Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

[Moon]
> >But Paul said that they actually complied with the pagan practices (Gal
> >4:8-10)
> >according to your interpretation. (Are you saying that they were just
> >considering it in their mind?)
> 
[Mark]
> Paul's ironic tone suggests that they have been considering this as 
> though it was the required response if they did not take up the other 
> option, proselyte conversion, which they knew that Paul opposed for 
> themselves. To what degree they may have done some withdrawing, like 
> Peter did at Antioch, is not clear, but the mere consideration is 
> sufficient for Paul's rebuke. The are considering both options, but 
> Paul opposes both, since they are no longer pagans, but not becoming 
> Jews/Israelites either.

[Moon]
Paul said "how is it that you are returning to the weak and poor
stoicheia?"
This statement means either that some actually returned to the stoicheia,
while the other did not determined their mind yet. Or it means that 
each one of them showed some symptom or signs that this process started,
though not yet completed. In either case, it is more than just
considering.
Assuming that returning to pagan practices was not just consideration, I
asked to myself, how could they choose returning to the pagan practices
rather than getting circumcised, which looked far more legitimate than
returning to pagan worship? When I asked this question, I tacitly assumed
that they heard that
they did not have to get circumcised to be children of Abraham, but did
not hear that they SHOULD NOT get circumcised because it undermines the
meaning of Christ. Under this assumption, getting circumcised WAS far more
legitimate than
returning to pagan practices. That is why it was so difficult for me to 
understand Gal 4:8-11 to mean that they were returning to the pagan
practices.

In your last message, HOWEVER, you said something which undermines my
tacit assumption: "proselyte conversion, which they knew that Paul opposed
for themselves". I did not assume that Paul prohibited proselyte
conversion explicitly when he taught them. Is there any evidence
that he explicitly prohibited proselyte conversion? Although Paul implies
that
that should have been obvious for them, he did not say that he did what he
prohibited expliclty.

If Paul explicitly prohibited proselyte conversion, then your theory makes
sense. They were pressed between two alternatives that they believed were
wrong. In that situation, it is quite possible that some inclined to
compromise toward proselyte conversion, whereas some inclined to
compromise toward
pagan practices. Some could have thought "getting circumcised is more
legitimate than returning to pagan practices, because the former is 
among what is commanded by God in the Law, while the latter was strictly
prohibited in the Law." The others could have thought "Paul the aposlte
of Christ prohibited proselyte conversion, because it undermines the
meaning of Christ's death. But I could comply with the pagan practices, as
long as I do not agree with them and keep my faith in Christ"

If I had been a Galatian believer and heard Paul's prohibition, I would
have
inclined to compromise toward pagan practices:-) I would not have
undermined the meaning of Christ's death.

In conclusion, as long as you show that Paul explicitly prohibited 
proselyte conversion, I would adopt your theory on Galatian situation.

Regards,
Moon      

Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Digital Media
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
   

 
  
> 
> Regards,
> Mark Nanos