Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Hi Troy,

Your last post was in two parts. I did not realize the second part when responding to the first. In response to your second post:

You wrote:
>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. 

Thanks for the clarification. As I have written, irony is indicated from THAUMATZW in context, and in various other ways that fall within established conventions for using and detecting irony. Some of these have been discussed in prior posts, some is available in the work of others like Dahl (unpublished paper), who developed insights from White and Mullins on ancient letter forms, and who was followed by Hansen in his work on Abraham and a commentary on Galatians. Some comments and examples are in the paper under discussion, and I hope to articulate this observation and the implications as I see them at more length in a forthcoming project.  Again, for an emic view, Quintillian is instructive on markers for irony, and it is obvious that they rest on shared knowledge and conventions: 

"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). 

The biggest issue in detection of irony remains one that must be circular for the interpreter of Galatians; but so too must be its denial! Irony works or fails to work based upon the knowledge and perspective that the reader shares with the ironist, or doesn't, about what is "out of keeping with the words." Those "in the know" will roll their eyes when the unsuspecting victim misses the irony, clearly indicating the in- and out-groups on the matter at hand. Until some historical evidence outside of Paul's extant letters surfaces, any reading of Galatians proceeds from an hypothesis of the writer and the readers knowledge of each other and on the matter at hand, as well as their perspectives on each of these.

I think you overstate the case that the context of proselyte conversion is dependent upon my understanding of irony here. The issue of proselyte conversion as an aspect of the implied situation is a feature of even those views that I differ from, including your own; of almost all if not all readings of Galatians. The topic of circumcision to grant identity as children of Abraham/God/righteousness is evident throughout the letter even if read apart from ironic rebuke. I take the implications of this into account when drawing the hypothesis to be tested by the proposal of irony at work in the rhetoric. I do not see how this is circular in terms of dependence upon irony, except in the way I have already admitted to be the necessary case for all interpreters until some evidence from outside the letter turns up; we must hypothesize from the same information that we will test it against.

> 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 [Troy: here they 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 [Troy: here they do not 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. 

I think my response to your ealier of these two posts might put my question, which continues for me, in another way that you might find useful for clarifying your position. I do not want to get involved in missing each other over semantics, such as how reject or repulse are different, or acceptance and decision. 

If they accept/decide to turn toward this other message, how does this indicate that they reject/are repulsed by it? The are turning from Paul's gospel to this other gospel, not away from it, as far as I can see. Paul anathemizes the proponents of this other gospel and warns them from following through on this acceptance/decision. 

How do you know that the Galatians had this view of circumcision as repulsive? This seems quite a claim. Is this stated in Galatians? And how can you be certain that this negative view, while attested in a few elite sources, represents the views of every non-Jew everywhere at everytime (remember too that we are before the imperial propoganda following the failed revolt). Proselyte conversion is attested, as are examples of gentile appreciation and association with the Jewish communities. Some examples are mentioned by Josephus (e.g., Izates) and Philo, as well as some non-Jewish authors (e.g., Tacitus and Juvenal are later and negative, yet witness that it did occur). While Josephus attributes a negative attitude to Apion (Contra 2.137), he does not do this when dealing with the earlier evidence attributed to Strabo on the authority of Timagenes, a first century b.c.e. Alexandrian historian, in recognizing circumcision as a Jewish custom, with no negative tone implied (Ant 8.319). Moreover, it is hard to understand why Paul must argue so against something that they already reject, regardless of what some other gentile elites might be found saying. Would he not rather be expected to defend circumcision, since he is Jewish after all, even if he went on to argue why it is not for themselves? Or at least nuance his polemic as he does in Romans 7, with some appreciation of Law (in this case Jewish identity), at least in principle? Why does he try to make the weight of circumcision heavier than they seem to be counting it (5:3)? All in all, why does Paul need to dissuade them from following through with circumcision (cf. 5:1-12) if they have already rejected it for themselves?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City