Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Social context of Galatian's suffering

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ray Pickett <rpickett AT unidial.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Social context of Galatian's suffering
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:55:38 +0000


Mark, thanks for sticking with me on this. It seems that we both may
have idiosyncratic views about the rhetorical situation of this letter.
Actually, I think one of the differences between us methodologically is
that you are dealing more with rhetorical situation, and I am more
interested in ascertaining the impact of Paul's gospel and mission as it
is implied in Galatians and his other letters. So we are coming at
things from very different angles, but this is what makes it interesting
and helpful.

Methodologically, my attempts at reconstruction are more dubious than
yours because I am one step further removed from the rhetorical
situation. But, again, I am assuming that what says in the letters is
consistent with what he initially taught. Moreover, I am assuming that
Paul has a fairly intentional and consistent mission strategy, even
though he always adapts his message to the particular group he is with.
I realize that assuming so much consistency with someone like Paul is
risky business, but there you have it. I am not assuming that his
perspectives and theology, as reflected in the letters are by any means
consistent.

So let to answer the question you raised in the previous post, which I
really didn't answer. My reading of the letters suggests that Paul is
establishing predominantly gentile communities. Since he is setting up
shop in the various cities, he is obviously interacting with gentiles in
the public square, so to speak. I imagine that he is also interacting
with the local synagogue, and that some, if not many, god-fearers would
have found Paul's message compelling. I also think these communities
included some assimilated Jews. So while these house churches may have
been small in number, it seems they might have been fairly diverse.

Mark D. Nanos wrote:
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,

My working understanding of Judaism here is that there is a continuum.
At one end are those Jews who fairly assimilated to the culture and at
the other end are the more"conservative" Jews. The problem of eating
idol meat in 1 Cor. and Rom. is an interesting window on this, but
that's another story. "Apostate" may be a little strong, but when Paul
says that circumcision and other works of the law don't matter any more,
only new creation (6:15), it strikes me that strict Torah observant Jews
would seen that as crossing a line. A modern analogy would be baptism.
There are all kinds of heated debates about baptism, and all the
disagreement notwithstanding no one says of a group who thinks
differently about it that they are not Christian. But if someone says
baptism isn't important, then there are serious questions raised as to
whether or not that is still "Christian".

Whether they are interlopers from outside of Galatia or conservative
Jews from the local synagogue, I am having a difficult time seeing how
more conservative Jews would have perceived these pauline communities as
Jewish by their definition. Paul, of course, thinks they are a part of
the "Israel of God". Paul is not trying to undermine Jewish rites or
symbols, but neither does he think they are very pertinent to his work
among gentiles. What he thinks is important is "new creation", which
interestingly is in all the Hauptbriefe. And new creation (which I take
to have social connotations - forming an alternative society) is
predicated on the resurrection of the crucified Christ, which subverts
existing social structures ("the world is crucified to me") and an
experience of the Spirit, which is what seems to relativize the
importance of Torah observance - though I agree that Paul ethic is very
much a summing up of Torah (Lev. 19:18).

Need to go to school but look forward to continuing the conversation.

Regards,
Ray Pickett




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page