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

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Professor Kahl continues the introduction of her subject by making comments under subheadings. This approach has the advantage of providing a set of first principles that are related thematically. The disadvantage is that the moment of the introductory argument seems lateral and not forward.

The section labeled “Re-Imagining Paul” is a case in point. Here, Kahl re-emphasized the project of re-imagining Paul by identifying “two issues still widely neglected” by other scholars of the Galatians letter.

The first of these issues is “the power of Rome and the representative of this power in images.”  Kahl states that the most important of these images are the ones “developed at Pergamon (Asia Minor).” Kahl adds that the “major burden” of her exploration will be a “visual reconstruction of the Galatian world behind Paul’s letter.”

The second neglected issue, Kahl says, is “to re-imagine the historical context in which Paul and the Galatians met, not as an end in itself but as an element of a comprehensive historical-critical rereading (relectura) of the letter that has been handed down through history as the material imprint of their encounter.”

Kahl adds that she will not undertake “a comprehensive exegesis” of the letter. Why not? – “space does not permit” this.

I am not persuaded that the Apostle Paul can be better understood by a presentation of visual images taken from the ancient world, when this presentation is not anchored in an explication of the only material we have from himself – his letters – because “space” in a four hundred page book does not allow room for exegesis of the short Galatians letter. It may be, however, that past Kahl’s introductory remarks, sufficient reference will be made to Paul’s comments in the book itself, to address this concern.

Not for the first time has Kahl stated that she is presenting material that has been “neglected.” Yet, numbers of commentaries on Galatians have identified the intended recipients of the letter and have gone into greater or less detail about Galatia in history. I am not sure this aspect has been neglected.

More likely to be a new approach by Kahl, is the emphasis on visual representations.

But here, one wonders how this is likely to lead to a better understanding of the Apostle in his relations with the Galatians, when the presentation is not associated with an explication of the letter. Kahl does state that “a re-reading of Galatians drives, informs and molds the contextual inquiry throughout.”

This is helpful to hear.

Helpful also is Kahl’s phrase, “contextual inquiry” which seems to provide a description of what this work is all about.

I will hazard a tentative conclusion that the book will prove to be helpful as adding details about the larger context of the intended recipients, and less helpful as a persuasive new portrait of the Apostle. This may already be conceded, as Kahl is rather insistent that her project is one of “re-imagining” rather than describing Paul.

Kahl speaks of her intention to delineate “a new way to read and hear Paul” and of a “liberating (0f) Paul.” Kahl, admittedly, is not about delineating Paul’s own thoughts and motivations. Rather she is about replacing “the figure of Paul” as it presently exists “in the collective conscious and unconscious heritage of the Christian occident.”

This very sweeping rhetoric strikes me as too much sugar for my nickel. How are we going to assess “a figure” hidden away in a place called the “heritage,” which is not only “collective” and also both “conscious and unconscious?” I must hope that the coming chapters will spell all this out.

And why is the Eastern Church let off the hook? I should have thought that the iconography of Eastern Orthodoxy, might provide an insightful comparison or contrast to Kahl’s promised visualization of what can be seen at Pergamon.

Kahl concludes this section of the Introduction by identifying herself with positive, recent attempts to reconstruct (and therefore rehabilitate) Paul’s image rather than with the more negative “deconstruction” of Paul statements, and of Paul himself, which have prompted him to be taken as a symbol of a “post-Constantinian interpretation” of history.

Kahl, then, would not simply re-imagine Paul, but would “retrieve an image of Paul” which Constantine’s conversion of empire to faith by conformation of faith to empire had buried. This implies that the picture Kahl intends to paint of the Apostle is one that has existed all along, though buried by Constantine’s accommodation.

Kahl will undertake this task of re-imagining Paul, because she is “convinced that scripture is re-imaginable outside the confines of the occidental pattern, that history matters, and most of all, that Paul matters.”

This rhetoric seems to race well ahead of the actual project. This last quote from Kahl begs questions which cannot be ignored and, hopefully, will not be ignored in the book.

What does it mean to assert that scripture is “re-imaginable” except that scripture is imagined, in the first instance?

What exactly and precisely, are the “confines” of what is asserted but not explicitly described as “the occidental pattern?” What precisely are “confines” anyway?

In exactly what ways can the Apostle be said to “matter” more than history?

This flourish is more sermonic than informative. But that’s OK. This is only the introduction.     

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.     

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

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Kahl mentions a “68 C.E.” rebellion in the Roman Province of Galatia, conducted by the Roman-appointed governor, Gaius Julius Vindex. Kahl states (p 1) that this episode is “directly relevant to interpretation” because the Roman-occupied areas, Gaul and Galatia “were more closely linked in the first century, C.E. mind, than we realize.”

The Apostle Paul was dead (according to well accepted tradition) by the time of the Gaius Julius Vindex rebellion.

The likelihood of Paul’s death has to mean that whatever association is to be made between the rebellion and the Apostle, is made without reference to any comment or thought Paul might have had about the rebellion, because Paul could have had none.

Similarly, there is no mention by Kahl that the rebel governor, Gaius Julius Vindex had known Paul, known of Paul or had been influenced by Paul in any way.

These discontinuities are not issues for Kahl. Why not?

Note that Kahl has stated that her purpose in mentioning the 68 C.E. rebellion is to draw the readers attention to the “mind” of the first century, C.E.  

The “mind” of an era is a large item. I am hoping that Professor Kahl will clarify what might be the specific features of this “mind” and how it can inform the reader’s understanding.

It appears that the introductory mention of the rebellion in Galatia is an occasion for Kahl to emphasize that the two Roman-governed regions (Gall and Galatia) ought to be seen as more closely linked “than we realize.”

I don’t know why Kahl thinks her readers do not already link Gaul and Galatia. Both areas were populated by clans of “Gauls” prior to their defeat in war by Roman legions, centuries before. Both retained similar if not identical languages, which Jerome noted and which many Galatians commentaries have pointed out.  Today, one area, Gaul, is France. The other, Galatia, is a portion of southern Turkey. 

Intending to link the two areas quite closely for her readers, Kahl adds, surprisingly, “From a strictly lexical perspective, the whole letter that Paul addresses to the “assemblies of Galatia” [. . .] could as well have been directed to the Roman province(s) of Gallia, contemporary France [. . .].” (pp 1-2)

From a “strictly lexical perspective” Lincoln’s Gettysburg address could have been addressed to British subjects deported to Australia, or to English-speaking Canadians or to the British Parliament. But none of these were the intended audience of the Address – and for vastly more important reasons than that dissimilar audiences spoke/speak the same language.

This hyperbole is a bit discouraging in an Introduction. You hate to see a writer, at the outset, overreach to this degree.

Patience. We are only to page two. Top of.     

Everyone has a strong reaction to the Apostle Paul.


My triple great grandfather Joshua Flood (1772-1850) admired him. Grandfather Joshua also admired Andrew Jackson. Josh Flood, who worked slaves and would be counted by anyone as among the truest and simplest backwoods Baptists, believed everything came down to this: each wretch must come to Jesus.

How does Saint Paul fit into Joshua Flood’s view of this world, a world that included the embrace of human slavery, the rejection of indoor cooking, and the categorical refusal to allow mules on his farm in Shelby County, Kentucky in the first five decades of the nineteenth century?

It would not be difficult to conclude, at the present moment, that Joshua Flood simply misread his favorite Apostle. But I doubt if you could get away with that in a conversation with old Joshua, or with his Huguenot wife Mary (Marie) Bondurant (1782-1863). I doubt if you could set the parameters of that conversation in a way that would require old Joshua to see what you see, in Paul.

Context makes a difference, no?

Who is the Apostle Paul?  Well, that depends. Are we talking about yesterday or today? And which yesterday and which today do we have in mind?

Brigitte Kahl, professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary, New York, has published her take on the Apostle, in a book entitled Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010).

What follows here (and in subsequent posts) is going to be my take on Kahl’s take on Paul’s letter, found in the New testament and there entitled, Galatians.

I have not read Kahl’s book. I am reading it. I will post my reactions and comments as I work through her book.

Comments are welcome.