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

"Gauls / Galatians Marching Against Rome. Delphi, and Pergamon (387 - 189 B.C.E.)"


In this section of chapter one, Professor Kahl takes up (pp. 51 - 64) the murky history of Celtic occupations of parts of present day Italy, Greece and Turkey. The focus of this presentation is to highlight Greek and Roman descriptions of these events as a struggle by self-described civilized forces against Celtic barbarism, represented by tribes, who at first conquored and settled in these areas, but who were subsequently defeated by both Greek and Roman armies.


Kahl stresses that the centuries-long struggles against Celtic invasion - ending in Roman victory - assumed mythic proportions, with the Celtic (Galatian) tribes in the role of the archetypical enemy.


From what I can tell, the Celtic / Roman struggle was not much different from other invasions from northern Europe by clans, seeking either plunder or agricultural lands in warmer climes. Kahl certainly recognizes the similarities but calls attention to the apparently (to Kahl) unique mythic imagery assigned to the Celts by Roman  (Pliny) and Greek-speaking (Plutarch) historiagraphers.


Interestingly, though not remarked upon by Kahl, some of the ancient commentators, writing during Roman hegemony, displayed sympathy for the Celts.


Livy, a native of Padua (Patavium), who could be described as passionate about Rome, was of a Gallic family; Livy may have acquired his knowledge of Celtic epics from his own family's oral traditions. (Markale, p. 50, see below.)


Plutarch's sympathy for the Celts is found in a passage Kahl cites, in which a Celtic king ia given a speech that justifies his people's invasion and occupation of Italy on the same grounds which the Romans used to justify their own violent acquisition of lands already occupied by others.


The romantic image a thousand years later, of Celts as grand losers in shadowy, epic battles across Britain is part of English, Irish and even Scottish folklore. Here is an example - a paragraph that is fun to read - which purports to explain the impetus for ancient Celtic invasions / migrations, which are then linked to sagas of kingdoms won and then lost in the British isles:


"The Gauls in Illyria were becoming restless. As believers in an all-governing dynamism, they were anxious to be on the move again. The Celts looked upon the present as a mere function of the future, as a continual process of evolution. The legends of Brittany,Wales and Ireland all serve to illustrate this theme.The mark made by trhe Celts on the ancient historians is no more than a manifestation of their asnti-historic desire to deny the present and create the future, if only in the imagination.This singular attitude is inherent both in the capture of Rome and the expedition to Delphi; and was later responsble for the Twelfth Century Round Table Romances of Christian Europe, a cycle of magical adventures to match the aspirations of a fallen race which refused to accept that it had died." (The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture, by Jean Markale [Rochester VT: Innte Traditions International, 1993 (1976: Les Celts et la Civilisation Celtique, p. 66.])


The epic nature of sweeping invasions and occupations, combined with ambiguous tellings and retellings - to say nothing of the final defeat and destruction of peoples who are linked with the foundation of Western Europe - all this gives momentum to romantic imagery.


T.G.E. Powell, inclined against romance, states that it must have been not their religious notions but "visions of rich plunder" which sent the Gauls into northern Italy, as well as some "special misfortune" which drove the Celts to "descend upon Macedonia in midwinter." (See The Celts [Thames and Hudson,1958, 1994], pp. 18, 19.)


Kahl has little interest in the romance but does want to call attention to that part of the Celtic myth, which was developed by ancient historian / propagandists, in the service of imperial Roman hegemony.

Kahl argues that the epic struggle for supremacy in Italy between Celts and Romans occasioned the visual representation of Celts as the archetypal Enemy.


For this argument to persuade, an explanation of the sympathetic treatment by Plutarch and Livy must be offered.


Kahl does cite Livy but as an apologist for Rome, who uses "twisted logic" (p. 52) to denigrate the Celts, when Roman emissaries break the peace "as if they were Celts". Kahl cites Livy 5:35 but the closest statement by Levy for this characterization that I can find is at 5:36, where Livy describes the Roman ambassadors, as a "peaceable enough mission, had it not contained envoys of a violent temper, more like Gauls than Romans." (See Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 5, Rev. Canon Roberts, Ed., posted at perseus.tufts.edu.)


This seems to me straightforward enough and does not warrant Kahl's conclusion (Kahl, p. 52) that Livy is asserting "that it is barbarians who are lawless and Romans who keep the law--even when they do not." Kahl's conclusion is made more dubious since Livy goes on to describe how the Roman ambassadors abused their diplomatic credentials by taking up arms on the spot and killing a Celtic chieftain, an event which the Celts justly complained of before the Roman senate, but to no avail.


The Celtic king, Brennus the Second is said to have laughed out loud when he saw the gods at Delphi represented in human form. Can Celtic history / myth / romance become grist for a re-imagined context for Paul's Galatians letter? 

We are not there yet.

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

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Jewish Torah or Roman Nomos?

This is the sub-heading Kahl has given her following few paragraphs, leading up to a succeeding several more subheadings, the immediately following being a reflection on the impact of Nietzsche, entitled here, Law As Power Construct (Nietzsche). There follows three paragraphs under the sub- head: Law As Imperial Compromise Formula (J. Taubes) and finally, Torah Criticism as Affirmation of Roman Nomos, all of which precedes the next major heading in this Introduction, which is entitled, in a bold font,   Re-Imagining Justification by Faith.

We pay attention to these sub-headings, since the writer wishes her readers to follow a polemic, laid out in a deliberate sequence.

Here we go.

Jewish Torah or Roman Nomos? For Kahl, the answer is: Roman Nomos. The other option is the traditional take on Galatians. This, Kahl describes as an “imagined contextuality” based on “what we had imagined is the context of Galatians” that is, “a dispute between Jews and Christians” . . . “as to whether circumcision was a religious requirement for non-Jews among the Jesus followers.”

Kahl arrives at this either-or by stating, “We all know how much our interpretation of a text depends on how we imagine its context.”

There is a rhetorical leveling going on here, with the apparent objective, to place Kahl’s own re-imagining on the same level of cogency as the traditional understanding of Galatians. This, without placing a commentary about Galatians before the reader.

Note: the ‘imagined contexts’ of Galatians – Kahl’s and the circumcision debate – are taken to be just that – imagined.

This strikes me as a de-valuation of the task of the historian, which is to explicate the actual context, not an imagined one.

There are many parts to the context of a past event, of course. But none of these parts of the context ought, subsequently, to be imagined, should they?

Maybe the problem I am having is the absence of a definition of “imagined.” Maybe this will be cleared up in the text of the book.

Kahl states that the “imagined contextuality” . . . “illuminates one isolated segment of a larger historical picture but leaves the rest in the dark, thus rendering the fuller meaning of the letter practically impossible.”

Once again, I am brought to the thought that what is missing is a set of  comments on the text of the letter. Isn’t this the most direct way to get to the letter’s meaning?  

Kahl believes that Paul and his addressees argued “in the Jewish ‘key’ of circumcision.”

Key? This phrasing is not further explained. Rather, Kahl asserts that “the polarity of law versus lawlessness” was part of “the public discourse” (including representational art) of which Paul partook.

Kahl believes the political, ideological and theological threads “interwoven in Paul’s confrontation with the Galatians and his rejection of ‘law’” will lead to insights otherwise overlooked or neglected.

Kahl presents a diagram in further explication of her point of view. She may be right, insisting that important aspects of the imperial occupation of Galatia have been neglected in the traditional reading of Galatians. 

Her confidence that she is presenting a new, valuable perspective brings her to pose this question: “What if Paul were targeting Greco-Roman imperial nomos much more than Jewish Torah?”

Can we ever know enough about the letter to give a definitive answer to this question? Perhaps working back from the abyss of not knowing is what has caused Kahl to land on the soft target of ‘re-imagining.’ If we don’t know, let’s use our imaginations.

Kahl concludes (p. 7) this sub-section with the assertion, “whatever the subject of contention” between Paul and his addressees in Galatia, “it was Roman law that ultimately defined and enforced what was licit and illicit.”

It strikes me as obvious to state that the Roman occupiers were the ultimate enforcers.

It is not as obvious that this aspect of the context of the Galatians letter clarifies the intentions of Paul in writing, or sheds much light on the concerns of his addressees.        

      

     

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

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Kahl associates (p. 5) herself with the “empire-critical” research of Richard Horsley and also mentions Dieter Georgi, Robert Jewett, Neil Elliott, Adolf Deissmann and Klaus Wengst as predecessors in the project of drawing attention to “the Roman context and the Rome-critical implications of Paul’s theology and practice.”

These predecessors, Kahl points out, have worked more with the text of Paul’s Romans. Kahl also mentions the work of Bruce Winter (civic obligations) and Mark Nanos (on Galatians) as providing helpful insights. In a footnote, Kahl indicates that Nanos’ comments in his commentary, pp. 257-71, are particularly pertinent.

Kahl introduces the idea that she intends to draw attention to Paul’s “words” and not merely his “world” so as to examine “the doctrine of Justification” in the light of “concrete historical realities” rather than leaving this doctrine, as it “predominantly” understood, as “abstract” and “timeless.”

This Lutheran emphasis strikes me as an unfortunate thematic narrowing of the project that is proposed. The idea, now, is that Paul’s historical Galatians context, stressing the import of Roman rule, is actually to be focused on a principle of Luther and of Lutheran orthodoxy.

Paul’s Galatians certainly does not belong under the category, Justification by Faith. 

Unless I am misreading Kahl, she sees her book (primarily?) as “necessary groundwork for the larger critical task of reinterpreting justification by faith.”

But then, there is introduced a different rationale for the project. Kahl writes that her “task” is “driven as much by contemporary urgency as by historical interest.”

She continues: “We live in a precarious time, when imperial globalization extends its grip ever more rigidly and destructively upon the planet, imposing a de facto martial law on whole populations, often under the aggressive auspices of nominal Christianity.”

Neither in this statement or in those that follow, does Kahl name names. Perhaps in the text, we will get to specifics.

This paragraph concludes with a return to the challenge of orthodox Lutheranism, which so greatly preoccupies this writer. Kahl states that what is required is, “first and foremost a reexamination of the core concept at the center of everything Paul says and does: justification by faith rather than by works of the law.”

Why is the project so narrowly focused on Luther and the traditional (and very questionable) formula, which has been applied to his system?