Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: mitzvot in Galatians?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: mitzvot in Galatians?
  • Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:02:10 -0500


Dear Doug and list,
You have brought up two very interesting things in your post. One around the issue of Jewish mitsvah/ot, the other around implications for imagining the situation of Galatians. [Anyone think I would skip this one?!]

To oversimplify an issue that has a long history and a variety of interpretive views, there is a sense in which doing mitzvot is a Jewish colloquial turn of phrase for doing good deeds: to do a mitzvah, for it is the proper/generous thing to do, yet its purpose and meaning are variously interpreted (there is of course always more than one "Jewish" interpretation). And there is the more formal sense of Torah "commandments," divine imperatives, if you will, the 613 mitzvot. There are Biblical and rabbinic mitzvot, and new ones created to deal with new situation that arise as the world turns (halakhot: rules for living). The doing of righteousness was not invented after the Temple was destroyed, and one need but read the prophets to see the values of such "right" living at the heart of their appeals. There were developments after the destruction of the Temple to be sure, but mitzvot apart from the sacrificial system were not suddenly created, but invested with additional meaning. It is the basis for the NT concerns as well; if you belong to God, the right One, what else would you do but what is right? The issue Paul addresses in Galatians, for example, is a question of whether the gentiles are counted among the righteous ones of God, if they belong to God and those whom God "knows" in the same way as Jewish people do, apart from becoming proselytes (Jews).

Which begs the other question: What might this have to do with Galatians? I appreciate the spirit of the question Doug poses, for unlike much writing on those whom Paul so vehemently opposes in this letter, he imagines the possibility of considering the motives and actions of these people on their own terms as perhaps noble. This is seldom found in the history of interpretation of this letter (if ever?), even in supposedly historical critical works. They seem rather to internalize Paul's polemical vantage point against the threatening other, and write only of these people as though intentionally troublemakers, agitators, opponents, "judaizers" (although a mistaken use of language [it refers properly to people who become Jewish and not those who promote this] with a ideological negative implication toward Jewishness), among other labels and descriptions which prejudice, prior to interpreting the letter, the portrait that might emerge from the text if actually approached in a historical critical manner. Their attraction to the addressees should at least give historically-oriented interpreters pause, and this is to be commended in Doug's question. What did they object to among Paul's gentile addressees? Indeed, a noble Jewish impulse is implied, to become whom they claim and wish to be on the dominant group's terms (though itself a minority in such a Diaspora location).

I suggest that the letter indicates it was not the addressees' failure to behave appropriate to their standing among those whom are influencing them, i.e., a failure of doing good deeds, whether in the formal sense of living a Jewish life according to their interpretation of the commandments, or in the colloquial sense of doing good deeds, which perhaps, as posed in Doug's question, is a bit anachronistic for Paul's period. I suppose that if Jewish people were influencing them to become proselytes these gentiles were already behaving and expressing interest in behaving "righteously" according to the measure expected of them in their current standing as gentile "guests" of some sort. The issue is that they are claiming more for themselves than this standing: on the basis of Paul's teaching they believe that they are already to be counted among the righteous ones of God apart from becoming the righteous ones of God according to the prevailing inclusive norms for accomplishing this task, i.e., proselyte conversion. This would be confusing according to prevailing Jewish norms (as far as we are aware), and suggest to them that these gentiles wish to become proselytes.

Yet, if the issue was as Doug wonders, then why would Paul warn the addressees not to fail to recognize that this status transformation involves more than gaining indisputable acceptance on these influential people's terms, but it involves the responsibility to "observe the whole Torah" (5:3)? This and other comments suggest that the issue then is not one of how they are or are not behaving (a question of mitzvot), but who they are or are not (a question of identity) according to the group norms of those with whom they are interacting in Galatia, versus who they are according to the group norms established on the gospel of Christ within Paul's group. Thus Paul ridicules the addressees' failure to recognize that what is at stake is whether they are or are not already "known by God" and recipients of God's Spirit (cf. 3:1-5; 4:8-10), and thus Abraham's children, heirs according to promise; in other words, equal members among the historical righteous ones of God (i.e., Israelites) with the dawning of the age to come in Christ (a new creation community of Israel and the nations as one humanity worshipping the One Creator God, as expected in the age to come).

So it is a conflict of identity, not behavior per se. As gentiles it is unlikely that Jewish people responding to them considered the addressees obliged to live as though Jewish proselytes. But it appears that the gentile addressees have been led to expect to have a standing as more then mere gentile guests, as fellow-members in full standing with these Jewish people, as though proselytes without becoming such. This suggests an intra- or inter-group conflict between Jewish groups within the context of Jewish norms for identity of non-Jewish people seeking more than mere guests standing (I have an SBL paper posted with C-Paul on this topic).

In summary, the exigence is created by the addressees (because of their belief in Paul's proclamation of good news), not those influencing them. This corresponds with that which Doug's question seeks to understand as a possible cause; I just define the exigence, or "urgency of moment," differently than he has posed it, in terms of identity instead of lifestyle. The distinction between these for defining the issue in Galatia seems to be missed in prevailing interpretations of Galatians.

Regards,
Mark Nanos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page