Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 4:8-10 (To Mark Nanos)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 4:8-10 (To Mark Nanos)
  • Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:44:57 -0500


[Mark]

> So the issue is one of "compliance" with expectations/norms/pressure
> of their participation in public pagan life, not "conformity" as in
> the sense of embracing pagan beliefs again. Hence the message of
> proselyte conversion is good news for them, as you seem to realize in
> your comments as well, for

it will allow them to escape this dilemma,


[Moon]

This is my point. They had the excellent way to escape this dilemma.
So, they would have chosen to comply with the Jewish norms, rather than
with the pagan norms.

[Mark]

Moon,
I will try to clarify what I mean to be saying versus what I think you think I am saying. The issue is not Jewish versus pagan norms, so that certain Jewish people want the pagan addressees to become proselytes while pagans want them to return to being pagans (although this might be true also, it is not what I am saying). The issue is that Jewish people are constrained by the dominant pagan communities norms as well, that is, where pagan people in their midst as guests claiming to be something more is concerned.

Jewish communities during this period appealed to the precedent set by J. Caesar's decree permitting non-participation in certain normal pagan practices like worship of imperial cult, and a sacrifice was made in Jerusalem daily in place of this for Jewish people of the Diaspora, who sent a "tax" to pay for this sacrifice. Josephus's discussion of this can be found in Ant. 14.185-267. Important to note here is that such special privileges have their downside, and resentment sometimes took a violent turn (same passages in Josephus, see also Ant. 19.299-305; Jew. War 2.285-92, 457-68; Against Apion 2.65-77; Philo, Emb. 132-34, 353-57). (Some scholars argue [e.g., Rajak] that this did not apply everywhere at all times, but it appears to have been wide enough to support the generalization I am trying to make here). In other words, the Jewish communities appealed to pagan communal norms set by precedent since Caesar's decree in order to insure Jewish communal privileges/norms. Failure to comply with the basis of this privilege, e.g., no longer making the offering in Jerusalem, would result in the loss of legitimacy for an appeal for continuing the privilege. They needed to be vigilant about compliance, whether they thought Caesar deserved such deference as the daily sacrifice implied or not! They complied with the ruling regimes norm in order to ensure their ability to continue to conform with their own belief that no human or god should be worshipped by the Jewish people.

Now if we move this to the issue in Galatia, the pagan norms for all fellow-pagans include participation in the public expression of imperial cult. The exception extended to the Jewish community members (i.e., Jewish people including proselytes) does not extend to fellow-pagans who may be friends of the Jewish communities, or in some way regular guests. The Jewish communities are constrained to comply with the norm; they are minority communities, and must comply in order to enjoy the privilege thereby extended. But these pagan guests suddenly declare themselves no longer bound by their pagan identity, and appeal to the Jewish communal leaders to allow them to abstain from pagan identity and its public expression of idolatry, such as the imperial cult. That is what the influencers in Galatia are faced with, and they offer the good news that both Jewish norms and pagan norms of identity and privilege can be fulfilled if they would be become proselyte candidates, and eventually complete this rite of passage from pagan to Jewish identity. (How pagan family and friends might react to this choice is not the issue, but the legitimacy/justification upon which the appeal for leaving behind pagan practices is made, thus complying with the legal norms for this identity transformation).

It is not a Jewish versus a pagan solution, but a Jewish/pagan solution, since neither community has a way to accommodate the identity that the addressees now claim apart from proselyte conversion. Is that clearer?

In a separate post to Stephen Finlan I will answer a question posed about examples of such dynamics, although the references to Josephus apply directly to the issue.

[Moon also wrote, which the above answers I believe...]
If the message of proselyte conversion was such a
good news for them (to escape the dillema), why would have they
considered complying with the pagan?

I keep asking this question, which you do not seem to answer exactly,
because there seem to be no reasons why they would chosen a pagan solution
against a Jewish solution for the dillema. If I am right here,
there is no reason why "returning to the weak and poor
stoicheia" in Gal 4:8-10 refers to complying with the pagan social norms.

I hope I have clarified that the issue is not as stated here, not "a pagan solution against a Jewish solution for the dilemma," but an agreed pagan/Jewish solution.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page