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, 23 Sep 1999 14:28:13 -0500

Greetings Mark.

I am now able to continue the post I began this morning.  By now, I have received that post myself and want to clarify one item before continuing.

My question about whether or not you mean more by irony than simply the "before and now" of Gal 4:8-11 was too abbreviated to really express what I was asking.  Of course, you do mean more as you clearly explained in your post.  My question is what controls do you place on ironic interpretation.  It seems to me that irony is  essential  for your argument that Galatians is a response to Jewish proselyte conversion and yet this understanding of Galatians is necessary for your ironic reading of certain passages.  How do you escape this circular problem?  This is the question I was attempting to pose.
 
Now I turn to the other issues I was not able to address this morning.

You wrote:  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.  .  .  .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.

We agree that some of the material in 5 and 6 is situational and some is general.  In my post to which you are responding, I state, "Some of the instructions may directly apply to the situation in Galatia, but others in good paraenetical fashion may not."  I am simply saying that paraenesis need not be situation specific and thus see a problem with your designating 4:31-6:10 as direct material.  My point was simply that not all this paraenesis is direct material.  I think we agree that the function of the paraenesis is to remind the Galatians of the requirements of Paul's gospel even though we may nuance this differently to fit our differeing views of the situation at Galatia.

You wrote: 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.
I may not understand what you mean but I never said  or at least intended to say the Galatians  rejected the "other" message.  On pp. 441-442 of my article "Apostasy," I actually argue that the Galatians accept this "other" message as the valid and authentic Christian gospel.   Their acceptance, however, must be distinguished from their decision to live or not live according to this circumcision gospel.  I conclude on the basis of the Gentile perception of circumcision that the Galatians refuse to accept such a morally "perverted" operation and hence decide to return to their pagan life and abandon their life according to the gospel.  I do not think the Galatians want what this circumcision gospel offers.  They are repulsed by the requirement of circumcision and reject Christianity, because the "influencers" have convinced them that circumcision is a necessary requirement of the valid Christian gospel.  I hope this explanation of my position helps.
You wrote: It seems that, as psychologists note, the "most" powerful force of the desire to be accepted by the "in" group is at work.I am not so sure.  Whereas you see the Galatians as eager to submit to circumcision for acceptance, I see them as hostile toward Paul for his apparent "bait and switch" tactic.  He had gotten them in without requiring circumcision and now they are being told that unless they submit to circumcision, they are out.  I think it more likely they opted out than in when faced with the "immoral" requirement of circumcision.

I am still eager to discuss our third area of agreement, but that discussion must wait until 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
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page