Corpus-Paul

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

Several conversation partners have been probing the construction of 
the situation I am suggesting at work in Galatia to make sense of 
Paul's language in Galatians. A good example of the kind of tensions 
that might arise in a pagan social situation in which a minority 
Jewish community functions in compliance with prevailing norms is 
portrayed by Luke in Acts 19:23-41.

In this case Demetrius, a silversmith, creates a riot over the 
perceived threat to his trade and the goddess of the city, Artemis, 
and thus to the city, with whom their fortunes are linked. Demetrius 
understands Paul to be drawing pagans away from the worship of 
Artemis. And he understands Paul to represent the larger Jewish 
community's interests. We do not know what Alexander, the person put 
forward to speak for the Jewish community to the upset crowd, was 
going to say, since the pagan crowd was further incited by the sight 
of him. But the town clerk who steps in (on his behalf?) implies that 
the Jewish community has no interest in threatening the place of the 
goddess or the city's interests in her worship, and thus the cities 
reputation, and it is fair to assume that Alexander was going to say 
the same. Now, consider...

What if Alexander had just met with Paul's pagan "guests" and learned 
that they were appealing to their rights as believers in Jesus Christ 
to abstain from giving honor to Artemis, in fact, maybe even to 
denounce her role in a way running against the very comments the city 
clerk has given to quite the fears of the riotous crowd. Would 
Alexander or the other leaders of this minority Jewish community wish 
to legitimate the claims of these "pagans" unless these people had 
expressed their intention to become proselytes, members of the Jewish 
community? Or would the leaders "fear persecution for the cross of 
Christ," since the meaning of this act to which these "pagans" appeal 
is not shared by themselves (but only by a suspect new subgroup begun 
by someone travelling through town), and since the result of doing so 
could have such negative consequences for the interests and safety of 
the entire Jewish community with which they are naturally concerned? 
Then would they not present these "pagan" believers in this Jewish 
Christ-figure with the alternative of either not threatening their 
interests by continuing to do what they should do as pagans while 
behaving appropriately when seeking the company of the Jewish 
community as friends/guests, or beginning the ritual process of 
proselyte conversion, so that they could substantiate their claim to 
non-pagan identity? I propose that this last alternative is the 
"other message of good" that Paul now confronts in the letter, for it 
is a threat indeed, since the addressees may see it as a 
complimentary necessity to their belief in Jesus Christ in order to 
make the identity transition from pagan identity according to both 
prevailing Jewish and pagan communal norms. He also ridicules 
consideration of the former alternative, for they cannot possibly 
think they can return to idolatry after they have become known by the 
One God, can they?

These are the political issues of expedience that arise with regard 
to matters of religion in the period we are discussing. The question 
is whether the textual clues in such passages as 1:6-7; 3:1-5; 
4:8-10; 5:1-6:10; 6:12-17, to which I have appealed throughout this 
conversation, substantiate the construction I propose.

Does this make my proposal any clearer? What do you think?

Regards,
Mark Nanos