Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

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: Galatian situation
  • Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:54:58 -0500


Dear Dieter,
I am glad you have offered us a view into your recent work, which I have not yet read. We actually share some insights into the texture of the situation and rhetoric, which I will note after your points for the sake of comparison, and to facilitate further discussion with the list.

Constructions of the Galatian situation are many. Here is one that may throw a different light on the issue of the identification of the origin of the calendar in 4.10:
1. the Galatian Christians did not want to abandon Christ and they were absolutely astonished at the accusations by Paul, just as, I might add, Peter and Barnabas at Antioch may have been over being called hypocrites by Paul (if they ever really did hear of it. Anyway, I think we should not equate accusation with fact! I may also add, that my reading of the argumentative strategy of e.g. ch 5.1-12 convinces me, that Paul is well aware, that the Galatians had not abandoned the Christ-faith.)

I agree, and would add as confirmation that Paul does not need to explain or argue that Christ's death is meaningful for them, or should be, or who that is so, but simply that it would be compromised by taking this path in a way that they have not sufficiently weighed. He takes a rhetorical approach of ironic rebuke that will bring the incomparable (the addressees regard the two messages of good for themselves as separate matters) into the light of unanticipated comparison (acceptance of the one message necessarily undermines acceptance of the other, and vice versa).

2. The pastoral advisors from Jerusalem (called 'opponents of Paul' by those impressed, dare I say deceived, by the hyperbolic rhetoric of Gal), having been called in for advise in a difficult situation by the Galatian Christians, did agree with Paul on the insignificance of circumcision for salvation. Everybody agreed on that!

I too argue that those whose influence Paul opposes in this letter are not opponents of Paul (and that interpreters have mistakenly been taken in by Paul's rhetoric); at least before the letter's arrival! But, in Galatia, I do not believe they are from Jerusalem or anywhere else; I believe they are Galatians too. And I do not believe that they are a part of the Christ-believing coalition, so do not see at work a meeting/purpose that you see.

3. In order to ease social and political pressure, the famous decision from the Jerusalem council 'not to lay burdens on the Gentiles' was implemented. The anoying thing is, that THIS situation required a reverse implementation of the principle agreed upon. In Galatia the combination of UNcircumcision with Christ-faith was the burden to be lifted.

Are you referring to Antioch here, or Galatia? I would agree about Antioch, but find no evidence that this is the issue in Galatia.

4. The issue at stake in Gal, once the rhetoric is critically dismantled, is not circumcision as such, but the imitatio Christi crufixi. Paul had portrayed vividly, from the very beginning of his association with the Galatians (3.1ff, 4.13), a Christ-like life that was characterized by suffering. The betrayal (to Paul's perception) of this principle, I think, constitutes the core of the problem. Circumcision and calender observances are assaulted not because there was a danger of returning to native paganism or of leaving Christ for Judaism (whatever that would have meant), but because of the betrayal of the committment to the imitation of the suffering Christ.

I see something very similar at work. Since the addressees are considering a course that offers to resolve the present social dissonance they are suffering from not conforming with the prevailing norms, Paul attacks their naive assumption/goal. For have they not believed in one who suffered for just such non-conformity with prevailing norms based on a conviction of what God required of him, and learned of the meaning of this from one who has done the same? What then do they expect for themselves, honor and broad acceptance? Instead he calls them again to the path of suffering, to looking to the one who was publicly portrayed as crucified (i.e., in shame according to the prevailing norms), certain that the wait will bring the righteous identity that is otherwise in dispute (5:5; 6:7-10).

5. Even the Galatian Christians were ready to suffer for Christ (4.14). However, they did not think, an insignificant issue (5.6, 6.15) was worth trouble. Ttheir attitude towards Christian living was pragmatic rather than fundamentalistic.

Yes. Like teenagers (paradigmatically), they wish to gain the benefits of conformity to two rival courts of reputation, thinking that this is possible (as long as the parents don't know about it, it is OK; but Paul, the parent, finds out!).

6. We can get a clue of Paul's perception of dicipleship and why it clashed with the Galatians', from a comparison of Gal 5.9 with 1 Cor 9.24. Add to that Gal 2.19-20, Phil 2.5ff, 3.12ff a.o.

7. The theological argument with regard to the nomos, is secondary, added for purposes of persuasive pressure rather than for engaging the recipient's intention.

In a way I concur, but I see it differently. The argument about nomos is made to qualify the authority of the competing reference group norm to which the addressees are called to comply if they are to gain the standing of righteous ones they already claim apart from completing proselyte conversion. There is nothing wrong with nomos, it is just not for them to become nomos people in order to gain righteous standing, since they have already become righteous ones while not nomos people, i.e., proselytes. Seeking to go backwards, as it were, undoes what has already been woven together. Thus Paul ironically asks: "is that what you aim to do?"

With regard to the discussion of whether the calendar in 4.10 was pagan or Jewish, I would argue, therefore, that we could leave that question unanswered and still grasp the issue at stake. However, if it was pagan, it would strenghten the claim, that not choice of religion but cost of dicipleship was at the heart of the matter.

A problem with leaving it Jewish is the implied result with respect to constructing the identity of Paul, as well as the situation in terms of the Jewish sphere. Otherwise I agree with your final point. This is where the rhetoric of the letter drives home the reason that they must not comply with the prevailing norm where it comes into conflict with what is claimed upon the basis of meaning attributed to work of Christ for themselves as gentiles, representatives of the nations, and thus bearing witness that the end of the ages has dawned.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page