Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Richard,
I will comment below yours. It would also be nice if when you seek to
undermine the argument of another you would state what their argument is on
its own terms, otherwise it not only creates the wrong impression about
their position, but also does not help to clarify how the contribution being
offered is to be evaluated in relative terms.

on 4/14/04 10:57 PM, Richard Fellows at rfellows AT shaw.ca wrote:

> Concerning the false brothers of Gal 2:4, Mark Nanos wrote on 13 Jan:
>> I do not think we come across the influencers in Galatia in Jerusalem, and
>> have argued this in detail in Irony of Galatians.
> 
> I was disappointed to find that 'Irony of Galatians' contains no such
> arguments about the identity of the 'false brothers'.

Since the Irony of Galatians contains a great many arguments about these
matters, I am trying to understand to what you refer. Do you mean it does
not argue against the notion that the so-called pseudo-brethren in Jerusalem
mentioned in Gal 2 are actually Galatians who have come to Jerusalem to this
meeting? Or about whether the meeting described in Gal 2:1-10 actually took
place in Galatia instead? If so, I had never heard this argued.

> It contains useful
> suggestions, but does not support them with evidence.

Good grief.

>However, Mark may be
> partly right. The infiltration reported in Gal 2:4 may have taken place in
> Galatia, rather than Jerusalem. (In that case the false brothers may have
> been Galatian Jews, and may have had no connection with Jerusalem at all).

I do not understand these comments, including in what way this makes my view
partly right. I certainly do not argue that the pseudo-brethren of Gal 2
have anything to do with Galatia. And I do not understand how you can be
arguing that the pseudo-brethren were Galatian Jews with no connection to
Jerusalem, since it is the scene in Gal 2 wherein Paul labels his opposition
pseudo-brethren (which he does not use again about anyone else when speaking
of Antioch or Galatia situations), and at the same time argue that they "may
have had no connection with Jerusalem at all," since it would require that
they were present in Jerusalem.

> Here's why the infiltration of the 'false brothers' was probably in Galatia:
> 
> 1. Paul writes, ".. that the truth of the gospel might remain with you". If
> the incident occurred in Galatia, this is just the sort of thing that we
> would expect Paul to write.

Really? On what model for how rhetoric within this letter works? Paul
explains select events in his life in this autobiographical narrative for
the benefit of the Galatian addressees, and here he makes the point they are
to grasp explicit: we upheld this principle then, which is to your benefit
now. No? If he says that Christ died to save "you" from your sins, would
that suggest he died in the location of the "you," or for the purpose of the
"you," wherever "you" may be located when "you" are so addressed?

I do not understand how you are treating Paul's explicit statement that he
went to Jerusalem to have this meeting. Was the meeting in Jerusalem, or
Galatia? When you write, "if the incident occurred in Galatia," it seems
that you are locating the meeting Paul went to Jerusalem to have actually
taken place not in Jerusalem, but Galatia. Is that what you mean?

> 
> 2. If the infiltration occurred in Jerusalem, the 'false brothers' would
> have known that Paul did not preach circumcision, because he laid out his
> gospel at that meeting. If the 'false brothers' became the influencers in
> Galatia, it is hard to understand how the Galatians could have come to the
> view that Paul preached circumcision (5:11).

I do not understand this argument. First, the implication that the Galatians
suppose Paul to preach circumcision that you draw from 5:11 is far from
certain. It could imply that. But it is a rhetorical comment that may imply
that they did not think any such thing, but covers an argumentative point
Paul wishes to make against any suggestion that the addressees could be
circumcised alongside their faith in his way of teaching Christ's gospel.
That could be a logical fallacy (from Paul's point of view) in the logic of
the addressees or those influencing them to suppose that completing
proselyte conversion does not subvert the message of Christ in which they
had believed based upon his preaching, which had not included circumcision.
In other words, to make the point that it is not alright but not mandatory,
since for Paul it is prohibited.

(I argue in Irony that Paul's rhetoric functions in a way analogous to
parents with teenagers faced with peer pressure, and thus that it often
seeks to surprise by bringing to bear an element or point of view that helps
the teenagers recognize the failure of logic and short-term benefit seeking
at the risk of long-term injury that is involved in their consideration of
compliance.)

Second, are you building a position for or against the idea that the same
people who "infiltrated" the meeting in Jerusalem are later at work in
Galatia, or some other position? Perhaps if I understood more clearly what
you are arguing for, as noted in above comments, I could follow what you
mean to imply here.

> 
> 3. Paul writes, ".. who slipped in to spy on the freedom WE have in Christ
> Jesus, so that they might enslave US". The 'we' cannot refer to Titus alone,
> so probably includes Paul also. Now, in Jerusalem Paul would have been among
> Jews and would have been observant of Jewish practices. It is therefore hard
> to see how Paul could have exercised 'freedom' in Jerusalem, so it is more
> likely that the infiltration of the 'false brothers' was in Galatia.

I think you are right that the use of "we" suggests not just Titus but Paul
(and I suppose James and the other Christ-believing Jews as well) have
resisted the pressure from those who "infiltrated" the meeting in Jerusalem,
and that the Jewish Christ-believers in Jerusalem, including Paul, would be
observing Torah. But what the "freedom" exercised was from cannot be assumed
to be Torah observance, which is implicit in your argument.

The issue was about whether a non-Jew Titus was required to become a
proselyte, and this group resisted pressure to conclude that he was so
required. That is freedom from compliance with implementing a policy of
proselyte conversion for non-Jews within this coalition. That is not freedom
from Torah for the Jews who make that decision, since Torah does not require
non-Jews to become proselytes as a matter of course in order to be at a
meeting with Jews (except in the Temple beyond the point where Gentiles are
not permitted). So one must make a case for what was at issue that made the
circumcision of Titus seem mandatory for this particular non-Jew at this
particular meeting in Jerusalem, and from that case explain what
significance "freedom" from compliance represents. The Jews at the meeting
are not free from circumcision, having been already circumcised.

I do not see how the meeting Paul describes having taken place in Jerusalem
has been shown to be "more likely" to have taken place in Galatia. I do not
see how the way Paul writes of going to Jerusalem to have this meeting can
be so construed in this way as even "possible."

> 
> 4. The Galatian addressees would only have been able to understand the
> broken grammar of Gal 2:4-5 if they were familiar with the incident in
> question.

On this point you may be right! That is, who on earth can understand this
terribly syntax. Paul and his secretary must have had a very bad moment, or
someone(s) in the manuscript tradition, or every interpreter since.

> This suggests that the infiltration may have occurred in Galatia.

What?

> Mark's view is that the 'false brothers' were Jerusalemites and never went
> to Galatia. This fails to explain how Paul could have expected his readers
> to understand his meaning in Gal 2:4-5.

Yes, it does fail to explain that! But your statement implies that the
readers are the "false brother," not those being influenced by them (if
being influenced by them at all! which I doubt and argued against in Irony
when discussing the influencers in Galatia [not where discussing those in
Jerusalem, so that you are clear where you can find copious arguments about
this matter]). But it is the ones they are influencing to whom Paul writes,
so how are they expected to understand this garbled grammar?

> 5. Acts 16:3 may allude to that very incident.
> Titus was circumcised in
> Galatia "because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew
> that his father was  Greek." (Acts 16:3). How did they find out? In Gal
> 2:3-4 Paul says that the Jerusalem apostles did not compel Titus to be
> circumcised, "but because of the false brothers...." . The "but" stands
> adversative to "circumcised". It therefore seems likely that the spying of
> the 'false brothers' led to the circumcision of Titus.

So let's stand the argument Paul makes in Galatians 2 on its head, and
conclude that Titus was circumcised as the "infiltrators" sought to bring
about, and that Paul and the others included in the "we" did not resist and
remain free from compliance, and thus that this was not accomplished for the
later benefit of the Galatian addressees, who are being urged in this letter
to resist pressure to become circumcised (i.e., to become proselytes). Why
should we do this? Because someone named Timothy in a different later text
written to a different unknown audience by an unknown author at an unknown
time is described as having been circumcised at the urging of Paul (not the
urging of "infiltrators" at a meeting in Jerusalem, or even Galatia).

> They found out that
> Titus's father was a Greek and that is why Paul circumcised him. While this
> is not the only way of reading the text, it does seem to fit, doesn't it?

NO.

> Interestingly, both Tertullian and Ambrosiaster said that the 'false
> brothers' were responsible for the circumcision of Timothy.

Interesting, yes; significant for the historical critic, not very. Even on
your own argumentative premise, they were unlikely to be able to understand
Gal 2:4-5 if they had not been present at the meeting Paul describes.
> 
> So I think there are reasons to believe that the infiltration was in
> Galatia. What do listers think.
> 
> Richard Fellows.