Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Ambiguous irony in Galatians 1 & 2
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 20:30:25 -0500

Fred,
Thanks for the reply; enjoying the exchange. I will comment below a few of
your thoughts, having omitted places of agreement or at least where
discussion need not be pursued here.

[Mark wrote]
>> Since the apostles are represented here by Paul to have supported Paul's
>> position (2:5, 7-10), that non-Jewish Christ-believers should not become
>> proselytes, why does Paul cast doubt upon their identity as pillars of
>> the best sort?
>>
>> Most interpreters of Galatians take it to mean Paul and the other apostles
>> referred to here are in "opposition" by the time of the writing of this
>> letter. <snip>
>> But Paul uses irony throughout the letter to express "disappointment."

[Fred wrote]
>
> Is it not possible that there is also an element of inconsistency here with
> Paul? Could he be writing/dictating the letter while he is feeling very
> heated
> about the whole situation in Galatia, and so not necessarily argue
> everything
> logically, or in a fully thought out form?

[Mark writes]
Yes, it is possible. Yet I find Paul's argument, at least in the ironic
rebuke (i.e., heated expressions) units of the letter to be quite logical,
and since he employs features of handbook letter styles for irony and
rebuke, and apparently uses a secretary, there is good reason to suppose
that however angry or frustrated he may be, he has not hastily written a
half-baked response. I suppose he is fearful and hurt in the way a parent is
when supposing or learning of a teenagers compromising considerations or
choices, "when s/he should know better!" See L. Thuren, Derhetorizing Paul:
A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law, Mohr-Siebeck, 2000,
for a different but sympathetic view.

[Mark wrote]
>> <snip>--In summary: What does this mean for the reference to James and the
>>other apostles mentioned in 2:9?
>>
>> I think it suggests they are on the same team, but that the addressees
>> should not ultimately trust even them or himself if they were to fail to
>> uphold that which they have themselves experienced in the Spirit as
>> confirmation of the proposition that apart from proselyte conversion they
>> have become children of Abraham, and thus recipients of the promise of
>> God in Christ.

[Fred wrote]
> I agree that Paul sees Cephas and the other apostles as being on the same
> team to himself, with the provisos that you outline above, but am ultimately
> not
> convinced that James should be counted amongst this number. I still feel
> that
> James is not an apostle in Paul's sight, and what are we to make of 'those
> from James'? I am aware that you distinguish between them, James, and the
> other
> various groups in Irony, but I am not sure I entirely agree. I certainly
> think
> that Paul wishes to imply a connection with James, which paints him in a
> very
> negative light.

[Mark writes]
Deciding about the identity of James as an apostle or not is interesting,
and not something I have yet addressed in your posts or print. But on the
"ones from James" in Gal 2 who arrive at Antioch, I have found the various
identities and ways they are linked with James in the interpretive tradition
reflects identities and adversarial relationships with Paul that are not
stated therein.

There is not much to go on in the phrase Paul supplied. The interpreter
winds up supplying what he or she thinks that the Galatians addressed (and
the interpreter!) already know about James and these ones. I find it useful
to at least consider that they may have been in agreement with Paul, yet
their arrival and involvement in the mixed table constituted the last straw
for the "ones advocating circumcision," if those advocates were local
Antiochene non-Christ-believing Jews. For they would now learn that this was
the policy not only of a rogue Antiochene Jewish subgroup, but of their
Jerusalem contacts too. Enough--and they bring pressure to bear that leads
Peter to seek a way to relieve some heat by laying low, so to speak. But
Paul sees such expedient behavior as compromising a principle that cannot be
denied by this coalition, since it exposes the non-Jewish members to shame
for their trust in proposition they have believed to date, and thus he
confronts Peter to his face in front of everyone.

Regards,
Mark





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page