Corpus-Paul

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

> [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