Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] The journey and identity of the influencers in Galatians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The journey and identity of the influencers in Galatians
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:12:38 -0600

on 1/13/04 1:12 AM, Richard Fellows at rfellows AT shaw.ca wrote:

> I see, but the questions concerning Timothy and Acts 16 have an import
> impact on your areas of interest, so I do not think you can duck the issues.

Richard,
I find this kind of comment disappointing from a discussion participant. Why
assume someone who does not want to do what you want to do is ducking the
issues? Good grief. OK. I'll answer why things are not to me as they
apparently seem to be to you. But that is all I care to say at the moment on
this matter. I have other things engaging my research efforts at this time
for reasons more noble than you are apparently able to grant.

> In particular, I think there are some important indications in Acts 16 that
> the influencers in Galatians were Christ-believers. I'll explain why.
>
> We have 5 possible 'sightings' of the influencers and they follow a simple
> chronological and geographical trajectory.
>
> 1. We first come across them in Jerusalem in Gal 2:4-5. (This probably
> corresponds to Acts 15)

I do not think we come across the influencers in Galatia in Jerusalem, and
have argued this in detail in Irony of Galatians. Also, I do not think it
"probable" that these two accounts correspond, although it is "possible." So
are at least 4 other scenarios of which I am aware.

> 2. Next we see them in Antioch (Gal 2:12). (presumably this is after the Gal
> 2:4-5 sighting)

I do not think we see the influencers in Galatia in Antioch; again, I have
argued this in Irony in detail.

> 3. Then we detect their presence in south Galatia in Acts 16:3.

I do not detect the presence of the influencers in Galatia in Acts 16:3.

There are
> many reasons to believe that Timothy was from Syrian Antioch (whether he was
> Titus or not).

I have read your post and do not agree that there are many reasons to
believe this, although it is an interesting "possibility," yet one among
many, since we do not have much data to work with on this question.

>Therefore someone must have told the Jews in south Galatia
> that Timothy's father had been a Greek.

I see no basis for "must have" to arise in your case, certainly not since I
accept only a "possible" for the qualifying argument.

>Probably it was the influencers.

"Probably" it was not.

> 4. The presence of the influencers in Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia would neatly
> explain why Paul did not preach there (Acts 16:6-8) (see my email of 7th Dec
> 2003).

I do not know where else Paul preached other than Luke or Paul mentions that
he preached, but I think it is logical in the many years of his travel and
preaching that it included many places that are not mentioned by either in
the extant evidence.

> 5. The influencers influenced the Galatians (north or south). This is
> obvious from the letter. This may have been on their return journey from
> Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia.

Or not.

>
> Now, what is interesting about the possible 'sightings' is that they line up
> so well both geographically and chronologically. The influencers started
> from Jerusalem (Gal 2:4-5) and went via Antioch (Gal 2:12) and south Galatia
> (Acts 16:3) to Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6-8), before returning via
> Galatia (Gal generally).

Since each of these points is not probable in my view, and several not even
likely in my view, I do not grant any aspect of this statement.

> When taken individually these 'sightings' can only
> be considered possible glimpses, but when taken together their temporal and
> spatial coherence makes them highly probable.

We use language like "can only be considered" and "highly probable"
differently, and in this case, in my view, they do not apply.

> There are three further points
> which I think confirm the sequence.
> a) If the 'false brothers' (influencers) had already decided to make a
> journey through Paul's territory, this would neatly explain why they were
> brought into the apostles' meeting. This fits well with the proposed
> sequence, in which the influencers left Jerusalem shortly after the meeting
> of Gal 2.

I do not think the "false brothers" in Jer. were the influencers in Galatia
or made any such journey, and it is not stated in Galatians that whoever
arrived in Antioch came from Jerusalem (although likely, since in some way
associated with James), or that this was "shortly after the meeting" there.

> b) If the proposed trajectory is correct, Paul would have visited south
> Galatian twice before the writing the letter, and this makes good sense of
> the PROTERON in Gal 4:13.

But I do not think that the proposed trajectory is correct or even likely; I
think it is highly unlikely. I also do not think that PROTERON in Gal 4:13
implies two journeys.

> c) When travelling through south Galatia the second time (Acts 16:1-6) Paul
> would have had the opportunity to warn the Galatians about what the
> influencers might teach them when they returned from Lydia, Mysia and
> Bithynia via south Galatia. This Gal 1:9 "As we have said before, so now I
> repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you
> received...."

Should be no need for me to comment on this speculation by this point.

> Let's now discuss the identity of the influencers. Were they
> non-Christ-believing Jews from Galatia, or where they Christ-believing Jews
> from Jerusalem?

If you wish to set out all of the "possibilities," these are only the start.
And the identities of the influencers for Jerusalem, for Antioch, and for
Galatia (north or south) must each be discussed. I have explained why in
detail in Irony. Paul does not use the same language to refer to them in
each case, and does not describe them in the same ways.

In short, I think that in each case (Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia) it is
local representatives of the traditional position (who have nothing to do
with each other, although some link between Jer. and Antioch is possible in
the narrative of Gal. 2, but these are not related to the influencers in
Galatia, who are local Galatians, just like the addressees), that non-Jews
seeking full membership standing in Jewish subgroups need to become
proselytes; otherwise, they remain guests, however welcome.

> 1. As I have said, it would make sense for Christ-believing Jewish
> missionaries, who were just about to travel through Antioch and south
> Galatia, to be brought into the meeting where Paul presented his gospel.

Perhaps it would make sense, but your point assumes such missionaries
existed and were going to Antioch and south (or north) Galatia, which, as
far as the evidence under discussion goes, is under dispute.

> They would be expected to be interested in hearing what Paul had to say. If,
> on the other hand, the 'false brothers' were Jews visiting from Galatia, it
> is very hard to explain why they were brought into the meeting.

First, I have argued that the alternative for Galatia differently than you
allow: the identity of the influencers in Galatia are not Jews visiting from
Galatia but local Galatians under whose influence the members of Paul's
subgroups find themselves because their groups are Jewish subgroups, and
thus, under the influence of the majority (minority) Jewish communal
leadership. Second, I do not believe that the "false brothers" in Jerusalem
have any connection with the influencers in Galatia, however each is
identified. Third, I have no problem explaining why they "came" into the
meeting uninvited (which is what I take Paul to mean, that they intruded). I
think they (in Jerusalem) were in some way inspectors or vigilantes
representing the interests of groups who did not share Christ-faith with
this coalition and who were checking out the policies of these (relatively
new minority) Jewish groups in Jerusalem (perhaps in a way similar to what
is described in Acts 5, to put it in terms you should appreciate).

> 2. In Gal 2:12 we read of men from James. This is well known evidence that
> the people in question were Christ-believers.

It is often repeated, but I do not think it is "known," just believed,
sometimes argued, probably for most just assumed. I have argued that they
are not in Irony, the an article on the Antioch Incident in The Galatians
Debate, and in an essay (paper presented in '97) forthcoming (in a Brill
volume on Paul and his opponents) on the Jerusalem meeting.

> 3. Acts 16:3 does not directly mention the influencers (Luke carefully
> avoids them), and tells us nothing about their identity. It does, however,
> confirm the proposed trajectory.

Again, we work with differently historical methodologies. I do not know what
Luke "carefully avoids" because I do not know what he knows, just what I
think that what he writes means. Maybe he knows nothing about their identity
in the terms you offer, just as I do not. It hardly "confirms" anything.

> 4. The fact that the people in question were Christ-believers is confirmed
> by the 'sighting' in Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia. Paul did not preach there
> because he did not want to preach were Christ was already known. Only
> Christ-believers can be in view in this 'sighting'.

I do not understand this/these comments, but I think sufficient
qualification of the above points makes it unnecessary to comment, except to
repeat that you are able to know things (what can and cannot be) about
motives that my historical methodology does not permit me to know.

> So, the influencers were almost certainly Christ-believers.

So they were not.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page