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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:29:56 -0500


Dear Dieter,
I will leave your comments for the sake of clarity, and respond below them.

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'?

Maybe! Perhaps we will get that far? But for the moment it is sufficient for me to note that "harder" is a relative term, of course, and it may seem "soft" to someone else, just as I find the current arguments appealing to such "evidence" unconvincing. I doubt those who appeal to the change of person, e.g., have begun their arguments there; rather, already assuming that they are from outside Galatia, since that has been the prevailing view (or maybe because of some other evidence?), they are satisfied with taking such evidence to confirm their view, and move on with this point "certain." If we are to begin with the question of identifying the players in Galatia, we will be doing something very new, I propose, although one can find books and dissertations on the topic; as your next comment clarifies, this is because engagement with the text as rhetoric as part of the historical critical task is a fairly new enterprise. That is but one of many factors at work, but sufficient I think to move on.


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).

I welcome this area of discussion, and as you know, it was a topic of concern in my recently completed dissertation. I do find some methodological problems with Barclay's approach (it does not go far enough, which can be found in the conclusions of this article, but that is another matter...), but I wonder if he is describing the prevailing view in what you quote, rather than his own view? In any event, it is one of the problematic approaches that are widely appealed to in the present constructions of identity in Galatia, not to mention in articulating the message of the letter that follows from such decisions about situation.

So far I agree with your criticisms. At the same time I must say that identifying these people as "agitators" strikes me as a methodological flaw of a kind similar to those others you note, since it is a label based upon Paul's rhetoric which seeks to put them in bad light. Should not the historical critic wishing to identify these people/ interest groups begin with a neutral term of reference which allows the consideration of their identity in a way that they might accept/ share? Should they not avoid internalizing Paul's vantage point at the start of their analysis, if it seeks to be historical rather than merely ideological (even though recognizing that all investigators are shaped by their ideological vantage point)? For example, might these people not consider themselves the champions of these gentiles' interests, and Paul the "agitator"? But how do you arrive at such considerations if you prejudice the matter by labeling and describing them as "agitators," or any of the other negative terms usually applied (i.e., "judaizers," "troublemakers," "opponents," "outsiders," etc.). Similar arguments against each of these could be offered, and more said about the particular one you have used here, "agitators." Martyn's "teachers" is an improvement, although it suggests an academic type role, which is an arguable limitation (Martyn has however applied more imaginative thinking to their identity than most before him). I am not sure what the perfect label might be; I have suggested and work presently with the label "influencers," since it is a relatively neutral label: they are influencing the addressees, as is also Paul, and neither would likely deny this. I have also avoided reference to the addressees of Paul's letter, e.g., as "the Galatians," since this may subtly continue the prevailing assumption that the influencers are not also "Galatians." Thus I refer to the "addressees" and the "influencers," even if that can be cumbersome at times. Likewise I refrain from calling anyone in Galatia "Christians," as this suggests a later sectarian identity, rather than testing the letter to see if that is what one finds. I refer to them as Christ-believing addressees, members of the Christ-believing group or coalition, non-Christ-believing influencers, etc.


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?

And in what sense is "compelling" being used, and in what ways is "compelling" being done, etc. It is unlikely, based upon the rhetoric throughout the letter, that the addressees are being forced, although I believe many interpreters of Galatians proceed as though this is the case. Rather, they are being persuaded, by rhetoric, by circumstances, by self-interest, and many other influencers that result from social interaction and the need for gaining and confirming positive self- and group-esteem.

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.

I agree.

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.

Yes; these are two among many that I engage in my recent/forthcoming work. I do not understand how this logic is so compelling for them, or those who quote them. Pulling apart each of these arguments for closer inspection can reveal many interesting assumptions at work before the arguments begin. I suppose they believe such arguments hang upon "hard" evidence, even if we might now find it "soft," or even contrary!; another of the many interpretive issues one must consider.


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.

Yes, I argue that just such processes are at work. Perhaps the problem is the way you are limiting the use of "compel." Your second sentence, e.g., could read, "They may have been compelled on the basis of their own social and political circumstances and difficulties." I believe this usage is consistent with the Greek as well as the English domain. No one is forcing the addressees, someone is compelling them, which is what Paul expects his letter to do as well!

And, knowing Paul, they may have asked for help and guidance in circles with authority, preferably as close to 'the pillars' as possible.

Perhaps, but I see no indication or logic for supposing that these (presumably) small groups of people in and from Galatia had a lot of reason to have contact with such distant and important people, in terms of the coalition, outside of Paul when he had passed through and for some reason remained there, although he had not planned to do so. Is not Paul as close to "the pillars" as it gets?


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.

I am sorry to have to disagree about what we agree upon, but I do not believe that the influencers in Galatia are Christ believers. We are left with the agreement that they are from Galatia, as are the addressees, as far as the information from Paul's letter allows anyway.

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.

I do not understand why this is so. If Paul had an example from a meeting in Alexandria, e.g., that fit the rhetorical purpose of his use of narrative to support the argument he is making with the Galatian addressees, would it be compelling then to suppose that someone in Galatia is from Alexandria? Examples are not analogies, and nowhere does Paul draw from his examples any point related to location for identifying the players in Galatia; rather, he draws from this example several points to further support his contention that gentile believers in Christ should not become proselytes (explicit at 2:5), showing that this policy was the result of a process of agreements that were arrived at with some cost to the players, and even some mistakes were made along the way by important people in this coalition. But the present state of the question is clear, and thus the Galatians are bound by Paul's advice, as it now represents the view of all of the leaders of this coalition. In fact, I believe that this argues against any Christ-belief on the part of the influencers, who are not bound by the concerns of this Christ-believing coalition. But that begins another topic...

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page