Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, The

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Seifrid, Mark A

Mark D. Nanos. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. xli 517 pp. $34.95.

This collection of essays appeared at the same time as the publication of the author's St. Andrews dissertation (Philip F. Esler, supervisor), The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). It perhaps represents a sampling of the works which Nanos found useful for his own monograph: a nice way of killing two birds with one stone.

The title is obviously derived from Karl P. Donfried's, The Romans Debate, the revised and expanded edition of which was likewise published by Hendrickson (1991; original edition: Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977). Perhaps a whole series of "debates" on the Pauline letters are yet to appear: see K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Because of their decided theological concentration, Romans and Galatians are particularly susceptible to varying historical reconstructions, which in large measure determine the theology one reads off them. Background here becomes especially provocative. As with the second edition of the Romans Debate, considerable space is given to rhetorical and socio-historical approaches. The collection is divided into three groups of essays covering 1. rhetorical and epistolary genre (sc. of the letter as a whole); 2. autobiographical narratives (rhetorical analysis and sociohistorical approaches); and 3. the Galatian situation. Two of the essays by Nanos himself provide an introduction to and summary of his monograph on Galatians. The volume concludes with a brief, but useful glossary of rhetorical and epistolary terminology and an extensive bibliography.

As the title suggests, the collection is about the task of raising questions rather than supplying answers. It provides a decent introduction to rhetorical, epistolary, and socio-historical approaches to Galatians. It is not without its provocative and novel elements, particularly Nanos's own contributions. The essays by H. D. Betz, J. D. G. Dunn, and Robert Jewel! are well worth reading, since they mark significant turning points in current debate. Even more valuable are the contributions by C. Joachim Claussen and J. M. G. Barclay, which respectively bring sober assessments of the usefulness of rhetorical criticism and the "mirror-reading" of the Galatian situation off of Paul's statements.

It is unfortunate that the subsection on epistolary approaches is limited to two essays (N. A. Dahl; G. Walter Hansen). In fact, works on the comparative analysis of Paul's letters are overlooked, perhaps because relatively little has been done on Galatians. There is a good deal to be gained from works by P. Schubert, P. O'Brien, R. W. Funk, L. A. Jervis, J. A. D. Weima, and most especially from the monograph by the late Werner Stenger and Franz Schnider. The "internal" analysis of Paul's letters may seem pedestrian, but there is considerable virtue in keeping one's feet on the ground. H. D. Betz, for example, appeals to the patterns of Greco-Roman rhetoric to establish his claim that 1:12-2:14 constitutes the narratio, or statement of the facts of the case at hand. Even if one leaves aside the question as to whether Galatians can be classified as a pure example of a forensic argument (a claim now widely dismissed), one cannot help but notice that "the facts" in this case do not correlate precisely with the "proof" which follows, since the events which Paul recounts take place apart from and prior to the problems in the Galatian churches. The propositio is left dangling between Antioch and Galatia. It appears far more fruitful to notice the way in which Paul regularly makes a self-commendation using firstperson terms of disclosure (Gal 1:10-11; cf. e.g., Rom 1:13; 2 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:12) following his usual prayer of thanksgiving, prior to shifting his attention to the matter at hand in the letter. Comparison of the lengthy selfdisclosure in Galatians with other Pauline letters is likely to yield clues to interpretation. The more powerful theory is that which best explains the greatest number of details of the text.

One is repeatedly reminded in these essays that the devil regularly finds his lodging in the details, or perhaps also in larger constructions drawn from between the lines of the text. Barclay's essay on "mirror-reading" gets at these problems, but a number of the essays make his point by way of negative example. It is worth pointing to a few representatives. Troy Martin argues that peritemnomenoi in Gal 6:13 describes the agitators and therefore cannot refer to the act of circumcision. Nor can it refer to the state of circumcision, since then it purportedly would include Paul. He then goes on to make the case that one should translate the verb "those who practice the distinction of circumcision" ("Apostasy to Paganism," pp. 8687). But this argument entails a plain confusion of meaning and reference. It is fairly clear that Paul refers to his opponents (who obviously insist on the distinction of circumcision), but it is more than likely that with this participle he signifies them as the ones who are circumcised. In fact, Paul might here be avoiding the noun péritoine because of its use in reference to Jews in general (Gal 2:8).