Corpus-Paul

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

Comments inserted.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark D. Nanos [mailto:nanosmd AT comcast.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:37 PM
> To: Corpus-Paul
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Troy Martin on Galatians [was 
> Correction andClarification]
> 
> 
> on 7/9/03 2:14 PM, Given, Mark Douglas at mdg421f AT smsu.edu wrote:
>  
> > The problem for me is that in the preceding verses, 4:1-7, 
> the Law IS 
> > the issue, and in those verses Paul equates being under the 
> Law with 
> > being slaves to the stoicheia (cf. v. 9):
> > 
> > "So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the 
> stoicheia of 
> > the universe.  But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his 
> > Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who 
> were under 
> > the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons" (vv. 3-5).
> 
> OK Mark,
> First this, then the rest of your post. But of course your 
> reading involves several interpretive decisions. As long as 
> it is recognized that what you conclude, no matter that it is 
> traditional, is not stated explicitly, but the result of 
> several decisions about what Paul meant here and then there. 
> That is normal, of course, but I think is so important to 
> bring to the front when challenging a reading thought to be 
> beyond dispute, because no one has been disputing it--until 
> now. Anyway, I know you will agree (with this concern), just 
> as I was confident that Don would when noting it to him.
> 

Yes, EVERY reading involves a whole series of prior interpretive
decisions, which makes it hard to say anything about Paul without
writing a damn dissertation.  (-;

> I read this to mean that the Law is/was the issue for a Jew 
> such as Paul, by which he relates the similarity that they 
> (Jew as well as the Gentile
> addressee) were under conventions that constrained them 
> before the proclamation of Christ, both Jew (formerly under 
> Israelite convention/Law awaiting Christ) and non-Jew 
> (formerly under pagan conventions/idolatry awaiting Christ). 
> In that sense there is a similarity.
> 

Yes.

> I take it that for your (traditional) interpretation to work, 
> the "we/us" must include non-Jews under the Law as well as 
> Jews. Right?

My first impulse was simply to say, "No, wrong," but of course the
problem is that Paul himself is at his murkiest on this subject.  So,
instead, "In a way."  On the one hand, he certainly assumes the obvious
both here and in Romans (e.g., 2:12-16, esp. v. 14: "When Gentiles, who
have not the Law . . ."), that Gentiles do/did not have the Law.  On the
other hand, "what the Law requires" is written in the hearts of Gentiles
even though they don't have it (the rest of v. 14).  This makes sense to
me if Paul means that the universal ethical aspects of the Law, not the
particular ceremonial ones delivered through Moses, are part and parcel
of the human conscience.  In that sense, even though the Gentiles do/did
not have the written Law, the Writing, they were still "under it" in a
way somewhat analogous to Jews who did have it.  SO, keeping that in
mind while reading Gal 4:1-11, I can see how Paul could already in 3:22
loosely refer to how "the Writing imprisoned EVERYTHING under sin . . ."
right before he says, "now before faith came, WE were imprisoned under
the Law . . ." (v. 23), and then continue speaking to an audience of
former pagans as if they were once under the Law too.  "In a way," for
Paul, they were.

If that's still a little murky, I'd defend myself by saying it's a fair
representation of Paul's murkiness.  (-;

 I do not think that is what is going on here, 
> and the changes of person can be read to maintain a 
> distinction between the author, representing Jews/Law-people 
> and the addressees, who were non-Jews/idol-people. I won't 
> try to elaborate the details here (I am giving away more than 
> I should about present research). But, assuming your interest 
> in exploring alternative interpretations, see if you can read 
> this with Paul pointing to himself (as Jew/Law-person), them 
> (as non-Jews/pagans), and then all of them together as 
> Christ-believers. Just as Jews have received the sonship 
> awaited in Christ, so too have non-Jews, so it would be 
> mistaken to revert to the way "you" were previously, i.e., 
> idolaters (vv. 7-10).
> 
> The way this is read depends so much on what the addressees 
> knew about their situation and Paul's views that we are now 
> guessing about. How you hypothesize the situation in this 
> case determines what you think is logical to suppose Paul meant.
> 
> I take stoicheia to refer to conventions, norms, etc., the 
> kinds of things to which people can be said to be slaves by 
> those seeking a new course that is not widely approved.
> 

I admit that because I am very comfortable with a rather
mystical-apocalyptic Paul, I still find the possibility that Paul is
speaking of spiritual powers here attractive.  That opens up the
possibility that he's also implying a connection with the angels in 3:19
and the possibility that Paul is insinuating some VERY nasty things
about the Law--avenues others have been explored, notably Martyn--but I
don't think debating that REALLY murky issue is necessary.  That's why I
simply observed that whatever the stoicheia are, returning to them is "a
bad thing" according to Paul.

> > 
> > And when 8-10 are read with 1-7, it seems the observance of days, 
> > months, seasons and years is most clearly an allusion to Law 
> > observance. I put it that way because it does seem likely 
> to me that 
> > he is also hinting that this would be no different than 
> returning to a 
> > pagan calendar as discussed in Don's previous posts.
> 
> Not, as I hope you can see, on my reading of 1-7 or 8-10. I 
> think that Paul's argument here and throughout implies that 
> they have already adopted a Jewish calendar (among many other 
> features of Jewish life, like looking to Jewish Scripture as 
> authoritative) on Paul's teaching, as would be expected of 
> members of a Jewish group. If so, then they (the addressees) 
> would not draw the inference that interpreter's do who assume 
> Paul no longer keeps a Jewish calendar and would reject it 
> for his converts, but quite the opposite, as do I.
> 
> I don't expect to convince you here, but perhaps deny some 
> certainty in the traditional view? Your (the traditional) 
> reading requires a Paul against Jewish calendar observance, 
> which implies much more too about a post- or even anti-Jewish 
> observance position for Paul, and the addressees' knowledge 
> of that opposition. Are you sure that you know this to be the case?

That Paul taught Jewish calendar keeping and other features of Jewish
life among his Gentile converts is indeed something you would have
trouble convincing me of here--or anywhere else!  Indeed, I would even
contest that he promoted looking to Jewish Scripture as authoritative.
My position is that when he converted pagans with no prior experience
with Judaism, he did not hand out copies of the LXX (see Paul's True
Rhetoric, 91-92 and fn. 37).  Imagine the trouble that could have caused
him by the time the Thessalonians, e.g., had finished chapter seventeen
of Genesis without him around to do some explaining.  But when he
converted God-fearers who already had Scripture, he was obligated to use
it with/on them to the extent he could buttress his arguments with it.
The down side of that scenario was that his opponents could find plenty
of Scripture to counter some of his distinctive positions, not least on
circumcision.

More broadly, I argue at length in Paul's True Rhetoric that Paul
exhibits symptoms of "apocalyptic logocentrism" that made it practically
inevitable that he would take a very low view of the gramma and graphe
in general (pp. 126-136).

> 
> On a lighter note, since we are addressing three Marks today, 
> I share this "joke" I heard from someone who thought it was 
> pretty funny to call me "mark, mark": "What does a hair-lip 
> dog say?" Anyway...
> 

Ha!  I had a little nephew who could only pronounce it "mock."  People
who heard him would say he's mocking me again.  But it was good
preparation for being a graduate student and biblical scholar . . .

By the way, if we don't let up on this, my paper on Romans for
International SBL isn't going to get finished.  But maybe that's why I
tried to bring some Romans in above.  (-; (I hope you're still planning
to be there.)  


> Regards,
> Mark
> -- 
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> Co-Moderator
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/nanosmd/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corp> us-paul
>