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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark's Article for Review
  • Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:14:04 -0500


Dear Troy,

I hope at this point to have simply made the case that one cannot "know"
that this other message of good was about Christ on the basis of this
language in 1:6-7, since any kind of message could be implied in the use of
hETEROS/ALLOS, whether this is taken to be synonymous as I do, or in either
of the directions that have been argued by other interpreters, including
the one you support: it is another message of good, a different kind of
message of good, that is not good for yourselves as believers in Christ. In
the context of Paul's statement about the "grace of him who called" the
Galatians, any Jewish message providing for the inclusion of gentiles could
be in view, since it is a different message than Paul's (not that other
Jewish messages are not predicated upon grace, they are!; but upon grace
expressed through Jesus Christ is the issue), which revolves around the
meaning of Christ for themselves that he views this other message as
undermining. Could not the difference be that it does not include any
concern with Christ? The traditional message of proselyte conversion may be
regarded, from Paul's perspective when gentile Christ believers are in
view, as undermining the results of the work of Christ that he has claimed
has made them, as gentiles, already on a par with those who complete
proselyte conversion, thus undermining its usefulness for themselves, as
gentiles. Might not the "traditional" message of proselyte conversion
providing for gentile inclusion among the people of God, which Paul had
"formerly" advocated himself, be the other good/attractive message in view?

To move on to other points, I will respond below.

>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.
>
On the question of categories, I like your proposal of accusation and
argument, although it suffers from the same problem as those of direct and
narrative (I have been trying "situational" instead of "direct," but this
too has problems, since even the narratives are constructed to address the
exigence that the situation has provoked), in failing to account for some
of the letter. But I think this division is useful, as you say, for what
should take precedent for reconstructions of the situation. The problem is
that the entire letter constitutes argument, in your case even if some
parts may be accusatory in nature; or direct/situational discourse, in
mine, even if some parts may be narratives to illustrate his case. With
this limitation in view, that is, accepting that all of the letter has this
broader purpose, the divisions are helpful for prioritizing the material in
terms of its value for understanding the details of the situation/players
now present in Galatia, rather than mixing them up with situations and
players elsewhere (e.g., in Jerusalem or Antioch, in Abraham's period, or
in an allegorical world), as do the consensus reconstructions currently. By
your separation, I am unclear why accusation would not be characteristic,
and equally so, by the language of 3:1-5; 4:12-20; 4:21; 5:7-15. How are
1:6-9 and 4:8-11 any "different in kind," so as to be given priority for
the task of providing situational information?

The transitions from situational discourse to narrative and back seem to be
a natural aspect of argument. It creates a seam. One is making a point
directly, then reaches for an example to illustrate the point, perhaps
making some connecting reference in the midst of explaining the example
(2:5 is a good example of this), but most likely in the transition back to
their situational point in the discourse. This seems to me to be what is
going on in the language signaled at 4:3, but he stays with the
illustration from the example of Abraham a bit longer. They must be
convinced of who they already are, those known by God. He still seems to be
drawing from this example in the "knowing/being known" irony of 4:8-11. At
4:12 ff. he is again clearly writing directly/situationally to the
addressees, starting a new line of situational argument instead of teasing
out implications of the midrash on Abraham's children of the prior section.
He is now calling them, it seems to me, to continue in the marginality that
Paul shares with them for this conviction of what the "truth of the gospel"
means for gentiles, his own declaration thereof having marginalized him,
even though an exemplary Jewish practitioner otherwise, just as their
belief therein has marginalized them for remaining gentiles but claiming an
identity as righteous ones, an identity reserved in the larger Jewish
community for proselytes. Standing fast for this belief, resisting the
pressure to conform with the dominant, long-standing traditional view based
upon Scripture, of course offering another interpretation of those same
Scriptures influenced by the revelation of Christ, seems to me to be the
point of the letter overall.

I think that the ironic language of 4:8-11 is predicated upon their
knowledge that Paul is not against Jewish observance or even proselyte
conversion per se, but he is against converting in this way "for
themselves," in view of the fact that they, although gentiles, have already
gained what this conversion promises them: they are already know by God as
his children, Abraham's children, heirs according to promise. For "them" to
do so would be logically to deny what they already have gained, and thus to
undermine the meaning of the grace of God in Christ from themselves, as
gentiles. Where you read a turn toward paganism, I read an ironic
comparison between proselyte conversion, which would seem to give them
something that their pagan practices had not (knowing and being known by
God), when they have already, ironically, gained that which they seek apart
from it, and thus would deny this "reality" to which their own experience
bears witness in the Spirit. It is not the what (Jewish practices) so much
as the why (what would be accomplished "for themselves") of proselyte
conversion that he seeks to undermine.

I do not see why the instructional material of chapters 5 and 6 would be a
priori taken as general rather than situation in focus, as labeling it
parenesis can imply. If my reading of the letter is right, Paul calls the
addressees to join him in a state of continued marginality for this "truth"
that they are identified as righteous ones by God without completing
proselyte conversion and becoming righteous ones according to the
traditional and dominant view. Then the nature of these instructions to
desist from seeking honor according to that court of reputation, and make
every effort to help one another survive as they "wait for the hope of
righteousness," knowing that they will all find this burden difficult, but
believing that God will reward them for this faithfulness in the end, would
be situational in nature rather than general. That is not to deny that some
material may be general along the way, as seems to be the case of the
vice/virtue lists.

I am still trying to understand your proposal for the situation, but I find
it difficult to grasp that the addressees are turning away from the belief
in Christ to paganism because of a rejection of the "other" message of the
need to complete the ritual process of proselyte conversion (circumcision).
It seems to me that they "want" what this other message offers them,
namely, full acceptance by those who offer it, which seems to be
unquestioned acceptance as righteous ones of God/children of Abraham
according to the "traditional" interpretation of how this can be negotiated
by gentiles, namely, by way of proselyte conversion. This view need not
have anything to do with faith in Christ or be presented in opposition to
it; but from Paul's perspective this step would undermine the one they had
already taken, since it would implicitly deny what they have already gained
by taking the step of faith in Christ. The "surprise" is that they, against
general pagan resistance to this rite, as you note, and against Paul's
earlier teaching that this was not for themselves, are now "wanting" to
"complete" it. It seems that, as psychologists note, the "most" powerful
force of the desire to be accepted by the "in" group is at work. It has
compelled them more than their former pagan perspective or the principles
of their "former" teacher who doesn't really understand their current
"social" plight of marginalization, which can be alleviated by acceptance
of the dominant communal norm of proselyte conversion. Why not both? is
their implied question of Paul. He sets out the antithesis in this letter,
since the solution of the current age (proselyte conversion, rendering them
members of Israel) would undermine the meaning of the death of Christ for
themselves (marking the dawn of the age to come, when members of all of the
nations, in addition to Israel, can become righteous ones, on equal
standing). Because the age has changed with the coming of Christ, he
replies; would you now deny this because you are unwilling to be
marginalized for this principle, as have I?

To put this in your terms, the stasis of the case is not their denial of
this interest, which they would admit, but of the meaning/definition of
this interest: it offers them acceptance and does not compromise their
faith in Christ, they might reply. The bedrock to which Paul appeals is the
meaning of the death of Christ for himself/themselves. This cannot be
compromised. Paul expresses confidence and grounds his argument on the
premise that the addressees would not do anything consciously to compromise
the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves, if they realized it. And
the style of ironic rebuke (who do you think I am? who do they think they
are? who do you think you are? what do you think this other message offers?
what do you think you are doing? do you not realize that it necessarily
undermines the meaning of Christ's death for yourselves?) in which this
argument is delivered will itself help him make them realize that the
choice they are entertaining would compromise it in a way that they have
failed to realize, for this style attacks their naiveté and inappropriate
definition of what is at stake by expressing disappointment in a way that
will provoke shame, a powerful and memorable tactic for producing
compliance in his "children." Thus he expresses confidence that his appeal
will succeed, once the antithesis is now so clearly defined.

Grateful for the exchange,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page