Transcript
http://jnt.sagepub.com/ TestamentJournal for the Study of the New http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/251The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0142064X09357677 2010 32: 251 Journal for the Study of the New Testament John K. Goodrich Galatians 4.1-2Guardians, not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul's Metaphor in Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at: Journal for the Study of the New Testament Additional services and information for http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/251.refs.html Citations: at Durham University on March 5, 2011 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from JSNT 32.3 (2010): 251-284 © The Author(s) 2010Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav http://JSNT.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/0142064X09357677 Guardians, not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1-2 1 John K. Goodrich Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Abbey House, Palace Green, Durham, DH1 3RS
[email protected] Abstract Paul’s heir analogy in Gal. 4.1-2 has traditionally been interpreted against the back-drop of Graeco-Roman guardianship laws. However, because certain conceptual and terminological incongruities in the text have not been adequately explained, a relatively new typological reading, which identifies the analogy as an allusion to the Exodus, has begun to influence many interpreters. This study will defend the tra-ditional interpretation, first by responding to the criticisms and exegetical insights introduced by those who interpret the text typologically, and second by demonstrat-ing that Paul’s use of e0pi/tropoi and oi0kono&moi as guardians of a minor—a widely acknowledged crux interpretum —corresponds accurately to Roman legal practice. Key Words Galatians, guardianship, inheritance, intertextuality, metaphor, Roman law, typology Galatians 4.1-7 functions as an important proof in its epistolary context. As Martin de Boer (2007: 204) has recently remarked, 4.1-7 is ‘prob-ably the central theological passage of [Paul’s] letter to the Galatians’. J. Louis Martyn (1997: 388) concurs, explaining that this pericope ‘con-tains nearly all of the letter’s major motifs, and it relates them to one another in such a way as to state what we may call the good news of Paul’s letter to the Galatians’. But as with many of Paul’s metaphori-cally packed discourses, there remains much debate regarding the text’s interpretation. While few theological concerns in the passage are in great dispute, precisely how Paul illustrated God’s redemptive work in 4.1-2 remains quite controversial. When Paul wrote, Le/gw de/, e0f ) o#son xro&non o( klhrono&moj nh/pio&j e0stin, ou0de\n diafe/rei dou/lou, ku/rioj pa&ntwn w!n, a)lla_ u(po_ e0pitro&pouj e0sti\n kai\ oi0kono&mouj a!xri th=j proqesmi/aj tou= 1. I wish to thank Professor John M.G. Barclay of Durham University for his many useful comments on an earlier draft of this article. at Durham University on March 5, 2011 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from 252 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010) patro&j (Gal. 4.1-2), what inheritance scheme was he drawing from? This study will argue that the context (source domain) of Paul’s analogy is to be found in the Roman law of guardianship. In an effort to do so, a detailed response will first be given to this position’s major critics, espe-cially those who adopt the recently advanced typological (Exodus) read-ing. It will then be demonstrated that the foremost crux interpretum of the traditional (guardianship) view—the identification of the e0pi/tropoi and oi0kono&moi (4.2) as guardians of a minor—in fact corresponds accurately to Roman guardianship law. The Traditional Interpretation Paul’s analogy in Gal. 4.1-2 has traditionally been interpreted in the light of ancient inheritance and guardianship laws as practised within patri-cian households in the Graeco-Roman world. Although the background of the passage has long proved troublesome even for adherents of this position, not least because the guardianship customs presented in Paul’s metaphor do not conform in the details —so it is said—to any known legal system from antiquity, biblical scholars as well as ancient histori-ans have generally considered Paul’s analogy to be in basic agreement with the conventions of succession practised during the early empire. 2 The Roman legal explanation offered by Hans Dieter Betz (1979: 202-203) is perhaps representative of these kinds of interpretations: According to this institution the paterfamilias appoints one or more guard-ians for his children who are entitled to inherit his property after his death. During the period of time in which the heir ( o( klhrono&moj ) is a minor ( nh/pioj ) he is potentially the legal owner ( o( ku/rioj ) of the inheritance, but he is for the time being prevented from disposing of it. Although he is legally (potentially) the owner of it all, he appears not to be different from a slave ( ou0de\n diafe/rei dou/lou ) ... As a minor, the heir is under the tutelage of ‘tutors ... and administrators’ ( u(po_ e0pitro&pouj e0sti\n kai\ oi0kono&mouj ), to whom the inheritance is entrusted, and who conduct business affairs for him. This situation lasts to a point fixed by the father in his testament ( a!xri th=j proqesmi/aj tou= patro&j ), at which the guardianship is to be 2. That Paul was drawing from Hellenistic law, see Ramsay 1900: 391-93; Eger 1917; Burton 1921: 213-15; Calder 1930; Byrne 1979: 175; Moore-Crispin 1989: 204; Witherington 1998: 282. For Roman law, see Walker 1906; Hester 1967: 120; Lyall 1969: 464-66; Betz 1979: 202; Bruce 1982: 192; Dunn 1995: 210; Garnsey 1997: 105-106; Walters 2003: 59-65; Burke 2006: 83-86. See also Rossell 1952: 234; Longenecker 1990: 164; Matera 1992: 148-49; Tsang 2005: 122-26. at Durham University on March 5, 2011 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from G OODRICH Guardians, not Taskmasters 253 terminated. At this time the heir is given free access to the inheritance, and the tutor is to him like any other person. This reading has the advantage of accounting for Paul’s use of certain terms widely recognized as having legal connotations: klhrono&moj , dou=loj , ku/rioj , e0pi/tropoj , path/r . Moreover, while several other terms may not carry technical, legal significance ( nh/pioj , oi0kono&moj , proqesmi/a ), most interpreters do not hesitate to attribute to them mean-ings associated with guardianship due to their close conceptual overlap.Although different versions of this interpretation have long prevailed in modern scholarship, many critics have identified weaknesses with it. These criticisms can be divided into two categories: those stemming from the incongruity of 4.1-2 with 4.3-7 (to be dealt with now), and those relating to the disagreement of Paul’s analogy with Roman guardi-anship law (to be dealt with in the remainder of the study). Regarding the former, scholars have identified several tensions between Paul’s illustration in 4.1-2 and its application and eventual development in 4.3-7: the path/r from 4.2 is presumed dead, but in 4.3-7 he (God) is active sending his Son and adopting others; the concept of guardianship in 4.1-2 becomes adoption in 4.5; the equation of heirs with slaves in 4.1 and 7 is seen to be a confusion of categories (Hafemann 1997: 334; O’Neill 1972: 56). But these particular discrepancies can be explained in two ways.First, the equation of sons/heirs with slaves accurately betrays the sta-tus of dependent persons (those in another’s potestas ) from the vantage point of Roman law (see Saller 1996). While there existed real differ-ences between sons and slaves in treatment and privilege, their rights while in the power of the paterfamilias varied only minutely from a legal perspective. Once a father died, however, his son was released from potestas and became an independent person ( sui iuris ), even if a guardian was appointed to him (see Saller 1994: 183; Frier and McGinn 2004: 424). But a guardian maintained certain kinds of authority over the heir and his patrimony for the duration of the appointment, and espe-cially so while the heir was an infant ( Dig. 26.1.1.pr; 41.2.32.2). Thus, from a Roman legal perspective, an heir in infancy was under the control and auctoritas of his guardian in much the same way that a slave was under the control and auctoritas of his master (see Garnsey 1997: 106).Second, the inconsistent state of the father, as well as the change from guardianship to adoption, can be explained by the realization that metaphors have limits, and Paul often mixes them freely. As J.B. Lightfoot (1865: 165) recognized long ago, ‘The point of the at Durham University on March 5, 2011 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from 254 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)comparison lies not in the circumstances of the father, but of the son. All metaphors must cease to apply at some point, and the death of the father is the limit here imposed by the nature of the case’ (cf. Burton 1921: 211; Johnson Hodge 2007: 71). Martyn (1997: 386) explains the transition from guardianship to adoption by underscoring Paul’s rhetorical licence: ‘Paul paints the picture solely for the sake of the use he will make of it, thus allowing himself both freedom in shaping the picture itself and freedom to close with a development that goes beyond it.’ Paul’s combination of images here, then, does not require an explanation beyond that which has long been recognized in New Testament scholarship, namely that Paul frequently and intentionally mixes metaphors ‘in order to create a surplus of meaning’ (Collins 2008: 260; cf. Gaventa 2007: 4-5). 3 Most scholars accept these and other explanations as adequate grounds for adopting the traditional perspective. 4 These arguments, however, have not satisfied all critics. Thus, scholarly discontent even-tually gave way to a new thesis. The Typological Interpretation In 1992, James M. Scott offered a strong critique of the Graeco-Roman guardianship interpretation and proposed an alternative reading based on Old Testament allusion. Scott’s investigation began by exploiting six ‘exegetical oversights’ of traditional interpreters: (1) New Testament scholarship has limited its attention to Graeco-Roman systems of guardi-anship and neglected the possibility that Paul may have been drawing from local Jewish guardianship laws; (2) the singular and articular use of o( klhrono&moj in 4.1 probably refers back to tou= 0Abraa_m spe/rma in 3.29; (3) nh/pioj is not a technical term for a minor; (4) ku/rioj pa&ntwn used elsewhere is an honorific title of universal sovereignty; (5) oi0kono&moj is not attested elsewhere as the guardian of a minor and, used together with e0pi/tropoj , the two normally refer to state officials; (6) proqesmi/a is not a technical term for the termination of guardianship, but a generi-cally set date or predetermined time limit (1992: 126-45). Arguing then that both o( klhrono&moj and nh/pioj were established ways of referring to 3. For other mixed metaphors, see Rom. 3.21-26; 2 Cor. 4.4-6; Gal. 3.22-26; 5.7-9; Phil. 3.17-4.1. For mixed metaphors employing nh/pioj , see 1 Cor. 3.1-2 and 1 Thess. 2.7-12.4. For responses to other tensions, see Walters 2003: 59-65. at Durham University on March 5, 2011 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
