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: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 07:59:59 -0500


Greetings Mark.
I commend you on the diligence with which you maintain your end of our
conversation!
I appreciate your willingness to revise your comments on Gal 3:1-3. Your
revision
makes it much clearer to me what you mean. If either interpretation of
ALLOS/hETEROS
in Gal 1:6-7 "may be used to support" your own view, it would remove an
obstacle to
accepting your view for me and interpreters like me if you would explain how,
even if
you clearly state your preference for the synonymous interpretation. I am
pleased
with our exchanges thus far and think we have adequately expressed the
exegetical
options regarding the interpretation of ALLOS/hETEROS. As I stated in my
previous
post, I am satisfied to move on to the other areas of broad agreement that we
share.

We both 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. Your proposal is to
analyze the
material in the letter into "Direct versus Narrative Material." I wonder
whether
these two categories are both overlapping and incomplete. By overlapping, I
mean that
some material in the letter may be both direct and narrative. For example,
you
identify 4:3-7 as direct material even though this passage is "contained in
the
narrative material." You then designate 4:8-11 as a transition back to direct
speech. I do not understand why you do not simply identify 4:3-7 as narrative
material or designate the shift from narrative to direct material in 4:3. I
realize
you call 4:3-7 a "rhetorical aside" but for me the categories direct and
narrative
become blurred and appear to overlap in some passages. By incomplete, I mean
that
these categories alone are insufficient to distinguish all the material in
the letter
as you attempt to do. Identifying the paraenesis in 4:31-6:10 as direct
material is
problematic for me. Some of the instructions may directly apply to the
situation in
Galatia, but others in good paraenetical fashion may not. Of course, this
material is
not narrative either. Thus, I see a problem of incompleteness in these two
categories. You could avoid this problem of incompleteness by not claiming
all the
material in the letter belongs in one or the other. I do not consider it
necessary to
your proposal to make such a claim anyway.

What do you think of the categories I propose in my article "Apostasy to
Paganism"?
Using stasis theory, I distinguish between accusations and argument. I argue
that the
direct accusations Paul makes against the Galatians take precedence over his
arguments
in reconstructing the situation since arguments can be constructed
hypothetically and
may not accurately describe the actual positions taken by the participants in
the
controversy. Using this distinction of the material, I identify two primary
accusations, one in Gal 1:6-9 and another in Gal 4:8-11. In the first, Paul
accuses
the Galatians of exchanging his gospel for the circumcision gospel. In the
second,
Paul accuses the Galatians of returning to their Paganism as evidenced by
their
resumption of a Pagan time-keeping scheme (4:10; cf. "Pagan and
Judeo-Christian
Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal. 4.10 and Col. 2.16," NTS 42(1996) 105-119).
Thus, I
propose that the problem in Galatia is the Galatians' return to Paganism
caused by
their acceptance of circumcision as a valid requirement of the gospel. Even
though
they accept circumcision as a requirement of the gospel, they refuse to become
circumcised, a surgery almost all non-Jews considered morally reprehensible.
Hence,
they return to their Paganism and abandon Christianity altogether. It is
their
rejection of Christianity and not their willingness to become Jewish
Christians that
raises Paul's ire, as I reconstruct the controversy.

Are my categories of accusation and argument less overlapping and more
complete than
your categories of direct and narrative? I would like to explore this
question
further as well as the compatibility of our categories, but, alas, the
classroom
calls.

A Co-interested Interpreter of Paul,
Troy



Mark D. Nanos wrote:

> Troy,
> Thank you for the continued interaction. You have made several good points,
> and I appreciate the clarification of your own position, as well as the
> challenge to continue to re-examine as well as try to better communicate my
> own. I will clip a few points to make "other" comments upon.
>
> >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.
>
> I do not have any quarrel with what the addressees may have thought after
> receiving this letter, or later views that resulted, but I do not see how
> this supports your conclusion. The concern for the interpreter on this
> point is to maintain an openess to the possibilities for interpreting the
> implied situation that shapes the meaning of the rhetoric they seek to
> interpret. Labeling those influencing the addressees in a way that does not
> account for their identity before the arrival of the letter disputing that
> this level of influence is appropriate for the addressees limits the
> interpretive possibilities. At least one unhelpful way it does this is in
> negatively stereotyping them and their motives, and thus allowing for quick
> dismissal, as do the consensus views: they are the bad guys, what more do
> we need to know? The point of Paul's rhetorical style is at points obscured
> if the situation into which Paul wrote is assumed to be the situation after
> the receipt of the letter. It is interesting to note that many
> interpretations of Galatians pre-suppose the influence of the letter before
> its receipt. But the situation is addressed in the polemical manner perhaps
> precisely because it had not been regarded in this way by the addressees,
> perhaps even by Paul, at least to this degree, beforehand. Thus I suggest
> that "agitators" is still derived from a limited range of possibilities for
> the identity of these people, and thus limits the interpreter's
> interpretation of situation, and thus the message, in ways that it need not
> and should not. It is part of Paul's polemical description, but the purpose
> of this is at least in part to undermine the trust that the addressees have
> shown toward them to date; in other words, that they were being trusted as
> helpful, not regarded as agitating or trouble-making. What Paul calls now
> "hindering" or moving them off course, they had "naively," from Paul's
> perspective, seen as helpful persuasion in the course they were running
> (5:7). I wonder what the influencers or the addressees thought they were up
> to before Paul's letter arrived, or how this was dawning on them while it
> was being read/heard.
>
> >
> >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 surprised by this comment, and concerned that what I had written could
> be taken this way; although I appreciate your response, had I meant what
> you appear to have thought that I meant. I did not mean to imply in any
> way that envy was itself indicative of any particular group per se, and I
> would resist strongly as unthinkable any association of this with Jewish
> people or proselytes in any way greater than other people or groups (I am
> after all Jewish)! My suggestion is entirely within the rhetorical context
> of Paul's comments about the identity attributes of the addressees that he
> suggests are being envied by the influencers. They suggest the viewpoint of
> proselytes who have paid their dues, so to speak, since it is gentiles to
> whom Paul writes, who have received attributes that might be regarded as
> inappropriate for "mere" gentiles who have not "yet" finished the ritual
> process of proselyte conversion. You are, of course, right to note that
> this understanding of Paul's phrase is quite old, it is also found among
> many other interpreters. But the concern to re-read the implied historical
> context in terms of historical criticism is relatively new, pace Chrysostom.
> >
> >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.
>
> We do not agree here. This phrase and others throughout the letter follow
> the lines of the rhetorical handbooks for such a letter of ironic rebuke,
> and reflect similarities with surviving papyrus examples of such usage. If
> there was only this word for "surprise" the point would be less secure. But
> it is cast in the context of other markers that indicate irony at work.
> Quintillian supplied at least three that can be indicated here: "This is
> made evident to the understanding either by the delivery, the character of
> the speaker or the nature of the subject. For if any one of these three is
> out of keeping with the words, it at once becomes clear that the intention
> of the speaker is other than what he actually says" (Inst. Oratore 8.6.54).
> These points may be made at other places in the letter as well. The first
> point, the delivery, is indicated by the conventions for usage of QAUMAZW.
> This is all that is needed, but it is certainly enough to begin questioning
> if the others are present. This takes formulating hypotheses to see if it
> may be detected. The third is indicated by calling this other message a
> "gospel," if it has not been so called, or if it has but not in the sense
> of a message of Christ, and not on the level of a message of Christ. This
> is reinforced by Paul's comment: it is not another. The second takes prior
> knowledge of the writer we do not have, but it can be implied by his
> comment in 1:9 that he is not actually "surprised" in the sense of failing
> to anticipate that this other message existed or would be presented to the
> addressees. Thus his surprise is feigned; it is ironic in the Socratic
> sense, undermining their confidence and suggesting their naivete: things
> are not "really" as they "appear." The overall effect is not one of
> surprise, but of disappointment, and like parental ironic rebuke, it would
> naturally shame the recipient thereof for thinking or behaving
> inappropriately.
>
> >That leaves only the hETEROS/ALLOS argument.
>
> I disagree, as the obove comments illustrate. But as my comments below will
> show, I could work with your reading of hETEROS/ALLOS, although I think it
> tries to do too much.
>
> >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?
>
> Yes!
>
> 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?
>
> No. I appreciate the additional arguments you bring out, and I will give
> them the consideration they deserve, but I do not see how they prove your
> point at the linguistic level beyond doubt. I thus suggest that such an
> important point should not hang upon this "possible" meaning. There are
> plenty of markers and meanings that offer more substantial possibilities
> for resolving the difference of opinion; this one simply does not offer any
> certainty. I suggest that the interplay of these two words is guided by the
> ironic undermining of the other message as not on a par with that of the
> message of Christ, although the addressees have failed to realize that the
> way they are responding to it is putting it on a similar, and thus from
> Paul's perspective inappropriate level that necessarily undermines the
> message of Christ. Actually, the way that you see the two words working may
> be used to support my own view, but I do not appeal to it because I do not
> think it can be demonstrated sufficiently to warrant the point.
>
> >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 actuality they do proclaim another gospel, that is, another message of
> good for how the addressees can negotiate the identity crises they now face
> (whether anyone else has called it a euangelion is beside the point, for my
> view; they have represented it as a message that is good for the
> addressees, and they have regarded it as good for themselves to consider).
> The ironic inversion is based not upon the fact that it not another message
> of good, but rather on the fact that it is one; yet it is bad "for the
> addressees" because they are already believers in the message of good in
> Christ, and it is not another message of Christ, but necessarily undermines
> that message for how they become certain of their identity as children of
> God, again, from Paul's perspective.
>
> Your view, and the consensus one, depend upon an assumption that this label
> "euangelion" is the sole property of the Christ-movement, when it is not.
> Paul can even appeal in this letter to the euangelion proclaimed to Abraham
> of the gentiles coming in in the age to come, a claim that other Jewish
> people and groups who do not believe in Jesus Christ may very well agree
> with, although they might take this to imply something different than does
> Paul, in the current context of Paul's addressees that is. I do not need
> for this label to have been used or not by the influencers for the ironic
> element to come across.
>
> > 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.
>
> Irony is multifaceted. This does seem to be a case where Paul is
> undermining a label that is used. The ironic dimension is indicated by the
> appeal to their "appearance" or "seeming" identity as such, and yet the
> shakiness of their support, although they did uphold the "truth of the
> gospel" in the end, with Paul's help. Paul does not suggest they are not
> pillars, but he does undermine their right to such an identity had they "in
> reality" failed to live according to that for which they "seemed" to stand.
> He explores this nuance more directly in the following incident of Peter's
> hypocrisy, masking his "real" beliefs by departing from they principles in
> which he believed because of extenuating circumstances, thus "seeming" not
> to hold to those principles when he "feared" social reprisals. I suggest
> that these examples are applied to the Galatians by inference, so that they
> will resist the social pressure at the point that it would require them to
> move off the course that they have begun by faith in Christ; a temptation
> that one no less than Peter had to face for maintaining "the truth of the
> gospel" in the face of competing interest groups, who had the ability to
> apply pressure that was hard to resist. So too Paul faced such pressure as
> he now calls them to face, and resist, as did he, in keeping with the
> "real" beliefs of the other leaders of this coalition as well.
>
> 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.
>
> You have made a good point, but the example is one with which I agree, even
> if my phrasing may suggest otherwise. Perhaps our agreement would be
> clearer if I had written that Paul "appeals" to their "own knowledge and
> experiences in order to make them realize the implicit compromise ... the
> other choice involves."
>
> >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?
>
> It would be useful to discuss irony further perhaps; I have made a few
> brief comments earlier and above about its characteristics. It is one of
> the interesting things that the identification of irony has much to do with
> the shared experiences and viewpoints of those involved in using or
> recognizing its use. It is communal in nature. One often misses the ironic
> comment or irony of situation if one does not share the prior knowledge of
> the situation or persons in view that is assumed by the ironist. The result
> can have, ironically, the opposite result of that intended. Let me give you
> an example. A guy was recently introduced to a group of guys who formed a
> regular golfing group. One of the comments of one of the guys trying to
> make him comfortable played off of self-deprecation, but since the new guy
> did not know that this was such and thought it was a truthful comment about
> his (lack of) ability, he responded sympathetically. This was supposed to
> have elicited laughter, actually, and a sense of welcome, but it had the
> effect, once the reality of the ill-informed response was realized, of
> furthering the distance from the group, of accenting the "outsiderness,"
> since the new guy did not "get" the insider humor without explanation. If
> one were to analyze only one side of this conversation, as we must, in
> order to reconstruct it, they would have to recognize or at least sense
> some ironic markers and then hypothesize a situation in which this irony
> was expected to work one way but worked another.
>
> Thus, as long as one believes that Paul is no longer Torah-observant, for
> example, one would not be likely to observe an ironic comment predicated
> upon his own Torah-observance. Much has to do with what one assumes about
> Paul, and specifically what the Galatians know and assume about Paul, as
> well as the influencers, as well as themselves.
>
> In the case of our discussion of 1:6-7 I am appealing to the indication of
> an ironic marker, actually several, to suggest that some new hypotheses of
> the situation and message are in order. Is there some a priori reason that
> this other message could not have been the traditional and apparently
> "normative" message of welcome, of good news that the boundary of Jewish
> identity could be negotiated by gentiles becoming proselytes, and thus
> entitled to regard themselves as children of Abraham, of God? Might this
> not be welcome in the situation of the addressees, if they are being
> marginalized for failure to conform with this procedure while claiming this
> result? Would not Paul regard this, for gentiles who have already become
> such by way of faith in Christ, as "another" message that "turns upside
> down the message of Christ"?
>
> >
> >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."
>
> Mirror-reading does indeed have many dangers, and I do not think I am
> proposing it here. Rather, my point is that the teeth of Paul's rhetorical
> point for the "one" seed of Abraham is not a point that other
> Christ-believers would disagree about, would they? The mirror-reading which
> has been demonstrated to be weak is, for example, to take this comment of
> Paul's as a reaction to an argument against the "one" seed, or some similar
> argument, to which he now responds with the opposite view, or a defense. I
> merely am indicating that the rhetorical point Paul makes suggests that he
> believes it is salient for the case for the identity of the addressees
> based upon the gospel of Christ so that they need not become proselytes in
> order to gain this identity. He may very well be on the offensive on this
> point, anticipating rather than reacting. But this point, at least, is not
> a very strong point if the others are proposing Christ, the one seed,
> plus...
>
> Regards,
> 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