Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | Oktober/2021 |
Spalte: | 920–922 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Martin, Neil |
Titel/Untertitel: | Regression in Galatians. Paul and the Gentile Response to Jewish Law. |
Verlag: | Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2020. XIV, 306 S. = Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 530. Kart. EUR 84,00. ISBN 9783161597626. |
Rezensent: | Karl Olav Sandnes |
This slightly-revised dissertation from Oxford was supervised by Professor Markus Boeckmuehl. It addresses what is probably the most burning issue in Pauline scholarship: Paul’s critique of the Jewish law. Point of departure is Paul’s fierce dictum in Gal 4: 8–11: »Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods […] How can you want to be en-slaved to them again?« (cf. 5:1). This passage gives the diagnosis of the addressees in regression language. Paul is concerned that the Galatians will turn back to embrace their pagan past. The regression language in Galatians is intertwined in the threat of the influencers, as Martin labels the often-called opponents in this epistle. A strange tandem then appears, on the one hand influencers with an agenda to impose Jewish customs on the Galatians and on the other hand, precisely this paves the way for their return to paganism. It seems that accepting Jewish Law is reanimating the pagan past of the Galatians. How can these two be reconciled? This is the problem which this study sets out to solve. This conundrum is well ac-knowledged in Pauline scholarship, but a study with that particular focus is much welcomed. M. addresses this with the idea that this may solve many disputed issues revolving around Torah and the Gentiles in Paul’s letter. M. addresses critically solutions pre sented by other scholars, also that this is Pauline exaggerated rhetoric in a heated situation. He argues that regression in Gala-tians is less about theology and more about Paul’s pastoral and missiological concern for his »weak« converts in Galatia.
This thesis is certainly about the Epistle to the Galatians, but there is little engagement with the letter as such. Chapter 4 deals extensively with ta stoicheia tou kosmou, but most material drawn on is external to the letter. The solution is sought in a comparison with 1 Cor 8:1–13, and to some extent also in Rom 14–15. Here M. finds the model for interpreting the Galatian situation. It is not about »Pauline judgment on Jewish Christianity – either as a legal-istic distortion of the gospel or as a nationalistic brake on the expansion of the gospel« (11). It is rather about Paul’s concern for accommodating according to weak fellow Christians. »The weak must be protected from influences which, though harmless to the strong, have the capacity to reawaken harmful habituated religious assumptions« (11).
»The ministry of the influencers was reawakening expectations characteristic of the Galatians pagan past – expectations about the efficacy of religious works that Paul deemed inimical both to Judaism and to faith in Christ« (5). The worship demanded by the influencers as such is not an issue, but some fundamental components of their religious behavior were common to the paganism of Galatians. These were »works of law«, revolving around sacred calendars, festivals, ritual purity and acts of devotions, such as circumcision. This common religious experience, identified in the Galatians’ past paganism as well as in the influencers, is what Paul labels ta stoicheia tou kosmou. According to Paul, there are Jewish ways to practice these things, and there are Gentile ways to do it. The two are similar enough for the first to animate to the latter, and this is Paul’s concern for weak and immature Galatians. »in Paul’s mind, Jewish festivals and food laws were sufficiently similar in form to their pagan predecessors, that embracing the one was triggering the reanimation of the assumptions that went with the other« (186).
Paul’s critique against the influencers is indeed limited and restricted in this thesis. Their only flaw was that their message fail-ed to consider the weakness of the Galatians (216). In spite of this flaw, the message of the influencers »was still a ›gospel‹ in Paul’s estimation (Gal 1.6,8).« This reviewer finds such statement odd, given the rhetoric of Gal 1:6–9. A key concept in the methodology of this study is the »slippage« that often takes place in reception of a message. In the reception, new colours and emphasis develop, being shaped in accordance with previously held thought models and established habits. Hence a »Galatanisation« developed where the influencers ended up confirming the past of the Galatians.
M. is to be recommended for addressing an often neglected issue in the exegesis of Galatians. His thesis is well-written and I found it engaging, albeit not persuasive. Here is much material relevant to Galatians and its cultural context. M. gives at many points an up-dated presentation of issues prevalent in Galatian exegesis. How-ever, in my mind, his thesis fails to do justice to the evidence of the letter itself. My critical points revolve around four issues, which I will point out shortly. In the first place, the alleged analogy be-tween 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14–15 on the one hand and Galatians on the other, lacks supportive evidence. When M. on p. 111 asks if the Epistle to the Galatians shows the same pastoral concern for the weak as found in these passages, he refers to the stumbling block ( skandalon) in Gal 5:11 as evidence. This is too suggestive and too little to carry the weight this analogy is given in this thesis. Secondly, I find that M. neglects the rhetorical nature of this epistle. Paul’s critique of the influencers amounts to nothing more than his cri-tique of the »strong« in 1 Cor 8. Hence, the Galatian situation owes more to the »slippage« than to the influencers. There is a marked disinterest in the influencers here. In the rhetoric of Galatians, as I read it, the influencers are intertwined in the situation much more directly than assumed by M. Thirdly, it is difficult to understand why only the influencers are affected by slippage, and not Paul’s own message. This is a burning question since in M.’s presentation of the situation, the difference between the two is reduced to a minimum. M. is aware of this problem, and addresses it. He finds his answer in the ethical instructions of Gal 5 where »Paul’s emphasis lies more on spiritual transformation than it does on the reinstitution of Jewish law« (191). M. does not deny that Paul’s gospel could also be seen as some kind of »organized religion«, but it was »considerably less prominent, and hedged about with considerably more protection against the renewal of his readers’ former enslavement, than it was in the alternative offered by the Influencers« (191). The spiritual transformation urged in Gal 5 is in my view closely attached to the Law, »fulfilling the Law« as Paul puts it in Gal 5:14 (cf. 5:23; 6:2), probably inspired by e. g. Jer 31 and Esek 36. Hence, it is a matter of »walking,« a traditional term for living accord-ing to the Law. Fourthly, I would have appreciated evidence that Jewish practices in fact stimulated Gentiles to affirm their paganism. His references to Origen here are not sufficiently transparent.
In spite of this criticism, the book is worth reading, but I don’t think it will be a contribution with lasting effect on how the Galatian situation is to be understood.