Corpus-Paul

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

Moon wrote:

> 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.

Moon,
Paul taught them the good news of Christ, and this seems to be an essential feature of his good news. It is implied throughout the letter that he had taught them earlier essentially what he now asserts so strongly in the letter. Particular passages mention that this is a reminder, such as 1:9 [as we said before, so now I say again], 13; 4:19-20; 5:3 [I testify again], 7 [you were running well], 21 [I warn you as I warned you before]. Also 1:6: "I am surprised that you are so quickly defecting from the one who called you in grace to another message of good," implies that the good news of Christ they had learned was set out in terms of grace to them as non-Jews, in the context of his argument, and see this when picked-up in 3:1-5 (by faith apart from proselyte conversion). I think 5:3 alone would suffice for the matter at hand if there was no textual question: "I testify again that every one who receives circumcision is obliged to observe the whole Law."

> [Moon wrote}
> 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.

Moon,
I hope the above evidence has been sufficient to show that the addressees already knew that there was a problem with proselyte conversion for themselves. In addition it is implied in that Paul uses ironic rebuke, which is based upon a shared appreciation of a norm in question. I have mentioned several times that Paul treats them like teenagers caught trying to rationalize their way out of a tight spot created by what they know but want to find a way around because of social consequences with their peers, so they try to have it both ways (which can work until mom/dad [i.e., Paul] finds out. But these factors involve longer arguments, and I believe the above makes the point without them.

Regards,
Mark Nanos