----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 2:49
PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Mark's Article
for Review
Greetings Mark.
I apologize for my delayed response to your last post. Some pressing
deadlines hindered a prompt response. I offer the following
comments on the points you raised in that post.
Mark D. Nanos wrote: 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 . . . any Jewish message providing for the inclusion of
gentiles could be in view, since it is a different message than Paul's. . .
.
I think you have made your case at the semantic level. The overlap of
the semantic domain of hETEROS/ALLOS makes your interpretation possible, but I
hesitate to identify these domains as "synonymous." There are times when
the domains do not overlap, and the issue in 1:6-7 is whether this text is one
of those times. I think the issue is whether or not the syntax "hETEROS
not ALLOS" permits a synonymous meaning of these two terms. My
experience with this syntax indicates a distinction between the meaning of
these two words. I think you need to establish your case at the
syntactic level by demonstrating that the syntactical contrast of
hETEROS and ALLOS permits these two words to be synonymous. I think the
syntax indicates a distinction in the meaning of the words, but I am open to
being convinced otherwise. Paul knows of another (ALL0S) gospel that is
compatible with his gospel for the uncircumcision; namely the gospel for the
circumcision (2:7). When the gospel for the circumcision is forced
upon the uncircumcision, however, it is hETEROS not ALLOS. At least,
this is the way I understand 1:6-7.
I think you have also made your case that EUAGGELION has a semantic range
that exceeds the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is whether or not
this broader semantic range is possible in the context of 1:6-7. Does
EUAGGELION occur elsewhere in a Christian writing as a reference to the Jewish
message of proselyte conversion of non-Jews? If this term were used this
way in Christian circles, wouldn't an author need to specify which meaning is
in view? I am thinking of a passage like Rom 1:16-17, which is a
reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ even though the term EUAGGELION is not
specified. I think you have made your case at the semantic level, but I
still have problems at the syntactical and contextual level.
Moving on to the other points, you wrote:
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. . . . The problem is
that the entire letter
constitutes argument, in your case even if some
parts may be
accusatory in nature. . . .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?
I am not so sure that my categories suffer from
the same problem as the categories of direct and narrative. Direct and
narrative are etic categories whereas accusation and argument are emic
categories arising out of the ancient discussion of stasis theory.
Whereas the direct category is determined by content and the narrative
category is determined by form, the categories of accusation and argument are
each determined by both content and form. I think we need to be careful
not to equivocate on the term "argument." To say that the entire
letter functions as an "argument" for Paul's position is not to say that all
the statements are formally "arguments." You are quite right to point to
accusations in addition to those in 1:6-9 and 4:8-11. Stasis
theory distinguishes between the primary stasis and the secondary
stases. On pages 438-439 of my article "Apostasy to Paganism," I
explain, "The development of a stasis produces a controversy in which two
parties disagree. The stasis of the disagreement is determined by
joining the accusing statement made by the first party with the defensive
response of the second party. . . . This process of accusation and defense
generates secondary stases that represent subsequent contrary positions taken
by both parties in the debate. This process continues until the
controversy is resolved or until the parties despair of
resolution." Stasis theory thus accounts for several accusations in
Galatians in addition to 1:6-9 and 4:8-11. I single out these two
because stasis created by the accusation in 4:8-11 provides the containment of
the controversy and is thus the principle stasis (see pp. 442-443) while the
accusation in 1:6-9 creates the most important of the secondary stases.
For these reasons, I do not consider my categories to suffer from the same
problems as the categories of direct and narrative.
You wrote: 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. . . .
Our
difference of opinion about ironic surfaces again. I agree there is a
contrast here between before and now. Is this all you mean by ironic or
is there more?
I would like to explore your notion that Paul was not against "proselyte
conversion per se." My agreement with you on this point creates a
problem for me. If Paul is not opposed to proselyte conversion, why is
he so opposed to non-Jewish Christians deciding to live out their Christianity
in the same way as Jewish Christians? Your answer to this question is
twofold. First, you assert that their submitting to proselyte conversion
would deny their standing in Christ. When I read 1 Cor 7:17-40 about
remaining in the state in which one is called, I am not sure Paul would agree
that proselyte conversion would deny their standing in Christ. Paul
admonishes an uncircumcised Christian to remain uncircumcised (7:18) but then
states that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything
(7:19). Paul even specifically states that slaves and the married and
unmaried may change their status without denying their calling. I wonder
if Paul viewed submission to circumcision as a denial of one's calling.
Second, you assert that Paul objects to the Galatians' submission to proselyte
conversion because both Jew and Gentile must become the people of God in the
new age. I agree this point is important for Paul, but I wonder if he
would have been so upset with a few Gentiles converting to Judaism as long as
they maintained their Christianity. Were there not enough Gentiles to
fill out the number of the people of God even if a few converted to
Judaism? Doesn't the Jewish part of this people of God require some
proselytes? These are just some obstacles I perceive with you
view. In my reading, Paul's concern lies not with proselyte conversion
but with apostasy from Christianity altogether.
A response to the other issues of paraenesis and of
your understanding of my own proposal for the situation at Galatia, I must
defer to a later post.
A Co-Interested Interpreter of Paul,Troy
---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul
as: martin AT sxu.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
--
MZ