Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Mark's Article for Review

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Troy W. Martin" <martin AT sxu.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark's Article for Review
  • Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:25:08 -0500


Mark,
Thank you for your prompt rejoinder to my review of your article. You raise
several
points worthy of continued conversation. I shall attempt to move
sequentially through
these points as you raise them.

I agree with you that the "influencers" may concur neither with Paul's
description of
them nor with his ascription of their motives. I would also agree that they
may have
considered their motives noble. Considering the everlasting Covenant of
Circumcision
in Gen 17, they certainly have a scriptural warrant for their recommendation
of
circumcision. I would not go as far as you, however, in restricting Paul's
view of
them to Paul alone. If Paul's letter was successful in convincing the
Galatians to
return to his Gospel, the Galatians, at least must have concurred to some
degree with
his assessment. Furthermore, the tradition that preserved this text sided
with Paul
and concluded that the position advocated by the "influencers" was not in
line with
the Gospel. Thus, I am far more comfortable referring to them as "agitators"
than
you.

Your interpretation of Gal 3;1 as the "evil eye of envy" is at least as old as
Chrysostom, who writes on 3:1, "Who hath cast an envious eye on you?" What
is new in
your interpretation is that this envy indicates the "influencers" are Gentile
converts
to the Jewish Religion. This indication is not necessarily conclusive, for
Chrysostom
agrees about the envy but nevertheless identifies the "influencers" as Jewish
Christians as in Acts 15. The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard also
indicates
that those with an evil eye of envy (20:15) were brought into the vineyard at
the
beginning and resent the "Johnnies-come-lately" who were hired later in the
day.
Would you also say that this parable addreses Gentile converts to the Jewish
Religion
rather than those who participate in this Religion from birth? Since envy is
not the
sole prerogative of any one group, there are many candidates for expressing
the "evil
eye of envy." I am cautious about placing too much weight upon the
etymological
meaning of BASKAINEIN in 3:1. Might it not simply mean "malign?" I know you
are
working on a specific investigation of this topic, and I eagerly await your
more
complete treatment of this topic.

We agree that the context rather than the presence of QAUMAZW decides the
issue of
whether Galatians is an ironic letter of rebuke. Since we both agree that the
exception clause in verse 7 requires circular reasoning to argue either side
of the
issue, I assume we both agree that this clause cannot decide the issue
either. That
leaves only the hETEROS/ALLOS argument. In your post to B-Greek, you assert
the two
words are synonymous and used interchangeably. You also conclude that
interpretations
such as the one I proposed require a distinction in nuance that forces these
words to
carry "freight they . . . simply cannot." If the words are as synonymous and
interchangeable as you hold, could we invert their order in Gal 1:6-7 and
still have
the same meaning? Would a statement that the Galatians have exchanged Paul's
Gospel
for another (ALLO) gospel, which is not another (hETERON) gospel, mean the
same as the
text we have? I see a distinction in meaning between the two statements.
From your
post to B-Greek, I infer that you would not. Do you?

I think we should be careful concluding that there is no real distinction
between
ALLOS and hETEROS or that the two can be used interchangeably. It may be
that we
simply cannot perceive the subtle distinctions that are present in the text.
You cite
1Cor 12:8-10, for example, as a text where the two words are used
interchangeably with
no distinction in meaning. Even Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, 747),
who perceives a distinction between the two words in Gal 1:6-7, agrees with
you in
failing to perceive a distinction in 1Cor 12:9. In his commentary, Barrett
also
agrees with you, but Conzelmann discerns "a certain grouping" of the gifts by
means of
hETERWI/ALLWI. The sentence structure supports Conzelmann rather than
Barrett,
Robertson, et al. In each occurrence, hETEROS is asyndetically linked to the
preceding ALLOS whereas every ALLOS is linked to hETEROS by DE. The two
omissions of
DE in v. 10 by a few manuscripts do not alter this pattern, for each ALLOS in
v. 10
folows another ALLOS, not hETEROS. If the words were used interchangeably
here
without any distinction in meaning, I expect some inconsistency in the
pattern, and
there is none. This asyndetic use of hETEROS supports Conzelmann's
discernment of a
grouping of the gifts. Even though all gifts are given by the same Spirit,
hETEROS
introduces a distinction among gifts associated with LOGOS, gifts associated
with
faith, and gifts associated with tongues. The use of ALLOS maintains
continuity among
the gifts wthin each one of these different groupings introduced by hETEROS.
This
distinction is important for lessening the emphasis of the gifts associated
with
tongues in relation to the other gifts associated with LOGOS and faith.
Whereas you
argue that distinguishing hETEROS from ALLOS in 1Cor 12:8-10 makes "Paul's
entire
point . . . collaspe," I argue that the distinction actually helps him to
make his
point in emphasizing the better gifts.

In your post to B-Greek, you cite other texts in support of the synonymous
meaning of
hETEROS/ALLOS. A balanced investigation must also examine additonal texts in
which a
distinction between these two words is consistently maintained. Plato's
Parmenides is
an excellent example of a text that uses ALLOS with the nuance of other and
similar
but hETEROS with the nuance of different. Although you and I could continue
to cite
texts affirming or denying that the two words are not synonymous, I would be
more
inclined to your position if we could find a text that contrasts hETEROS
negatively
with ALLOS as in Gal 1:6-7 but with no difference in meaning between the two
words.
If you know of such a text, I would like to see it because I think the
grammatical
structure in Gal 1:6-7 implies a difference in meaning. Consider the
anonymous
commentator on Aristotle's Categories (Paraphrasis categoriarum, ed. M.
Hayduck
[Commentaria in Aristotelem Graece 23.2; Berlin: Reimer 1883] 30). This
commentator
is paraphrasing Aristotle's discussion of habit (hEXIS), disposition
(DIQESIS),
perception (AISQHSIS), know-how (EPISTHMH) and other such human attributes and
qualities. The text then states that these things belong to another [person]
and not
to another thing (PROS hETERON KAI OUK ALLO TI), for the habit is called the
habit of
someone and the understanding is called the understanding of someone, and so
forth.
Except for the change in gender, hETERON and ALLO are used in a structure
very
similar to Gal 1:6-7; ALLO is contrasted negatively with hETERON. Most
importantly,
hETERON means another of a different kind whereas ALLO means another of the
same
kind. Admittedly, this text is late, but the distinction between the two
words in
this late text is surprising in light of your contention that the classical
distinction had faded by Hellenistic times and disappeared in modern Greek.
A late
author could still use the words with distinctive nuances.

May I add one small comment here? To say that the classical distinction had
faded
does not prove that the words subsequently became synonymous. The
distinction of
hETEROS as one distinct from another and ALLOS as one among many may not be
consistently maintained in Hellenistic Greek, but I think Smyth's comment
deserves
careful consideration. He states (Greek Grammar, par. 1271a), "HETEROS is
sometimes
used loosely for ALLOS, but always with a sense of difference."

I see a distinction in the use of hETEROS and ALLOS in Gal 1:6-7, and you do
not. I
am also afraid that we must agree to disagree on this point. Of course, my
failure to
interpret the words as synonymous removes for me the force of your argument
for irony
and of your contention that Paul's opposition did not refer to their message
as a
gospel. Failure to concur on these two points leaves me less inclined to
accept your
proposal that Paul's opposition was Jewish proselytes rather then Jewish
Christians.

You inquired if I see irony in the use of DOKEW and EINAI in chapter 2 or in
Paul's
argument with Peter in 2:14ff or in 3:2, 4:8-10, 12-20, and 5:15. My
response depends
upon how you define irony. I do not see in any of these passages the type of
irony
you see in Gal 1:6. According to your interpretation, Paul states that the
"influencers" proclaim another gospel, when in actuality they do not. In the
other
examples of irony you cite, Paul's words do not carry such an inverted
meaning. The
leaders in Jerusalem are reputed to be pillars, and I think they probably
were. The
inversion you see in these passages operates at the level of characterization
or
expectation but not at the level of a direct textual contradiction as you
suggest for
1:6. In some of these passages such as 3:2, I perceive no inversion. I do
not think
Paul "undermines" the Galatians' "own knowledge and experiences in order to
make them
relaize the implicit compromise . . . their other choice involves." As I
have argued
in my article "Apostasy to Paganism" (JBL 114[1995] 449), Paul appeals to the
Galatians' knowledge and experience to refute the circumcision gospel.
Undermining
their experience would undermine his argument. I do not perceive these
passages as
irony in the same way as you. Even if I were to accept that Galatians is an
ironic
letter, are all the statements in the letter ironic? If not, what criterion
or
criteria do you use to determine which are and which are not? Perhaps, some
others
would care to join our discussion at this point?

In regard to your query about the seed of Abraham in 3:16, I need to see your
argument
in more detail. As a general rule, I do not accept the assumption that every
assertion Paul makes in his arguments must be contrary or opposed to the view
of his
opponents. George Lyons and others have convinced me of the dangers
associated with
this type of "mirror-reading."

I have already explained in "Apostasy to Paganism" (p. 450ff.) what I do with
Gal
4:21. I follow H. Ulonska in reading 4:21-5:6. as a diatribe addressing the
"influencers." The Galatians do not desire to be under law; the influencers
do. I
think the reference in 3:2-3 to the Galatians' ending in the flesh refers to
their
return to the fleshly existence they had formerly in their Paganism. As I
argue in my
article "Whose Flesh? What Temptation?" (JSNT 74 [1999] 78-86), Paul preached
the
gospel to them on account of the weakness of their flesh (4:13). Hence, I do
not take
their ending in the flesh "to indicate proselyte conversion" but rather a
return to
their Paganism.

In respose to your question about the other two broad areas of agreement
between your
work and my own, I stated all three areas of agreement in the first paragraph
of my
initial review of your paper. It is probably advantageous to restate them
again,
however, lest our conversation over specifics obscure these areas of general
agreement. First, we agree that the consensus interpretation is inadequate
in some
respects and merits reassessment. Our conversation thus far has primarily
centered on
this area of agreement and what we understand the inadequacy of the consensus
interpretation to be. Second, we agree that in reconstructing the
controversy in
Galatia from Paul's letter, some criteria are necessary to distinguish
material that
more directly illuminates the situation in Galatia from material that does
not.
Third, we agree that Galatians should not be read as Christianity versus
Judaism. I
would like to move our discussion to these other (ALLOIS) areas of agreement
but if
you are of a different (hETERAS) opinion, I shall gladly continue our
discussion of
the first. Thank you again for stimulating my thinking.
A Co-interested Interpreter of Paul,
Troy



Mark D. Nanos wrote:

> Troy,
> Thank you for the feedback. I would like to address a few comments below.
>
> >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.
>
> This basically states some aspects of my view of the implied rhetorical
> situation. I do believe that the identity of the influencers is pivotal for
> sketching the situation of the addressees, and thus for the way the purpose
> and message of the letter are understood. I do not actually think the
> "Christ-believing" or not identity of them is the major criticism of the
> consensus interpretations, but it is a major one, and a necessarily
> important one at the beginning of a larger project of challenging the
> reading of the message of the letter, which is in the end more important
> for most people who concern themselves with reading this letter anyway.
> When I began this project, by the way, I assumed that the influencers were
> Christ-believers, with the consensus, and I thought that this was
> advantageous ideologically, for Jewish-Christian relations, for example.
> But study of the text has convinced me otherwise, and I also now see some
> advantages, along with disadvantages to be sure, with my current view; I
> wrote to this matter briefly in the final section of the paper under
> discussion.
>
> The matter of the reaction of these "influencers" is actually much more
> sympathetic than your statement might make it appear. Paul does accuse them
> of envious intentions in 3:1 (who has evil eyed you?), and generally of
> self-serving motives in e.g., 4:17 (shutting out to be sought after);
> 6:12-13 (promoting their own honor rating). I read these with suspicion.
>
> I think we should approach them as people, and at least as concerned with
> the interests of these gentiles as Paul. Although their ideas and actions
> are based upon a perspective different from Paul's "now," when he writes,
> they are perhaps much more similar to his own than is usually granted. They
> may even be precisely the same as his in his "former" way of promoting
> Jewish life, a way of life that he used to believe quite honorable, rather
> than his current way of promoting Jewish life. If we had a letter from them
> in response to Paul's letter, it may well refer to him as a trouble-maker,
> agitator, etc., and seek to reveal the self-interest of his motives and
> strategies of manipulation to persuade the addressees that is quite similar
> to Paul's. Would we gain an accurate picture of Paul from this letter
> alone, that is, read in isolation and without asking these kinds of
> questions of the implied parties and situation of the rhetoric employed?
>
> I doubt that these were their motives from their perspective, even if they
> might admit to some self-interest; who is entirely above this? Paul refers
> to them being evil eyed, which is bound up with the fear of another's
> envious response to "seeing" one's good fortune. As I read it, admittedly a
> reading that is not found elsewhere to my knowledge, Paul's accusation of
> envy--of them being evil eyed--is aroused by the "Johnnies-come-lately"
> experiences of the addressees; experiences the influencers would apparently
> not expect to occur among gentiles before they completed the ritual process
> of conversion (cf. 3:1-5). And Paul seems to appeal to the current
> suffering of the addressees as a result of this glance, although his ironic
> rebuking style (Socratic questions and insults) is grounded in the
> addressees' failure to suspect that their recent misfortunes were the
> result of the influencers' gaze. That is the naiveté that the ironic
> rebuking style reveals. They should be suspicious of the influencers, but
> they have not been.
>
> Actually, this accusation of envy toward the advances of the gentiles is
> one of the reasons I suggest that the influencers are themselves
> proselytes, that is, former gentiles who have paid their dues, if you will,
> to gain the advantage that comes with their new status. And thus it is a
> natural and salient response to the claims of the gentile addressees to
> equal status and access to goods (including miraculous activities) without
> paying their dues. In a culture in which the system of honor and shame
> functions with a concern and even ritualized manner of avoiding envy that
> is aroused by such comparisons, this kind of accusation may not seem as
> nasty as it might to interpreters from other cultures. For example, it need
> not be at the level of intention; it is a natural response to the advancing
> of another's honor (Paul speaks against playing this honor challenge game
> on the same terms in 5:26). But it is nevertheless an accusation seeking to
> undermine the addressees trust in the influencers interests in themselves
> becoming proselytes. Instead of advancing the addressees' interests, Paul
> suggests that the influencers are putting them in their place, a place
> beneath themselves, which serves the influencers' own interests instead.
> That is common to ritualized distinctions of identity, regardless of
> context: these differences often lead to discrimination.
>
> It seems that the influencers have responded to the status problem of the
> addressees--a problem that, ironically, Paul's message that they have
> become full children of Abraham, of God, apart from becoming Israelite
> proselytes, has perhaps actually created!--by seeking to help them
> negotiate this identity boundary on the traditional terms. This seems to me
> to be a noble response and intention, regardless of the fact that Paul sees
> it otherwise because of his perspective and interests. His perspective has
> been altered by believing the time for this traditional way of including
> representatives of the nations has changed with the death and resurrection
> of Jesus Christ. Thus his polemical approach to their persuasive influence
> upon his "children" in Galatia.
>
> But I think we, as interpreters, should approach their identity and
> interests with a little more respect, at least in forming some of our
> hypotheses, until it is proven otherwise by testing them. Thus I have
> challenged the negative labels and stereotyping taken from privileging the
> polemical rhetorical interests of Paul, with which interpretations of
> Galatians "begin." Does not the positive response and trust of the
> addressees in the influencers, a response that has so threatened Paul that
> he resorts even to curse wishes and castration sarcasm and evil eye
> accusations to seek to undermine this trust, suggest that at least the
> possibility exists that the influencers are themselves motivated by more
> noble interests, and acting in a more respectful manner toward the
> addressees than is permitted by naming them opponents, agitators,
> trouble-makers, judaizers (when loaded with ideologically negative views of
> things Jewish anyway), etc.? (Properly speaking, it seems also that
> judaizing is something gentiles do when they become Jewish, proselytes, but
> not something Jewish people do. So too, Hellenizing is something non-Greeks
> do, but not what Greeks do; they are Hellenes. Anyway, the freight of this
> label has been ideologically charged with a Christian gentile perspective
> against Jewish identity and behavior as an understood threat to Christian
> identity; so it does not, on this level, bother me as a label for
> proselytes if disassociated from this perspective, which I do not share).
>
> >
> >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.
>
> You rightly note that I appeal to the usage of thaumatzw in 1:6. Although
> no full treatment of this point was offered in the paper, it is planned in
> forthcoming work. One may consult the work of G. Walter Hanson on Abraham
> and Galatians at the moment for the basic data (or the essays of T.
> Mullins, J. White, N. Dahl, on the topic). This was a common convention for
> letter-writing, such as we readily understand the form of a "dear John"
> letter. It is not necessary, however, to prove all instances of dear John
> are this kind of letter, anymore than it is necessary for thaumatzo. Other
> elements combine to indicate this kind of letter; as you admit, the context
> is 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.
>
> This is one of the elements of irony; discussion in W. Booth, A Rhetoric of
> Irony. It is not that important at the moment for the discussion.
>
> 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.
>
> I am afraid that I must disagree with you here. I have posted to B-Greek a
> full discussion of these two Greek words for other/another, and discussed
> the freight they have been asked to carry in this context, but simply
> cannot. The play into ironic inversion in Greek quite nicely. If you or
> others would like, I could copy this argument in a later post; it should be
> in the B-Greek archives from spring of this year.
>
> 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.
>
> You are correct to note the circularity of this point; but it is the same
> circularity that you must appeal to if you assert the opposite. J. L.
> Martyn can even provide you with the contents of that "necessarily"
> Christ-based euangelion, if you like. But Paul does not say they called it
> one, or detail the contents thereof. We are left to constructing and
> testing hypotheses on this matter; mine is different, but not ruled out a
> priori. And my point will stand even if they have used the label euangelion
> of their non-Christ based message of the "good news" of proselyte
> conversion for the addressees. But I think the surprise is increased in
> Paul's rebuke if the addressees have failed to think of this "other"
> message in terms paralleling and thus antithetical to the good news of
> Christ, but rather as "another" message that they have convinced themselves
> could be responded to "alongside" or "in addition to" the message of good
> in Christ in which they have already believed.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> This is a rather involved topic. It provides the tentative title of my
> forthcoming Fortress project: The Irony of Galatians. Irony is many
> faceted. Oversimplified, irony involves inversion; playing two or more
> meanings off of one another. It often occurs in the oscillation between
> these two or more meanings. It is communal in nature, appealing to shared
> understandings. The recognition of irony or not may tell as much about an
> interpreter's presuppositions/working hypotheses as it does about the one
> being interpreted. For example, as long as one "knows" that the other
> message was a gospel of Christ plus Law, they will not be listening to the
> ironic inversion of this other message, as I noted briefly above.
>
> To name just a few examples, do you not recognize the ironic "appearance
> [dokew]" and "reality [einai]" in the Jerusalem example of chapter 2, or in
> the way Paul argues with Peter (reconstructed) in vv. 14ff., appealing to
> their shared Jewish identity to undermine Peter's hypocritical action, as
> though that identity was compromised, downgrading them to that of gentile
> sinners, by Christ? Do you not see the Socratic style of Paul's "only one
> question" in 3:2, undermining their own knowledge and experiences in order
> to make them realize the implicit compromise thereof their "other" choice
> involves? I know from your article on 4:8-10 that it will take some
> argument to show you the ironic level here; I will leave this aside for the
> moment, but it has much to do with the working assumptions of the writer
> and his addressees. Does not the ironic element of his attack in 4:12-20
> stand out rather clearly? To name just one example: that for telling them
> the truth for their own good they might find him to be their enemy, while
> the influencers who are shutting them out in order to advance their own
> interests are thought to be their friends (do we not tell our children this
> when we discipline or rebuke them for trusting their peers when this runs
> against the standards of the family?: "am I denying you this in order to
> hurt you?..."). Do you not see the irony of 5:15 in context, that by trying
> to gain honor with each other they are, instead of serving one another,
> which is the true intent of the Jewish Law, instead tearing one another
> down, and in the end this will lead to their own undoing as well? A kind of
> cruel irony, sarcasm actually, is in verse 12's castration wish. And
> litotes, which you mention, is a form of 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?
>
> Yes, 1:9 and elsewhere the issue does seem to be that something in addition
> to their faith in Christ, namely, proselyte conversion, is in view in this
> other message. But that it is a message of "Christ plus" need not be
> implied. It is "plus" because they already believe in Christ, and this
> belief is what has led the addressees to believe that they had an identity
> as children of God that the traditional Jewish community keepers of the
> norms (as far as we know them) would have found surprising if not
> objectionable, that is, apart from "completing" that which faith in Christ
> had begun for these gentiles. Namely, completion of proselyte conversion.
> They need not be concerned with Christ or belief in him to hold this view.
>
> As for the second point, I offer back to you just one example that I do not
> understand how their identity as Christ-believers explains, even if
> Christ-plus believers. Why would the singular "seed" be objectionable to
> other Christ-believers in the midrashic appeal to Abraham? Would not "all"
> Christ-believers agree with this? Those who would disagree would be
> disagreeing about the role of Christ, would they not? The issue here is not
> believing in Christ-plus, but in Christ at all, it seems to me.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> This point need not follow; it is the culmination of a ritual process of
> conversion. I think that Paul's style and argument indicate that their
> desires have been engaged, and at points he says as much. What do you do
> with, e.g., 4:21?: you who desire (thelontes) to be under the Law (i.e.,
> become proselytes). And what do you make of the implication in 3:2-3 that
> they are seeking to end in the flesh, which I take to indicate proselyte
> conversion (circumcision of the flesh), what they had begun by faith? Does
> not the force of this suggest that they are still engaged by this idea,
> rather than having dismissed it?
>
> 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.
>
> By the way, I found your article's appeal to stasis theory very useful,
> even if the results of this study, because of the different working
> hypotheses, differ from my own. To me it seems that the bedrock of Paul's
> appeal is the shared value of the meaning of the death of Christ (which he
> does not really explain) that he is certain the addressees would not
> compromise (turn upside down, render vain, nullify, make gratuitous), and
> thus his purpose is to make clear to them that this other course
> necessarily does, so that, in the end, he may "have confidence in the Lord
> that [they] will take no other view than [his own]" (5:10).
>
> Thank you for taking the time to interact with my posted paper.
>
> I look forward to additional comments; what are the other two areas?
>
> Mark Nanos
> Kansas City
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: martin AT sxu.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')



--
MZ






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page