RESPONSE NUMBER TWENTY To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

CHAPTER ONE – “REMAPPING GALATIA”

"Universalized Galatian Barbarians and the Worldwide Roman Savior" (189 B.C.E. – 25 B.C.E.)

In this section, which completes Chapter One, Professor Kahl continues a narrative of the many battle(s) between Roman armies and Galatian clans.

The purpose of this retelling is to demonstrate that the Galatians, whether in the east (modern day Turkey) or west (Italy, France) have come to represent to the Romans (p. 65)   “universal agents of disorder and rebellion.”

Just prior to this assertion, Kahl had taken note of three acts of human sacrifice conducted by Roman officialdom. In 228, 216, and 113 B.C.E, Roman authorities sacrificed a Galatian man and woman in order to placate the Gods.

These events are especially significant for Kahl, who argues that these executions were significant to the Romans – especially the second of the three sacrifices, coming as it did, after a defeat, rather than as an invocation of divine favor before battle.

The executions in 216 B.C.E., Kahl writes, “might indicate” that “the Roman construction of the Galatian/Celtic enemy had undergone a profound metamorphosis”  being both “universalized” and simultaneously incorporated into “Roman state religion.”(p. 56).

The problem with reading such grand symbolism into these 216 B.C.E. executions is that we know what prompted them, as Kahl acknowledges. These executions were carried out in response to an accusation of unchastity against the vestal virgins. There is more, as Kahl also recognizes; the victims sacrificed were not just Galatians. Also killed were a Greek man and woman in both the first (228  B.C.E.) and the final (113 B.C.E.) instance of sacrifice. 

Nevertheless, these deaths occasion Kahl’s agreement with Karl Strobel, who concluded that the Celts / Galatians had come to be seen as the “enemy per se,” by Roman officialdom.

Another conclusion, also cited by Kahl (footnote 67 to Chapter One), is that of Rankin, who felt that Celtic invasions might have stimulated a more generally applicable Roman sense of “real or imagined menace from foreign peoples.”

Despite the fairly slim evidence Kahl asserts (p. 64) that the Galatians represent to the Romans “agents of godless and lawless disorder.” It is not clear to me how Kahl can associate the Celts with ‘godlessness’ or why Kahl concludes that the Romans did.

Nonetheless, Kahl goes on (pp. 64 – 74) to narrate the nearly two centuries of struggle (189 – 25 B.C.E.), which ended with Galatian slaughter, destruction and submission in both the Roman west and the regions, which had comprised the Seleucid empire in the east. In this latter area, the kingdom of Pergamum was placed in control of the surviving Galatian clans, by virtue of military allegiance given to Rome by successive Pergamene kings.

The final nail in Celtic independence is hammered home by Cesar’s campaigns in Gaul, modern day France.

Kahl concludes that the Galatians, by the end of this period and by virtue of their resistance to Greek and Roman hegemony, had become influential as a representational adversary, far beyond what they had accomplished on the battlefield.

This conclusion permits Kahl to further assert (p. 75) that “the entire vocabulary of Paul’s justification theology” needs to be read “within the framework of the Roman-Galatian encounter.”

“Texts are cultural constructs, and we need to treat them as such.” This statement, Kahl has cited (note 91 to Chapter One) with approval and it has relevance for her own text, I think.

Professor Kahl is reviewing and retelling certain historical events with an agenda in mind. She is interpreting as she goes, with the idea of demonstrating that a new perspective needs to be taken by Pauline scholarship, as to the correct interpretation of a text found in Christian scripture, Paul’s letter to the Galatians. 

Kahl (p. 75) would remove this text from its traditional interpretation (“issues of Jewish law”) because the larger context – the Roman one – means that the recipients of Paul’s letter “were already firmly and categorically condemned or justified by Roman law and power, and had been granted grace through faith as loyalty and allegiance to the Roman emperor.

I remain unconvinced.

Neither Kahl’s reading of the history of the period nor her assertions about the Galatians letter – accompanied by little in the way of citation to the letter itself – are persuasive. So Far.

Much depends on the reading of the letter. As noted earlier, this reading is absent, which means that fundamental questions, related to Kahl’s thesis cannot even be asked, much less answered.

Here are a couple of examples:

If the Celts / Galatians came to be represented as the barbarian arch enemy by Roman ideology, and if this is the context in which Paul writes to the Galatians, what can be made of the fact that many of Paul’s statements and assertions in his Galatians letter are also found in others of his writings, addressed to peoples other than Galatians? 

What about the fact that different New Testament writers make use of some of the same terminology Paul employed, but again, in a non-Galatian context? 

RESPONSE NUMBER FIFTEEN To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

CHAPTER ONE – “REMAPPING GALATIA”

Galatia As Primeval Background in the Christian Theological Imagination (page 33)

Yet more prolegomena, which Kahl justifies in the final sentence of the preceding section:  “It is important first to note just how different that topology is from the conventional imaginary location of ‘Galatia’.”

This is followed by the assertion that “Galatia is terra incognita in the Christian imagination” and that the Galatians addressed in Paul’s letter “seem” more at home in the Wittenberg of Martin Luther and in modern “dogmatic mindscapes” than in the actual environment “where Paul first met them.”

We then are told that the last hundred years of “exhausting” scholarship has “obscured” the true context in which the letter was originally and presumably still is, to be read.

Instead of providing examples, which might support any of these assertions, Professor Kahl goes on to further assert that the letter itself is more “secretive” than others of Paul’s letters “in terms of contextual markers.”

If Kahl’s assertion is correct, that the Galatians letter is lacking in contextual indicators, would this not explain why many later readers of Paul’s letter, looking over the shoulders of the intended recipients, are left to speculate about much of the original setting?

Does the suggestion about deliberate secretiveness on the part of the letter writer not indicate all the more why a consideration of the text of the letter is of first importance?  

Kahl focuses on the secretiveness of the letter, but not as a possible explanation of the letter’s uncertain context. Rather Kahl merely wishes to announce that Paul is being deliberately obscure. Again, without providing anything that could be assessed as evidence, Kahl simply asserts that Paul has not provided a “standard” opening but rather is perhaps engaged in “a conspiratorial concealment” of the location of the letter’s recipients.

The pinball approach to issues – moving rapidly from one assertion to another without supporting with evidence what has just been stated – does not clarify either the import of ‘traditional’ scholarship, of which Kahl is critical, or her own announced plan to establish a needed, re-imagined context in which the letter is to be assessed.

Beyond North and South is the first sub-head under this section. Yet again, Kahl wishes to make something decisive of scholarship, which is inconclusive as to whether Paul’s Galatia is the Roman province of that name or the likely more ethnically uniform region to the north of the province.

Enough already about the inherently inconclusive north-south debate! 

Kahl brings up the debate, yet again, in order to make the point that “self-congratulatory” scholarship, by not finding a conclusive answer to the location question has itself “decontextualized” the letter.

This cannot be the case. The letter itself does not provide enough information for clarity as to where the letter’s recipients resided. Scholars who point this out are not congratulating themselves.

One gets drawn into blind rhetorical allies, when one looks beyond the silence of a text, to fault previous research which has concluded, the text is silent.

It is true, and Kahl points this out forcefully and correctly, that the Romans, present as conquerors and occupiers of Galatia (whether north or south Anatolia), have been “conspicuously absent “in the “imagined geography of religious spaces and counter spaces,” that is, in the efforts to understand the letter.

Kahl is correct also to remind us that the letter’s likely recipients probably (Kahl insists they did) walked Roman roads, paid taxes, were present at events at Roman temples, fought in Roman legions, attended Roman meals and games, fulfilled their civic obligations.

But if the Romans are to be seen as players and not as background to the letter, the letter must be cited for this. But it is not.

Instead, Professor Kahl argues that, the a scholarly focus on the north-south location issue has lead to a “dominant concern,” already present in Luke-Acts, to reconcile Paul’s career with Luke’s travel narrative and a Lucan interest in confining Paul to the role of a model missionary and an orthodox, doctrinal pioneer. 

But Pauline scholarship does not uniformly point in this constrictive direction.  We cannot know where lived the Galatians of the letter, but this does not mean or imply that Luke rightly portrays Paul’s chronology or his mission.

Pauline and Lucan investigations are entirely separate, from a scholarly point of view. Not for Kahl, who has it that “Paul has been turned into an entirely agreeable and politically correct model Roman citizen.”

Before sweeping all modern Pauline scholarship into a murmuring devotional circle, willing to see Paul disengaged from “the social and political realities of conquest,” Professor Kahl might engage Ernst Käsemann, with whom she has much in common as a tenacious and thoughtful Pauline investigator from within the Lutheran tradition.

Käsemann is the most searching Pauline scholar we have. Perhaps his fundamental gift is his thoughtful dissent from the notion that ecclesiology is the determinant for theology.

“Contemporary theology has forgotten,” Käsemann asserted, “that its true opponent is not unbelief , which is in any case probably more or less a fiction . . . unbelief is a manifestation of superstition, whether religious or secularized . . . superstition [may have] contributed more to the continuity of church history, theology and Christian institutions than faith.” (“The Spirit and the Letter,” Perspectives on Paul (Fortress Press, 1971, p. 153, translator: Margaret Kohl)

Käsemann once described Paul as “a possessed man in pursuit of a feverish dream” and also asserted, “Historical research has perhaps its final and deepest value in the fact that it disillusions.”  (Both statements may be found in “Paul and Nascent Catholicism,” Distinctive Protestant and Catholic Themes Reconsidered (Harper Torchbooks, 1967, pp. 19, 17, translated by Wilfred F. Bunge).

A gift from J. Louis Martyn to this shy M. Div. student at Union Seminary in the ‘60’s was Martyn’s drumbeat for Ernst Käsemann. Even if you decide that a Käsemann nugget (rarely an entire sentence) is fool’s gold, you have had to turn it over in your hand three or four times, and it is so pretty!

Through the centuries, many official, i.e., self-declared, orthodox interpretations of Paul, have dutifully domesticated him as the Cosmic Apostle, bravely fighting to preserve space for the development of a magisterium, which would then invoke Paul for its own secular ends, while pretending never to avert its gaze from the heavens.

But this is not the Paul of the letters, when the letters, including Galatians, are read as the ingenious but flawed theological inventions they in fact are.

One best not try to re-imagine Paul as a resistance operative against Roman occupation, who sent a cryptic message to sleeper cells somewhere in Galatia.

This seems to be where Kahl is headed.

But the exercise is not likely to be true to the Paul of Galatians any more than are the long standing efforts to reshape Paul’s statements, in the interests of some other imposed agenda.     

Thus far, to the sub-head Beyond East and West, page 37.

    

  

    

  

RESPONSE NUMBER THIRTEEN To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

In the previous post, I offered comments to Professor Kahl’s presentations under three sub-headings, Galatians and the Occidental Semiotics of Combat, Pauline Binaries Revisited, The Annihilation of the Antinomies (J. Louis Martyn).

The following sub-head is The Politics of the New Creation, wherein the writer asserts (p. 21), that the image of Paul “primeval Christian warrior defending the purity of the Christian gospel against the onslaught of Jewish law and otherness begins to fade.”

I am suspicious of a polemic which acknowledges the complexity of its own perspective(s) while dismissing a counter position, which has been drawn so simplistically it is merely a caricature. 

This gambit is easily done, but is also easily dismissed in its turn as unpersuasive.

The casual dismissal of the traditional perspective on Paul (Paul is contending against those who would require circumcision of Gentiles, who adhere to a belief in Messiah Jesus) is prologue for Kahl, who moves quickly into an explanation of brand new polarities, created by Paul himself.

Kahl is unwilling to place Paul’s polarities on the same plain as the official Roman binary ideology. Nor is Kahl prepared to see these polarities as rhetorical devices merely.

Kahl sweeps all of Paul’s polarities into a pile in the middle of a paragraph, the better to sweep them aside.

Old age-new age, flesh-spirit, slave-freedom, old creation-new creation are Pauline polarities but – according to Kahl – not really. 


These contrary elements, Kahl acknowledges, function in the context of “performance power” but the real game is not Paul’s attempt to adopt a persuasive and familiar rhetoric.

For Kahl, one must come to see Paul’s “war” as actually an “anti-war” in which Paul calls for the mobilization of life’s “losers, the crippled and limping, the never victorious.” The recruitment of bottom rung dwellers amounts (p. 22) to Pauline  “erasures of the principle of enmity itself.”

Paul is challenging, Kahl asserts, “an evil order” and “not an evil Other.”

This is a pretty good rhetorical flourish in its own right.

It may also be reductionist to define Paul’s Galatians letter in this way.

It certainly is a heavy lift to attempt to persuade that Paul has been fundamentally, and indeed deliberately, misunderstood for two thousand years, by a Christianized empire that intends to reassert the old self-versus-other polarity.

The ironic transcendence of all ideologies associated with the message of Jesus followed by a crucifixion of a Jewish messianic figure certainly gains purchase in the imagery of the Gospels, but not, so far as I can tell thus far, in the letter to the Galatians.

Paul in Galatians simply is too angry and hostile for that. Paul in Galatians is strident and accusatory. He is taking on “the Other” because he must answer criticisms leveled against him.

But Kahl would see the author of the Galatians letter as embracing “the Other” – which in turn amounts to an upending of the entire Roman self-versus-other ideology of empire.

Kahl asserts that the abandonment of the old Greek-Roman polarities “does not create a new Christian binary” but rather “produces a non-binary space” wherein “the old cosmos” and “the old-Self” are “put to death and turned into Nothingness.”

Nietzsche saw this in Paul’s teachings, as Kahl again reminds her readers.

This reader responds: is Nietzsche the best you can do? Is a deliberately outrageous iconoclast, given to insults and exaggeration – the best you can do?

Kahl is bumping up against the literal words of the letter and she knows it. This is why she asserts (p. 22), “the transformation Paul perceives is difficult for us to grasp and to articulate.”  Professor Kahl states (p. 23) that Paul’s argument is “literally senseless” if one tries to understand it by “the old ways of meaning.”

Kahl invites readers to look past the words of the letter and focus on lifestyle changes. Kahl speaks (p. 23) of Paul as more interested in “a permanent discipline of self-Othering.” Earlier (p. 22) she had argued that Paul has in the Galatians letter, initiated “the practice of Selves, who no longer try to vanquish their Others.”

The gist of Kahl’s argument at this point (p. 24): “it is not an antagonism between Judaism and Christianity, however, but an antagonism between a messianic way of life and an imperial order.”

A sweeping critique of Christian ideological pretensions can be and has been made in praxis and by apologists over the centuries – along side other far less challenging critiques.

But is the most sweeping critique of all what Paul’s letter to the Galatians is all about?  I retain my doubts.

RESPONSE NUMBER TWELVE To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Galatians and the Occidental Semiotics of Combat is the title of the next section of Professor Kahl’s introduction.

Kahl argue that the traditional understanding of Paul in Galatians by the Western church, is grounded in the imperial Roman world view.

The official, Roman world view, had in its turn, adopted the Greek perspective, which viewed all of creation as a pattern of opposites. Greek though first identified the fundamental components of creation – air, earth, fire and water – to which other opposites were added – superior, inferior; right left; good, evil, male, female; rest, motion, etc.  

The imperial view, naturally, allied “self” with elements associated with power and orthodoxy and identified its defeated adversaries, as “other” and allied with elements associated with weakness and heresy.  

Kahl states that she will demonstrate her thesis by way of a close examination of the Great Alter of Pergamon, described by Kahl as “the visual focus and anchor of this investigation.”

Kahl intends to demonstrate that the traditional understanding of Paul in Galatians is a continuance of the Greek and then Roman notion of the ordering of the cosmos into oppositional elements. 


This may be why Kahl does not address herself to any other than Protestant and specifically Lutheran prospective readers. 


All the rest, i.e., Roman Catholic interpretations of Galatians, merely perpetuate, in Kahl’s view, a theology of polarities and dominance, and have done so for two thousand years.

Kahl acknowledges that some commentators are in the role of precursors, having already reached the same conclusion regarding Paul’s declaration that the polarities built into the created order have been smashed by the “subversion” of the old, binary order by “a non-binary ‘new creation’. ”

Kahl acknowledges J. Louis Martyn’s Galatians commentary  (Doubleday, Anchor Bible, 1997) at this point, stating that Martyn had made “a groundbreaking insight” (Kahl, p. 20.) into Paul seeing the crucified Messiah in opposition to all negative, cosmic polarities. 

The new insight Kahl expects to establish beyond Martyn, is  a delineation of the actual motives of Paul’s opponents in Galatia.

Kahl intends to show that Paul’s perspective, properly understood and free from distortions engineered by a philosophy of dominance, threatened the security of the occupied populations in Galatia.

Kahl will maintain that the occupied of Galatia, including some among those who would follow the crucified Jewish Messiah, had concluded that Paul’s announcement of the “invasion” of the old order would likely be deemed a form of treason by the Romans.

For Kahl, Paul’s theology necessarily threatened the “compromise” which had been made with the Roman forces of occupation. Kahl (p. 21): “As we shall see, the Paul-opposing circumcision party in Galatia was driven much more by concrete sociopolitical concerns than by purely religious anxieties.”

Establishing the true motives of Paul’s opponents in Galatia, Kahl hopes then to show that Paul and his Messiah-believing adherents and recruits “were still part of Judaism” (p. 20).

This point, which can be established already on first century (CE) historical evidence, appears to be important for Kahl, who is at pains to separate the correctly understood Paul from the anti-Semitism which has pervaded Western Christian theology.

Kahl has already alluded to her personal connections to this dark and unsavory theme by reference to her mother’s reconciliation with a childhood classmate. It is therefore not beside the point to observe, as Kahl has done, that Western anti-Semitism culminated in the Holocaust, engineered by the government of Kahl’s native Germany and from within the natal ground of her Lutheranism. I suspect this book is, in part, about self-identify, whatever else it might be about. But come to think of it, this can be said about many books, can’t it?   

I expect it will not be difficult to show that features observed at the Great Alter of Pergamon express elements of the traditional Greco-Roman world view of an ordered universe composed of oppositional elements.

However, I retain my doubts that an awareness of oppositional cosmic elements can be seen reflected in the primary dynamics at play between Paul and his addressees in the Galatians letter.  

Surely it ought to be acknowledged that the Roman occupation adopted and co-opted an older philosophy of oppositional elements, with Rome itself in the positive role as embodiment of the positive and powerful elements. But this is background, part of the context of any and all, who lived under Roman occupation. The annual announcement of “the law” by Roman authorities would function in the same way and ought not to be taken as reflected in any particular debate or dispute among or between occupied peoples “on the ground” in some specific region of the Empire.

Can the Galatians letter itself be described as Paul’s answer to concerns about Paul subverting the Roman world view in a way that threatened the existence of his addressees or opponents in Galatia?

I expect only a close exegesis of the letter can answer this question.    

           

RESPONSE NUMBER NINE To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Law As Imperial Compromise Formula (J. Taubes)

Under this sub-head, Kahl credits (page 9) Jacob Taubes’ 1986 lectures on Paul (The Political Theology of Paul, Stanford: 2004) with providing an insight which has proven to be “one of the decisive impulses behind the assumption of this book that in Galatians Paul does not abandon Jewish law but, on the contrary, wrestles, from a rigorously Jewish perspective, with a practice of Torah that has a least partly been ‘hijacked’ and desecrated by Roman imperial law and religion.” 

What Taubes says in the passages reproduced by Kahl is that nomos is imbued with an elastic essence, which permits “everyone to understand law as they want to” but that Paul rejects this “liberal” accommodation to imperial power, in favor of “the one who was nailed to the cross by nomos.”

I have not read Taubes but the statements of his, which Kahl has quoted, do not appear particularly controversial or groundbreaking.

The Roman occupation certainly enforced a religious consensus. Certainly, too, those who wished to preserve their own practices, had to seek some kind of accommodation, which satisfied both the Roman overload and their own identity and integrity.    

Paul, an adherent of Christ crucified, vigorously dissented from the imposed (and partly negotiated) consensus.

But it’s not clear from Taubes’ comments, how Paul’s Galatians letter is a forum in which it is demonstrated that Paul did not “abandon Jewish law” (Kahl) but rather “wrestles with a practice of Torah” (Kahl) that Roman law has “hijacked and desecrated.”

I can see grounds for describing Jewish practice under Roman occupation as a kind of “desecration” but I don’t – yet – see the target of Paul’s critique in Galatians not Torah but rather Roman law and its enforced practice. (As I have suggested already, my own take on Galatians is that it is a highly personal self-defense by the missionary, who was required to answer the charge that his violent abuse of Jewish adherents of Messiah Jesus destroyed his credibility as a religious guide.) 

Kahl refers the reader to earlier writings of her own and to chapter six, below.

We shall see. 

  

   

RESPONSE NUMBER THREE To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

In the two pages (pp. 2-3) preceding comments (p. 3) under the heading “Re-Imagining Paul” Professor Kahl adds some sweeping comments intended to make the argument that the Gallic peoples of Gaul and Anatolia ought to be seen together “in the Roman imagination” as having retained – even after their separate defeats by Roman legions – “a notoriously indomitable tendency toward lawlessness.”

But first, she states that “Galatians (or Gauls), Jews and Christians as well, had one thing in common: all were suspected of subverting law and order.”

This point is not furthered elaborated upon.

Rather, the reader is invited to see a commonality between the two Gallic peoples which is exhibited in “the Roman imagination” as “archetypical enemies, quintessential barbarian intruders, remaining dangerous even after their defeat.”

Evidence offered is that “Roman authors frequently use the Latin term terror when they discussed Gauls/Galatians.” This means that we ought to understand “the Greco-Roman campaign” as a multistage campaign against “global terrorism.”

Once this picture has been drawn, Kahl puts the question which is to be asked and answered in her book: “what exactly is Paul’s position and role on that stage” – with “stage” a reference to “the highly charged battlefield of imperial representations, ancient and contemporary, alike.”

Kahl concludes this section, with supplementary questions about Paul: “How do we see him, how do we read him on the blood-soaked terrain of Western war-making history?” 

These questions reinforce my tentative conclusion that in Kahl's book, our subject is not the writer of a specific letter, but rather the Cosmic Paul of the Scriptures and perhaps also of the later-appearing, more-or-less triumphant Catholic Church.  

I question whether the introductory foundation has been sufficiently established to invite the questions raised. 

Two weaknesses I see in these introductory comments (which may be fully addressed in the book) are these:

1.                  The “Roman imagination” remains unidentified.

2.                  The commonalities of the Gallic tribes so far identified are not persuasive enough to compel this reader to see Gauls and Galatians – to say nothing of Jews and Christian Jews – as sharing a common identification in the so far quite non-specific “Roman imagination” as lawless terrorists.