Corpus-Paul

["Given, Mark Douglas" <mdg421f AT smsu.edu>]

There's not much for me to say since I'm clearly in accord with your
fine formulation of "the conventional view."  As the argument proceeds
after the question in 3:19 ("Why then the law?), law observance is
consistently equated with slavery, or, even worse, being a slave of a
slave (the paidagogos; 3:24-25).  The really shocking thing is that law
observance and former paganism are both equated, at least in effect,
with being under the stoicheia (which is clearly "a bad thing" no matter
how one chooses to translate it).  The flow of this whole argument
centered on the law since 3:19--and of course for long before--is why I
think that while 4:10 cannot NOT be referring to law observance.  But
since taking up such observances would be to become slaves "again"
(4:9), it is natural to assume he COULD also be reminding them of their
former pagan observances.  In light of what you say below, that would be
intended to increase their horror.  So I'm a both/and kinda guy on this
one.

By the way, I got to know Troy a bit in Heidelberg last Summer at the
Rhetoric, Ethics, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse Conference.
His paper called "Veiled Exhortation to Wear the Veil" contains a
lexical argument--a rather strong one by the way--that Paul is saying a
woman's hair is given to her in place of a testicle.  It's a hoot!  It's
available online:

http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/VolumeSpecialIssue2/Articles/Contribu
tors.html

Hopefully some of these articles are going to appear in print as the
next Emory Studies in Early Christianity volume after TPI finishes
becoming whatever it's going to be next.

Mark

Mark D. Given
Associate Professor
Department of Religious Studies
Southwest Missouri State University
901 S. National Ave.
Springfield, MO 65804


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Baldwin [mailto:baldwin AT apocryphum.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:47 PM
> To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Troy Martin on Galatians
> 
> 
> Dear Mark (Given), Mark (Nanos), and Mark (Goodacre):
> 
> I can't resist jumping in here.  And I'd like to know what 
> arguments you fine scholars would marshal against my 
> formulation of the conventional view.
> 
> Troy is a friend of mine and I really enjoyed his article,
> 
> > Troy W. Martin, "The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis
> > 17.9-14) and the  Situational Antitheses in Galatians 
> 3.28", _JBL_ 122 
> > (2003), pp. 111-125.
> 
> finding that the basic idea about the connection of the 
> language of Gal. 3:28 to the language of the Genesis 
> circumcision covenant language was sound.  But something 
> about Martin's argument left me wanting some clarification or 
> left me wanting to disagree slightly; I wish I had a copy of 
> the text here with me (on vacation at the beach) so that I 
> could be more specific.  (If I'm permitted to, I will send 
> along my thoughts hoping for some response from y'all when I 
> get back to North Carolina in two weeks).
> 
> This note is about 4:10.  What do you all make of this series 
> of claims:
> 
> I just can't accept the reading of Gal. 4:10 as a "return to 
> pagan time-keeping."  Martin's argument--forgive me if I get 
> this wrong since I don't have the piece with me--is that 
> circumcision is basically unthinkable, so that some or all of 
> the formerly pagan Gentiles would rather go back to their 
> pagan ways than get cut for God.  Thus Paul's letter is an 
> assurance that they don't have to get circumcised, so they 
> don't have to abandon Christ.  They're free and they 
> shouldn't listen to those nasty cutters.
> 
> But I think that position is pleading, and unnecessarily 
> complex.  The overall context of Gal. is clear enough; Paul 
> speaks to former _pagans_ who have received his kerygma and 
> the spirit, opposing their adopting _Jewish_ ways of life 
> under the Torah, which they seem to WANT to do.  He does not 
> contemplate the Galatians returning to pagan belief and 
> practice.  THAT is unthinkable.
> 
> The letter founds its argument against the law on the notion 
> that Torah observance in general entails abandoning Christ.  
> In other words, Paul's argument presumes that his readers 
> would not consider abandoning faith in Christ.  He presumes 
> that the threat that they would be cut off from Christ would 
> be enough to convince them to take a different path.  Paul 
> does not feel the need to argue that it is bad to reject 
> Christ, and of course, he assumes as a point of common ground 
> that  they would never make such a mistake.  This is an 
> argument about HOW to be Christian.
> 
> Virtually all of the statements and claims of the letter work 
> as an argument attempting to persuade away from the authority 
> of the Torah.  If there was a pronounced split among the 
> Galatians, some becoming Jews and others returning to 
> paganism, then Paul's letter would likely have revisited as 
> well his arguments against pagan worship and idolatry--at length--and
> describe more fully the slavery of life under Zeus et al.   
> But there is
> nothing of this, except, some argue, Gal. 4:10.
> 
> M view of Gal. 4:10 is essentially commonplace, though I hope 
> this argument here is focused and forceful.  Paul relies on a 
> perception of equivalence between Jewish temporal observances 
> and pagan temporal observances.  Hence
> adopting something "new" is actually a return.   But for Paul 
> this "return"
> is worse than apostasy.  The comparison entails an unbalanced 
> equilibrium; Paul is making an "out of the frying pan and 
> into the fire" kind of argument here.  It appeals to the 
> Galatians' already confirmed rejection of their former lives 
> as a basis from which to secure their solid rejection of a 
> not-yet-adopted future life under the Torah.
> 
> The fact that Paul nowhere reports receiving monies from the 
> Galatians for his collection for Jerusalem suggests to me not 
> that the Galatians went back to paganism, but that they 
> weren't afraid of the knife, and that their inevitable 
> donations ultimately went through other channels, depriving 
> Paul of their glory.
> 
> Matthew Baldwin
> Mars Hill College
> Mars Hill, NC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corp> us-paul
>