Corpus-Paul

["Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>]

Mark wrote:
> Dieter M. objects to the idea contained in the other posts that Paul's
> comment arises because he has been accused in Galatia of such dependence
by
> representatives of the Jer. apostles. ("What I find more difficult is
> the assumption that usually accompanies this view, namely that Paul
REacted
> against opponents that questioned his authority.") Could Paul's rhetoric
be
> offensive (anticipatory) instead of defensive? (I too have argued that
this
> is the case in the situational discourse units of Gal). But if so, why
would
> the addressees be expected to make the connection human/s = the Jerusalem
> apostles and not = some other local Gal authorities?

Mark,
let me just clarify a couple of things. I believe it is important to
distinguish between what Paul thought of himself, what he wanted the
addresses to hear him claim and what the addressees actually heard from and
thought of Paul.
In my reply to your query I wrote the above cited "..." and also: "I agree
that the emphasis of 1:1 is on the divine source and that Paul put himself
on a par with the Jerusalem leaders."
For me this does not mean, however, that the addresses can "be expected to
make the connection human/s=Jerusalem apostles," as you seem to assume.
Neither does it mean that the apostles in Jerusalem can be expected to make
the connection. But that the connection was in Paul's mind seems plausible
to me from the sum of what he writes in chapters one and two of Gal.

> Could Paul's rhetoric be offensive (anticipatory) instead of defensive?
Yes, but offensive rhetoric will "achieve" opposition eventually. My point
is not so much that Paul sought opposition, though, but that he sought and
expected superiority. Why should the scholar heed the peasents, ay?

Dieter Mitternacht
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Dieter Mitternacht, researcher and lecturer

Centre for theology and religious studies
Lund University
SWEDEN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~