Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

on 7/9/03 2:46 PM, Matthew Baldwin at baldwin AT apocryphum.com wrote:

>  But something about Martin's argument left me wanting some
> clarification or left me wanting to disagree slightly...

> 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.

Matthew,
To this point I agree that this aspect (reaching ahead to your quote: "He
does not contemplate the Galatians returning to pagan belief and practice.
THAT is unthinkable") of Martin's argument is not convincing. In fact, I
strongly disagree with Martin (discussed in Irony of Galatians). I have
challenged the idea that the addressees are in any way considering turning
away from Christ. I have also challenged the idea that the influencers in
any way correlate circumcision to Christ-faith.

But I note that this aspect is not required to consider the issue to be a
pagan time-keeping scheme, which I have used to a very different conclusion
than Martin. I do not think that the addressees are considering a move away
from Christ, but that they are seeking a way to resolve the social identity
and related issues that arise because they believe in Christ but remain
non-proselytes, yet claim not to be pagans either. Thus they are considering
proselyte conversion alongside faith in Christ. The only other alternative
they are being told is available is to keep some of the pagan observances
along with their faith in Christ, since merely pagan guests, a proposition
that is probably not very appealing and they recognize is fundamentally not
available to them as Christ-believers according to Paul's gospel. If so,
Paul uses this point, but it is not probably the real temptation they face.

>  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.

Sorry, but this is not "clear enough" to me. I do not think that Paul is
"opposing their adopting _Jewish_ways of life under the Torah" at all. The
issue is circumcision, they "want" the "good news" resolution offered by the
message of proselyte conversion, not behavior for those who have already
become proselytes--a rhetorical and historical distinction I believe is
important but that your statement does not distinguish, with significant
results for interpretation. Note that 5:3 strongly implies that it is not
observing Jewish ways of life but becoming Jews that is on offer and that
they "want," but they are not considering the resultant obligations as
highly as the admission.

By the way, I also argue that Martin misses the point when he trivializes
circumcision as an on the spot snip. It signifies the completion of a rite
of passage, a generally lengthy and weighty decision and process then, one
can assume, as it has been since.

> The letter founds its argument against the law on the notion that Torah
> observance in general entails abandoning Christ.

I also disagree here. I do not see that anywhere. Issue is not against Torah
observance, but against proselyte conversion. That is something else. And
becoming proselytes to gain standing (as children of Abraham) logically
undermines that standing which the gospel claims they have already in Christ
(as children of Abraham), thus it is so bad for them, subverting their
present state.

>...passing over several comments...
> 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.

Again, your argument depends upon an issue of Torah observance, which I do
not see at issue.

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Co-Moderator
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/nanosmd/