Corpus-Paul

[Matthew Baldwin <baldwin AT apocryphum.com>]

Dear Mark (Given), Mark (Nanos), and Mark (Goodacre):

I can't resist jumping in here.  And I'd like to know what arguments you
fine scholars would marshal against my formulation of the conventional view.

Troy is a friend of mine and I really enjoyed his article,

> Troy W. Martin, "The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis
> 17.9-14) and the  Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3.28", _JBL_
> 122 (2003), pp. 111-125.

finding that the basic idea about the connection of the language of Gal.
3:28 to the language of the Genesis circumcision covenant language was
sound.  But something about Martin's argument left me wanting some
clarification or left me wanting to disagree slightly; I wish I had a copy
of the text here with me (on vacation at the beach) so that I could be more
specific.  (If I'm permitted to, I will send along my thoughts hoping for
some response from y'all when I get back to North Carolina in two weeks).

This note is about 4:10.  What do you all make of this series of claims:

I just can't accept the reading of Gal. 4:10 as a "return to pagan
time-keeping."  Martin's argument--forgive me if I get this wrong since I
don't have the piece with me--is that circumcision is basically unthinkable,
so that some or all of the formerly pagan Gentiles would rather go back to
their pagan ways than get cut for God.  Thus Paul's letter is an assurance
that they don't have to get circumcised, so they don't have to abandon
Christ.  They're free and they shouldn't listen to those nasty cutters.

But I think that position is pleading, and unnecessarily complex.  The
overall context of Gal. is clear enough; Paul speaks to former _pagans_ who
have received his kerygma and the spirit, opposing their adopting _Jewish_
ways of life under the Torah, which they seem to WANT to do.  He does not
contemplate the Galatians returning to pagan belief and practice.  THAT is
unthinkable.

The letter founds its argument against the law on the notion that Torah
observance in general entails abandoning Christ.  In other words, Paul's
argument presumes that his readers would not consider abandoning faith in
Christ.  He presumes that the threat that they would be cut off from Christ
would be enough to convince them to take a different path.  Paul does not
feel the need to argue that it is bad to reject Christ, and of course, he
assumes as a point of common ground that  they would never make such a
mistake.  This is an argument about HOW to be Christian.

Virtually all of the statements and claims of the letter work as an argument
attempting to persuade away from the authority of the Torah.  If there was a
pronounced split among the Galatians, some becoming Jews and others
returning to paganism, then Paul's letter would likely have revisited as
well his arguments against pagan worship and idolatry--at length--and
describe more fully the slavery of life under Zeus et al.   But there is
nothing of this, except, some argue, Gal. 4:10.

M view of Gal. 4:10 is essentially commonplace, though I hope this argument
here is focused and forceful.  Paul relies on a perception of equivalence
between Jewish temporal observances and pagan temporal observances.  Hence
adopting something "new" is actually a return.   But for Paul this "return"
is worse than apostasy.  The comparison entails an unbalanced equilibrium;
Paul is making an "out of the frying pan and into the fire" kind of argument
here.  It appeals to the Galatians' already confirmed rejection of their
former lives as a basis from which to secure their solid rejection of a
not-yet-adopted future life under the Torah.

The fact that Paul nowhere reports receiving monies from the Galatians for
his collection for Jerusalem suggests to me not that the Galatians went back
to paganism, but that they weren't afraid of the knife, and that their
inevitable donations ultimately went through other channels, depriving Paul
of their glory.

Matthew Baldwin
Mars Hill College
Mars Hill, NC