Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

>Mark D. Nanos wrote:
>
>> I cannot imagine how gentile groups cultivated by a sectarian Paul would be
>> later attracted to attempt to connect with Jewish communities, actually, to
>> become Jewish people themselves. Or why Jewish communities (presumably
>> minority groups in these Anatolian towns themselves) would be either
>> interested in them, or in a position to engage in social control of them,
>> as seems to be suggested in the letter (persuading; hindering; excluding;
>> compelling). Can you explain such a social development?
>
>Ray Pickett replied:
>Thanks for the elaboration of how you are imagining the intra-Jewish
>context in which Galatians should be read. On one level, your
>explanation of the setting of the letter is a more "natural" (if that is
>the right word) rendering of the conflict Paul addresses because all the
>variables/people would have been there from the beginning. This is what
>I find compelling about your proposal. So I think any alternative
>interpretation needs to make sense of how the social situation in
>Galatia evolved, which is the question you have raised for me.

Ray, thanks, you have understood the communal dynamic of my view for which
intra-Jewish is perfect; and yes, this is one of the social dynamics that
strikes me as unanswered when I read the consensus views of the situation
in Galatia. I gave a paper at this past years annual SBL meeting entitled
The Intra- and Inter-Jewish Political Contexts of Paul and the Galatians. I
suggest that the autobiographical material brings an inter-Jewish
perspective ("between" this Jewish coalition believing in Christ in various
places--inclusive of the Jerusalem apostles--and other Jewish interest
groups who do not share this conviction) to bear upon the intra-Jewish
context of the addressees in Galatia ("within" a Jewish communal setting),
which is also divided over the impact of the message of Christ upon the
social status of the gentiles in view between the Christ-believing
subgroup(s) and the dominant Jewish community(s) which does not share this
conviction.
>
>First, at the risk of stating the obvious, let me affirm a couple basic
>assumptions we share. Paul (probably) remained a Torah observant Jew and
>concieved of his gospel and mission to the gentiles as being within the
>ambit of Judaism. The main question I have raised so far simply concerns
>whether other Jews in these cities would have agreed that what Paul was
>saying and doing was Jewish. He probably does think of himself as a
>reformer, but I can't help but believe that upon hearing the message of
>Galatians (and assuming it is consistent with what he proclaimed
>initially, though more polemical) other Jews would think of him as an
>apostate.

Ray, it is nice to find someone who shares these assumptions about Paul as
a Jewish person, which is, of course, not the consensus view. But I do not
follow your inferences. If Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew (by the
defining norms of "common" Judaism, if you will) and the concept of his
mission to gentiles remained within the ambit of Judaism, then why would
Jewish people consider him apostate? Disagreement on an issue is not
generally cause for considering the other apostate, if the variety of
Judaisms of the period, and later, even until our own time, is any
indicator. He represents a different point of view, and some (many)
disagree with his view once presented; but apostate? Now when social
interaction within this subgroup is cause for concern because of the
interests of the dominant community, social control measures are logical,
such as the stripes which Paul says he received, but these are to bring a
sinner or deviant according to the majority norms into line. An apostate is
removed, or removes themself. No doubt different communities in different
areas, even in the same city, would react to Paul and his message and
actions among Jewish and non-Jewish people in different ways. I would
expect disagreement among others as well, along many lines, such as
conservative to liberal, you might say, and the threat perceived to other
interests of their communities, etc.

As for the Galatians before and after Paul's letter, it seems to me that
whatever he had taught when among them earlier, it was not as antithetical
as it is now in his response to the direction of developments. The naivete
of the addressees seems to suggest that they still think they can have it
both ways, the gospel of Christ and the traditional good news of proselyte
conversion (I do not share the view of those who think Paul or his gospel
have been opposed, so that the addressees are choosing intentionally to
abandon Paul). Should those whom Paul vilifies learn of this letter--and
presumably they will learn of it's influence in some way if the gentile
addressees resist as he instructs them to--then I would expect their view
of Paul to change, and perhaps eventually regard him and this subgroup as
deviant beyond discipline; even as apostate, and best dismissed.

But I must say, as nasty as this letter would seem if read by those whose
influence Paul opposes, it was not written for their consumption. Such
polemic, for example, when delivered by a panicked parent to their children
about the neighbor children, who as peers are taken to be influencing the
children in a way feared, is not given with the windows open. When one says
I don't care what this other child is permitted to do or what their parents
think is alright (to put it nicely!), this may not reflect the respect the
other parent, or child, may be generally regarded with by the delivering
parent. In-house rhetoric is funny this way. It is what we have to work
with, but we must approach what it says at the surface level with great
care, especially when so ironic and rebuking in nature as is Galatians. I
imagine more diplomatic language would  characterize this parent's
conversation with the neighbors (perhaps even belittling their own child's
naivete); so too I imagine that Paul's would be different if delivered in
the presence of the ones reviled.


>...The point I want to make in this
>post is simply that it seems imperative to me to imagine the social
>situation of Paul's letters in relation to his gospel. So the question I
>would ask you is: if in Galatia Paul is going into existing Jewish
>communities as a reformer and arguing that gentile proselytes don't need
>to be circumcised, how is such a mission strategy being driven by the
>message of the crucified Christ? Do you imagine that Paul is travelling
>all around the Mediterranean visiting synagogues and telling the
>God-fearers there that they don't need to be circumcised because Christ
>was crucified? Why? What would be the logic of this?

This is a good question. I would imagine that Paul usually proclaims the
good news of the resurrected Christ, and the dawning of the age to come for
all of humankind in him. Nevertheless, don't you think he approached his
proclamation in different ways with different people? The crucified Christ
emphasis of Galatians is part of a rhetorical strategy for those who
already believe this message, but whose current behavior, Paul believes,
delegitimates the foundation of their faith, because it makes meaningless
the crucifixion of Christ. I suggest that this imagery is deeply connected
with the marginality that he is calling these gentiles to accept for
themselves by their resistance, a marginality which Christ suffered, and
Paul (note 6:17).

Regards,
Mark Nanos