Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:05:46 -0500


on 7/21/01 11:47 AM, Fabrizio Palestini at fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it wrote:
>
> Could anyone offer me reasonable evidences against this hypothesis?
>
> Below I offer a list of the most important articles on the subject:
>
> 1) "The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles" (Hermann Detering
> http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html)

>
> 6) "The Spuriousness of the Pauline Epistles. Exemplified by the Epistle to
> the Galatians" (G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga
> http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html)

Dear Fabrizio,
Thank you for listing these articles. I have scanned two from your list.
While I do not have time to offer you detailed criticism, I think it would
be fun and profitable to do so some day. But I will offer a few points to
consider about the Eysinga article.

This approach is filled with as many questionable historical and rhetorical
and sociological and philological presuppositions as the traditional
approaches it seeks to challenge. These range from determination of the
interests and ideologies of Gnostics, Marcionites, Jewish-Christians, and
early Catholics, to name a few. Most important, they begin with a portrait
of Paul that is dependent upon later Christian characterization of his
language as anti-Jewish and anti-Law, etc.; this they share with the Prot.
and Cath. schools of thought they seek to challenge. And here is one of
their strengths against the traditional interpreter, for they undermine
shared assumptions. In other words, both these radicals and those they seek
to challenge share assumptions that are absolutely necessary to the premises
from which these radicals work. I believe that these assumptions are
mistaken, and that a new historical-critical reading of Paul as a practicing
Jew subverts the basis of their critique, but also of those they seek to
criticize too. That is a topic to big to begin to engage here.

I note that many (actually, I think all, but this might not be so on a
closer reading) of the details which Eysinga takes to be problematic for the
traditional reading of Galatians do not carry the weight he supposes; many
actually work against his thesis. Yes, there are some good points against
the way Galatians was being read at his time in the 19th and early 20th
cent., and still among primarily theological rather than historical-critical
approaches. Even yes against some points held by modern scholars, but these
are where modern scholars perpetuate assumptions of Paul as anti-Jewish,
Law-free, etc. Those should be challenged, in my view, where assumed by both
these radicals and those their criticisms effectively challenge (i.e.,
traditionalists).

Let me cite a couple of examples of the problems in Eysinga's argument, in
hope of offering you some clarity.

Eysinga makes many challenges on the basis of how this "letter" does not
conform with his expectations of a letter. Much work has been done in this
century on epistolary theory with the help of many more examples of letters
from antiquity than were at his disposal. The result is that the ostensible
problems do not represent problems of the nature he supposed. E.g., there
are many kinds of letters, including those with introductions much like
Paul's, although Eysinga apparently was not aware of this. He was also
apparently not aware of the specific style of letters that we have from
handbooks like Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius. Here we have syllogisms
for just the kind of ironic and rebuking letter that Galatians represents,
and they are written for very specific audiences, not open letters, like
Eysinga claims to be necessary. Also, the rebuking letter often begins with
an expression of "surprise" that instead means "disappointment," just as
does Galatians. This is different from Paul's other letters, just as it is
different from the other styles found in these handbooks. But it is not an
anomaly; in fact, in the letters we have from Egyptian dumps there are many
of just these kinds of letters. A typical example is a letter from a parent
to a child who has moved away, and not responded to one or more prior
letters from the parent: "I am surprised that you have not responded to
my..." His following points depend upon this argument about the nature of
this as not an occasional letter, so they begin with a mistaken idea of
ancient letters, including the example of Galatians.

Eysinga then writes: (I will put his in quotes, then I will break up and
comment)
"It is now apparent why there is so little objective reality about the
actual conditions which are indicated in the course of the letter. The
presupposed conditions of a general falling-off from the Gospel preached by
Paul must have been true of a great number of places. The whole of the
contents is rather a dissertation in the form of a letter than a letter.
Paul's independence must be defended; Christianity must be proclaimed as the
religion of freedom, and return to Judaism must be censured. The whole
Epistle is a piece of special pleading. This is why editors in their
commentaries and introductions busy themselves so much in tracing the line
of thought of the writer, and explaining what positions are being
defended. Holtzmann has truly said that the Four Letters are intended to be
studied rather than read. But in that case they must be called books, or
treatises, rather than letters."

So,
1. "It is now apparent why there is so little objective reality about the
actual conditions which are indicated in the course of the letter."

What does he mean by objective reality?; letters of ironic rebuke do not
communicate any such thing; interpreters need to construct hypotheses of the
situations that might make sense of the language. No one knows what the
situation was, no later interpreter was there. I think he means that little
situational evidence is apparent. But I disagree. Note that he often engages
the autobiographical narrative material of chaps. 1 and 2; indeed, little
about Galatian can be learned from there. But the situational discourse
units (such as 1:1-9; 3:1-5; 4:12-20; 5:1--) contain much information. I
have just finished a whole book about it.

But it should also be pointed out that what he offers as actual conditions
for the generalized line of argument he finds in the letter, Marcion and
then Catholic editing, both for larger ideological reasons, is surely an
interpretive construction for the letter, not "objective reality"! So what
does his criticism actually amount to anyway? This represents symbolic
in-house rhetoric. It seems to me that this argument is full of this kind of
nonsense that will only appeal to others who already share his view, but
hardly persuade someone who does not.

2. "The presupposed conditions of a general falling-off from the Gospel
preached by Paul must have been true of a great number of places."

I am unsure what he means; it is not attested in Galatians anyway. They seek
a compromise, much like a teenager faced with conflicting signals from peers
and parents. But they are not seeking to depart from Paul; that certainty
(for Paul) is at the "stasis" of Paul's argument (cf. 5:10). Thus he does
not need to tell the Galatians what the gospel is or why it is important,
only that they will undermine it if they go further toward having it both
ways. He assumes in his rhetoric that this is the point that must be made,
and that it will be effective, because subverting the meaning of the death
of Christ is the last thing the addressees wish to do. In other words, they
are not intentionally departing ("falling-off") from Paul's gospel.

3. "The whole of the contents is rather a dissertation in the form of a
letter than a letter."

I have already disqualified this point. Galatians is an excellent example of
an ancient letter of ironic rebuke. It conforms to the outline of specific
syllogisms from the epistolary handbooks mentioned above.

4. "Paul's independence must be defended; Christianity must be proclaimed as
the religion of freedom, and return to Judaism must be censured."

Here he has a point with the traditionalists; in fact, with most Pauline
scholars, who share his assumptions about Paul's view of "Christianity" vs.
"Judaism"; certainly with those scholars of his time. But I do not believe
the writer of Galatians defends independence, that "Christianity" was an
entity and especially as a religion of freedom in contrast to Judaism, or
that Galatians has anything to do with censuring a return to Judaism. On the
last point, the addressees are not returning to Judaism, they are not and
have not been Jews (they were former idolaters; 4:8-10). Interaction with
all of these points would be too involved, but at least you should note that
they are all expressions of broad assumptions, each of which would have to
be demonstrated for his point to carry any weight.

5. "The whole Epistle is a piece of special pleading."

Yes, that is what makes it so situational!

6. "This is why editors in their commentaries and introductions busy
themselves so much in tracing the line of thought of the writer, and
explaining what positions are being defended. Holtzmann has truly said that
the Four Letters are intended to be studied rather than read. But in that
case they must be called books, or treatises, rather than letters."

Here he has a point, but it is the error of the interpretive tradition that
he is criticizing, and has no significance for his argument about the letter
itself. Letters like Galatians were both read aloud (even acted out by the
deliverer), and studied. But he is right to criticize those who read
Galatians as though a medieval court-room case or theological treatise;
however, the latter case is just how he in effect proposes that Galatians
should be read. The point he makes is thus also against his own proposed
interpretive tradition.

It seems to me that virtually every statement in this piece could be
criticized at least to this degree. This sample should demonstrate at least
a few of the problems in this approach to the letters of Paul, even if they
are not the criticism likely to be leveled by his contemporary challengers,
or the prevailing interpreters of Paul to this day.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page