Corpus-Paul

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

> Mark
> thanks for your patient explanations.
>
> > [Mark]
> > The addressees have considered the possibility that if they do not
> > comply with the terms of this other message of good they will need to
> > return to the lifestyle of Greek guests, and thus complying with
> > participation of those public expressions of idolatry that they as
> > Greeks are constrained to observe unless and until they become
> > proselyte candidates, that is, according to the prevailing norms of
> > both the Jewish and Greek communities apart from the Jewish subgroup
> > of believers in Christ.
>
> [Moon now]
>
> Why would some of them have considered this possibility? They would have
> believed that becoming proselytes and thereby becoming unquestionable
> children of Abraham was a far better choice! Going back to pagan practices
> would have made them feel guilty even if they were constrained to do it.
> That was what they deserted when they believed in Christ. But  getting
> circumcised would not create such guilty feeling. It was even commanded by
> God. So, getting circumcised would have been the best way to escape from
> the
> pagan social pressure and to remain to feel good. So I would like to know
> what would have been the motivation for them to returning to pagan
> practices?
[Mark now]

Read Gal. 2:11-21 and ask the same question of Peter; social pressure 
to save face with a rival court of reputation leads to behavior that 
"masks" his new faith in Christ and thus in gentile equality, even 
though he has experienced this new life as Peter the apostle of this 
movement, and still believes in Christ. Masking/hypocrisy means he 
has not changed his real face/beliefs, but covered them up for 
expedient social reasons (this is one issue that the traditional 
approaches obscure, assuming that Peter has changed his mind, not 
just covered up his mind). Compromising to get along, something we 
all face with competing courts of reputation.

Now turn to gentiles confused by all of this new stuff in entering 
into a new community subgroup with competing authority figures and 
norms, who wish to be accepted fully, and need to be in practical 
ways, such as employment and expression of religious life. The 
problem is not merely guilt as it might be for post-Enlightenment 
people (e.g., who might laugh at the bosses jokes, but don't embrace 
the sentiments; who might go with their parents to their place of 
worship, but don't embrace their faith, etc....), but life in 
community, with very clear understanding of the need to fit into the 
role society understands for them, in this case two different 
societies (Jewish and pagan), but both in agreement about their 
identity as "pagans" unless proselytes. Remember that Greeks believed 
that the entire community implicated each other if anyone or family 
failed to publicly express, e.g., worship of the imperial cult, 
fearing reprisals both in commercial and spiritual terms. The 
pressure to comply would be immense, unless they could appeal to a 
legitimate transformation of identity so that their failure to 
participate any longer was not a threat, since they were no longer 
fellow pagans, but now Jewish proselytes. Until then they would need 
to figure out how to "play" the game required of them, remaining 
friends of the Jewish community, but nevertheless pagans. Would one 
not have found similar social issues arising in say Korea not that 
many years ago if a young person became a Christian (when doing so 
was not common, and say, the issue of whom they would marry arose)?

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, 
or so they reason, until Paul undermines their assumptions in this 
letter!

Regards,
Mark Nanos