Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:55:01 +0200


Dear Mark.
I would like, for the moment, to limit the discussion to the question of who
the 'agitators' were, what they did and where they came from. Maybe others
want to join in.
I agree with you, that the evidence one can line up, will never be
indisputable. The issues of addressing('some-you', 'they-you'), the
nonspecific questions in 3.1, 5.7, 10 and the surpising change (1.6) that
have been used by many to identify an outside influence are not hard facts. I
was just wondering, whether you had anything in your back pocket that was
'harder'?

So let me start from a different angle:
John Barclay's definition regarding principles of mirror reading: : "If Paul
makes an assertion, we may assume that, at least, those to whom he writes may
be in danger of overlooking what he asserts, and, at most, someone has
explicitely denied it." is not good enough as far as I can see. The relevance
of a reference cannot simply be assumed, especially not in a comminucation
situation where you have a massive collision of perceptions. (By collision of
perceptions, just to make sure I am not misinterpreted, I am not referring to
nomology, but to the perception of proper Christlikeness) Take for instance
the rhetorical strategy of vilification that is, as far a<s I can see, rather
prevelant in Gal. Paul has not one good thing to say about the agitators, and
whatever he accuses them of, he does with superlative force. In addition,
this tendency is not limited to the agitators in Galatia, but includes the
(false) brethren in Jerusalem, Peter, etc. Himself on the other hand Paul
portrays as absolutely flawless, fearless, selfless and successful. There is
not even a hint at any regrets (I am just arguing Gal right now).

Of course one may argue that maybe he did not have anything to regret and
maybe the others were really just bad. Well, to my mind, this is like
orchestrating a trial without even providing a public defender for the
accused. If there is some concern for the accused in our reading of Gal (cf
audiatur et altera pars), we cannot simply accept accusations as matters of
fact, but have to dismantle the argumentation critically . This can never be
an objective task, but I would hasten to add, neither is it obejctive, to
fail to recognise the rhetorical strategy. It has to be, however,
demonstrable to other interpreters!

Thus then, when Paul writes in 6.12: 'they COMPEL you to circumcision', the
rhetorical strategy of the whole letter has to be weighed in, and one would
have to ask: who is compelling who actually? Who is cursing, who is
threatening with loss of salvation, who is running wild with regard to the
function of the nomos etc.?? Is it not the author of the letter? Failure to
take such aspects into consideration I think is a major flaw in many
constructions. To take but a couple of examples: Robert Jewett has been
arguing, that the reference in 6.12 to THEIR persecution would indicate, that
the persecution did actually not occur in Galatia but in Palestine under the
procurator Ventidius Cumanus. For selfish reasons the agitators came to
Galatia, deceiving the Gentile Christians into circumcision in order to show
off at home. Wow! But also Bruce Winter, who identifies persecution as a
problem in Galatia, having to do with the threatened status provided by the
religio licita, perceives the dynamic of the situation without further ado as
Jewish Christians putting, for their own welfare's sake!, pressure on Gentile
Christians.

In other words, the point I am trying to make is this: there may not have
been any need to compel Gentile Galatian Christians into circumcision. They
may have wished it on the basis of their own social and political
circumstances and difficulites. They may even have asked for the advise of
their fellow Jewish Christians in Galatia. And, knowing Paul, they may have
asked for help and guidance in circles with authority, preferably as close to
'the pillars' as possible.

In light of such a construction, we may be able to agree, that whether or not
advise came from Jewish Christians in Galatia ONLY, or whether it was
enhanced by advise from further south, is not such a big issue. It is however
still my sense of the rhetorical strategy, that Paul would not have written
ch 2.1-15 the way he did, had he not seen the connection with Jerusalem,
Peter and James.

Greetings!
Dieter










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page