted to circumcision by the time Paul writes the
letter and why Paul does not address those who may already have become
circumcised.  His rhetoric throughout the letter assumes that none of
them has become circumcised.  This reticence suggests to me that the
Galatians are not eager to submit to circumcision.  Their acceptance of
the circumcision gospel is a separate issue from their decision to
become circumcised.  It is possible that the Galatians accept the
circumcision gospel as the valid Christian gospel and then decide to
abandon Christianity altogether and return to their paganism rather than
submit to circumcision.  I have explained this possibility at length in
my article "Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian
Controversy," JBL 114(1995):437-461.  Paul's sharp rebuke in Galatians
does not arise because the Galatians are considering becoming Jewish
proselyte Christians but because they are abandoning Christianity
altogether in favor of Paganism.  At any rate, my assessment of the
deficiency of the consensus interpretation is different than your own
even though we both agree the consensus interpretation merits
reevaluation.

In a later posting, perhaps, I can discuss the other two areas of broad
agreement in our work on Galatians.  Until then, thank you for
stimulating my thinking.

Troy W. Martin
Saint Xavier University
e-mail:  martin AT sxu.edu


--
MZ