tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-764924071177875037.post2820458704655017095..comments2023-03-06T12:36:03.012+00:00Comments on Tyndale Bulletin Articles: Articles in TynBul 65.2 (Nov 2014)Tyndale Memberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17092767394753981900noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-764924071177875037.post-12112604527998656382015-05-14T15:56:18.548+01:002015-05-14T15:56:18.548+01:00Thanks, Richard, for your keen eye and interaction...Thanks, Richard, for your keen eye and interaction with my work.<br /><br />Here are a few thoughts on your comments. Apologies in advance for any incoherent thoughts that result from my haste! :)<br /><br />1. My mirror reading criticisms are specifically against reconstructing what the “agitators” are doing/saying. In the article, I am arguing that we should stick with what Paul actually states and not attempt to reconstruct the other side of the phone conversation by assuming the reverse of what Paul states. Whether we should retire the mirror on every other issue (e.g. reconstructing the Galatians’ thoughts) is another matter that I didn’t seek to explore in the essay, but which certainly merits further consideration.<br /><br />2. It seems to me that Galatians 6.12-18 repeats the themes of Galatians 1–2 in a number of ways (curse/blessing, persecution, agitators v. Paul, preaching gospel), and I think Paul's picking up the pen at 6.11 is meant to signal that concluding section as the climactic expression of what Paul had begun in the body opening of 1.6-9. See, for example, that Paul has a similar method in Philippians 1 and 4 (“fellowship,” i.e. “money") and in 1 Corinthians 1 and 16 (their desire for Apollos is fully revealed and rebuffed in 16.12). See also Romans 1 and 15 (obedience of faith and Paul’s paradoxical tiptoeing boldness). My point is simply this: we are dealing with a carefully crafted letter where one should not be surprised to see themes introduced or hinted at in the opening to be discussed again in the closing. I think Galatians is no different and that we must therefore hear the beginning and end together. Admittedly, I simply assumed this point in the essay—but I do think there are good grounds for "hearing Galatians together," as it were. Perhaps further work needs to be done in this area.<br /><br />3. On my reading, the reason Paul focused on Jerusalem in Galatians 1–2 is simply because Peter becomes the foil for Paul, as we see in the climax of the narrative (2.11ff). Everything from 1.10 is building up to that fundamental point of hypocrisy and Paul’s confrontation—just as he’s now opposing the agitators and rebuking the Galatians.<br /><br />4. You suggested the possibility that the Galatians were wanting to be circumcised because Timothy had been. Two very quick points here in response: 1) because the Galatian believers had not yet been circumcised, I am not entirely convinced they really "wanted" to be circumcised (see my reconstruction in an earlier work on Galatians and the Imperial Cult); 2) for me, the chronology of your suggestion does not work. According to Acts, Timothy was circumcised only after the so-called Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Because I think Galatians was written just before the Council, Timothy would have been uncircumcised at the time of the Galatian crisis. (It's an argument from silence, but worth noting that Timothy does not feature at all in Galatians as he does in so many other of Paul's letters--which I think speaks for the earliest date possible when Timothy had not yet joined Paul's mission). To be sure, I am well aware that many will think my chronology to be wrong, but I believe Bauckham, Witherington, Bruce, and others have made a good case for the view that Galatians 2.1-10 refers to an unreported meeting and is not Paul’s version of the council in Acts 15 (thus I think Gal 2.1-10 happened during the so-called famine-relief visit of Acts 11). But hear me clearly that the argument of my essay does not depend on the date of Galatians. I am simply responding to your suggestion that Timothy's circumcision might have in some way contributed to the crisis in Galatia.<br /><br />5. You mentioned that Paul was not furious in Galatians but have mentioned to me that Paul was rhetorical. I agree that Galatians is rhetorical, and yet I also believe that Paul's actual thoughts (dare I say emotions) on the crisis in Galatia guided his rhetoric.<br /><br />Thanks for your careful reading and interaction. I hope the above makes at least some sense! :)Justin Hardinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-764924071177875037.post-13411360358297607782015-05-11T00:09:02.309+01:002015-05-11T00:09:02.309+01:00I enjoyed Justin Hardin's "Galatians 1–2 ...I enjoyed Justin Hardin's "Galatians 1–2 Without a Mirror". He shows that conventional understandings of Gal 1–2 are precarious, and he questions long-held assumptions such as the view that the agitators saw themselves as opponents of Paul. I found this refreshing.<br /><br />I wonder, though, whether he is too quick to retire the mirror. While the use of the mirror is indeed fraught with difficulties, it does not follow that none of Paul's statements were made to correct views held by the Galatians. Hardin says that mirror reading creates "<i>the</i> opposite" of Paul's statements, as if there is always just one unique view that Paul may be correcting. However, most of Paul's statements have many possible opposites, all of which need to be explored. Instead of abandoning the mirror, we should explore placing it at different angles.<br /><br />Hardin builds on Hunn in his treatment of 1:10. He rightly points out that 1:10 is a key verse and that all reconstructions must simultaneously explain how it links to the verses that come before and those following. He proposes that Paul gives his own history of not pleasing people, and that Paul does so to highlight that the agitators are, by contrast, people pleasers. I see two difficulties. Firstly, nowhere in Gal 1–2 does Paul say that the agitators are people-pleasers, and 6:12-13 comes too late to be the interpretive lens through which the Galatians were to understand Gal 1–2. Secondly, Hardin does not explain why Gal 1–2 focusses exclusively on Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem church leaders. Why does Paul not cite instances where he has failed to please people other than the Jerusalem church leaders? Paul asserts <b>only</b> his independence from <b>only</b> the Jerusalem leaders. He does not assert his independence from anyone else, and nor does he say anything else about the Jerusalem leaders. Whereas conventional views of Galatians do not explain the first "only" in the sentence above, Hardin does not explain the second "only".<br /><br />But what if the Galatians were thinking "We should be circumcised (like Timothy) because Paul believes in circumcision. The only reason he tells us not to be circumcised is because he is loyal to the Jerusalem church leaders, but he actually <i>supports</i> circumcision". This would explain why Paul focusses on the Jerusalem leaders and only in regard to the fact that he is not their messenger boy. This seems to solve the problems of Hardin's view, while retaining the advantages, such as the insights that the agitators did not consider themselves to be opponents of Paul, and that Paul's authority was not under attack. It also reconciles Galatians with Acts.<br /><br />Paul is not "furious" in this letter. Rather, he expresses emotion to convince the Galatians that he believes what he is writing, lest they think that he is writing it just to please the Jerusalem church leaders. Indeed, in 1:10 he denies that he is writing to please the Jerusalem church leaders.<br /><br />Or have I misunderstood something? Justin? Anyone?<br />Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com