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

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Seifrid, Mark A

The problem of reading between the lines is also amply represented in the volume. Is it really clear that food laws were at all involved in the confrontation at Antioch as Dunn argues ("The Incident at Antioch," pp. 224-30)? The text says nothing of food. I am afraid that I see very little evidence that representatives from James demanded Peter and other Jews withdraw from table fellowship with Gentiles, still less that the problem in Antioch was Paul's embarrassing failure to secure an oath from the "pillars" in Jerusalem (Esler, "Making and Breaking," pp. 277, 279).

In some cases the background obscures the text. Fredriksen's essay remains bogged down in the quotidian situations to which it devotes itself, supposing the scheme of Jewish acceptance of Gentiles qua Gentiles in the eschatological kingdom would have been the norm. She makes a rather large assumption that all of earliest (Jewish) Christianity would have been just as apocalyptic in its outlook as the Apostle Paul, and that it suffered mightily from a delay of the Parousia. The discourse of Galatians suggests that Paul has to bring eschatology to bear on the situation, not that it was presupposed. And more pointedly: according to Paul's eschatology the distinction between Jew and Gentile was transcended (Gal 3:28), a provocative concern which is oddly lacking in Fredriksen's rigid schematic which depends on an abiding distinction between Jews and Gentiles ("Judaism, Circumcision, and Apocalyptic Hope," pp. 235-60). Likewise, against Walter ("Paul and the Opponents of the Christ-Gospel," pp. 362-66), it remains altogether likely that Paul's opponents consider themselves "Christians," i.e., believers in Messiah Jesus. After all, they come with another gospel. Of course, Paul more than once indicates that he does not regard them as believers, and shapes his discourse accordingly. But this obvious feature of the letter escapes Walter's notice.

The claim that the "Teachers" (i.e., Paul's opponents) appealed to descent from Abraham in their insistence on circumcision (Martyn, p. 357) is a piece of mirror-reading overdone: Abraham's circumcision never enters into the debate. It may well be that Abraham figured largely in their argument, but Paul seems to be developing his own theology of Abraham. What they might have claimed cannot be derived from the contours of his discourse.

The volume provides a good, technical introduction to debate on the background of Galatians, but the reader will have to learn how to eat the fish while spitting out the bones.

Mark A. Seifrid

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Louisville, Kentucky