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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:14:09 -0500


Dear Richard,
Thank you for the post; there is much to consider. I will note some thoughts below yours.

1. Neither Paul, nor the influencers, nor the addressees acknowledged the
authority of the Jerusalem apostles.

There are interesting assumptions at work here, and important ones to note, since they are fundamental for what you will build.
1. Paul arguable did, see 2:1-3, 9-10! His trip to subordinate his gospel is an acknowledgement of their authority, whatever else it might also be.
2. As for the influencers, Why would the influencers care, or even know about these people in Jerusalem, unless already proven that they are at least Christ-believers, or from Jerusalem themselves. But at this point you assume that the influencers know and care about the view of the apostles, even if in a contrary way. So while I agree with your statement about them, they have not acknowledged their authority, I take the implications of this statement very differently.
3. It is implied by Paul's appeal to these narratives that the authority of the Jerusalem apostles is of persuasive value for the addressees, and this may not be the first time he has done so, in fact, it seems to me logical that in the time he had spent among them he would have spoken of these kinds of things (cf. 1:13).


2. In Gal 1-2 Paul is combating the view that the gospel of
non-circumcision had come from the Jerusalem apostles, rather than from
God. Everybody knew that the apostles did not require that Gentile
believers be circumcised. The Galatians were probably being persuaded by
the influencers that Paul had preached this gospel to please the apostles,
and that he himself did not accept it.

It seems to me that throughout Gal 1-2 Paul is refuting the claim that he
had preached Gentile liberty only to conform to the doctrine of the
apostles. Here is a paraphrase which attempts to illustrate this point:

From Paul, an apostle of God, not a messenger of the Jerusalem pillars
(1.1). Some people are throwing you into confusion by claiming that I was
preaching my gospel of Gentile liberty to please the pillars (1.7-10), and
that I really believe in circumcision (5.7-11). But my gospel did not come
from them, but came by revelation from God (1.11-12). It could not have
come from them, for I had very little contact with them (1.15-24). My
gospel is independent of them, for it was _I_ who presented it to _them_,
and I did not even know whether they would accept it (2.2). I was certainly
not preaching it to please them, for their status means nothing to me (2.6)
and I actually opposed them because they were not strong enough in their
support for the gospel (2.11-13). They did not give me my gospel (2.6b,10).
On the contrary, they merely recognised the vocation that I already had
(2.7-9).

This creative reading resonates with that of George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, which you may wish to check out, if you have not already.

One problem with this view is Paul's choice of subordinate language throughout 2:1-10. Another is that it takes Paul's interest in making this argument as entirely self-serving: is this letter simply to assert his own importance, including disagreement with those "few" who agree with him? Otherwise I do not understand why Paul would not simply turn to the authority of the apostles to support non-circumcision of the addressees, in addition to whatever he might want to argue about his own history of coming to this view, since the addressees continued non-circumcision is the purpose of the letter.

So in a sense there is some agreement between us, but I see Paul explaining his independence as well as dependence upon the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, since both serve the purpose of persuading the addressees that everyone of importance "within" this coalition agrees on this matter, even though they have had to suffer for this minority deviant view. This implies that the influencers are not from within this coalition, and thus Paul seeks to mitigate the persuasive force of their message, because they have the advantage of presence, and of representing the traditional ("human") view, compelling forces when combined with the promise of the goods one wishes to possess but can not access because of failure to adopt the dominant view to date, having been convinced of a minority view by someone travelling through, and the small band of devotees he left in his wake, but who is no longer around to make this alternative reality sufficiently clear and compelling.


In 2.6 Paul is not saying that the pillars added no Judaising element to
his message. On the contrary, he is saying that they added no
Gentile-liberty element to his message: his gospel was fully formed before
his visit to Jerusalem. Paul's purpose in 2.6-10 is the same as that in
1.1,10-24, namely to make it clear that his gospel was not from man.

This reconstruction strongly suggests that Mark is right to suppose that
the influencers were from Galatia rather than Judea. If they had been from
Judea they would have known that the non-circumcision gospel had not
originated with the Jerusalem apostles.

Interesting that we arrive at this agreement when we define the politics of the situation so differently. Indeed, but would they not have probably known this anyway if they were fellow Christ-believers, since they had to be influenced by someone in the movement, and there were not that many members of this coalition just yet?

[snip]


Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page