Corpus-Paul

[iscott2 AT uwo.ca]

Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful responses to my critique of Nanos. I'll 
respond
in turn:

1) You suggest that Paul could characterize non-Christ-believing Jews as
preaching a "Gospel" because the term euangellion is used in the Greco-Roman
period for other kinds of "good news," beside the Christian message. This is,
of course, quite true. The difficulty I see here, however, is that this would
be the *only* place in which Paul used the term (and he uses it a lot!) to
refer to anything other than the Christian message. The word euangellion is
such a technical term for Paul that I think our default reading should be to
understand it as meaning "the Christian message" in Galatians 1 as well. I
think we could only legitimately adopt one of the wider meanings of the term 
if
we were faced with compelling evidence that Paul must not be using the word in
his usual manner, and we do not see such compelling evidence in Galatians.

2) This default understanding of euangellion language extends, then, to the
verbs for "proclaiming good news" in 1:8, so that those whom Paul curses are
those who are proclaiming the Christian message. The term "teachers" which I
used to describe this role could be replaced by "preachers," but Paul is
talking about people presenting to the Galatians a version of the Christian
message. I'm not sure why this does not qualify as "teaching."

3) Thank you, Jeff, for refreshing my memory on the details of Nanos' argument
regarding 6:12. My basic objection still applies, though, if try to understand
Paul as referring to intra-Jewish pressures on certain agents of
boundary-maintenance arising from the inclusion of non-compliant members. The
question is still why Paul would isolate "Christ's cross" as the cause of
pressure on these influencers. Surely it would make more sense, in Nanos'
scenario, for Paul to say they were trying to avoid being persecuted for
uncircumcision or something like that.

4) Jeff, you suggest that "those who desire to read the influencers as
Christ-believers have an obligation to show why the non-circumcision of the
addressees increases in a meaningful way the risk of persecution 'for the 
Cross
of Christ.'" This is, in a sense, my own argument in reverse. Does Paul's
statement in 6:12 become any *more* explicable if the influencers are
Christ-believers? I think it does, though (as the commentaries attest) there
are several different approaches here. One which I think is fruitful is the
suggestion (following Bo Reicke, etc.) that as 66CE approached the atmosphere
in the Jewish areas of the Levant became increasingly intolerant of deviations
from traditional Jewish obervance and identity. This may well have meant that
followers of a failed Messianic claimant, of one who had been judged by God
(since that was a common understanding of crucifixion) felt themselves in a
vulnerable position. This position could have been further compromised by
rumors that other followers of this cursed man were teaching that Gentiles
could become part of the people of God without adopting full Torah observance.
Such a situation could make sense of a) why such Jewish believers would be
concerned to make sure that Gentile converts became fully and obviously 
Jewish;
and b) why Paul could characterize their concern as a fear of persecution for
the "cross of Christ." The (perceived) danger arose in large part from the
nature of their leader and their claims about him, not only from the
non-observance of Gentiles.

5) You seem to suggest that Paul would be willing to tolerate a violation of
Torah observance for the sake of the good of "the weak," and that this 
explains
his approval of Jews living ethnikws in Antioch. Yet this situational approach
to Torah-observance would not have been considered observance at all by most
Jewish groups in the first century. One is not keeping Torah if one abandons 
it
periodically for the sake of maintaining community harmony (or whatever other
situational motive). If we concede that Paul himself practiced the kind of
flexible observance you describe, then we must also say that he was no longer
"observant" in a sense which most first century Jews would have found
meaningful. His periodic return to Torah-based practices would not suddenly
make him observant.

6) You suggest that when I say Paul denies the covenant blessings to
non-Christ-believing Jews my Paul seems "anti-Jewish." Yet is this description
not highly anachronistic? Paul himself is Jewish, as are many of the members 
of
his communities. There is no question here of being "anti-Jewish," but rather
of insisting that Jews must do certain things in order to inherit the covenant
blessings. This is precisely the kind of thinking which we see at Qumran, in
their conviction that only the Yahad will inherit the messianic age. If Paul
thought that Christ-faith was necessary for salvation, he was following the
same kind of logic which many other Jewish sectarians of his day followed.

7) As for the logic of the Hagar/Sarah allegory, it is true that both
women/cities represent "covenants." Yet Paul explicitly says that the
Hagar/present Jerusalem covenant is bound for "slavery." While we might see in
the Genesis story a positive inheritance for Ishmael, that is not how most
first-century Jews read the story. Moreover, it is only the Sarah group which
inherits the "Jerusalem from above." Given that this "heavenly Jerusalem" 
motif
is a common way of talking about Israel's eschatological restoration, I don't
see how we can avoid the idea that for Paul only believers in Christ will
inherit Israel's eschatological restoration. This is precisely why, for Paul,
it is so imperative that the Galatians not become Torah-observant converts.
Such conversion to traditional Judaism would, for the Apostle, mean they had
fallen away from God's grace (5:2-6) and forfeited their salvation. I don't 
see
how he could say this if other non-Christ-believing Jews were destined to
inherit that blessing.

Thanks again for the stimulating conversation,

Ian.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian W. Scott
Lecturer in Religious Studies
King's University College (at the University of Western Ontario)
email: iscott2 AT uwo.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit my web-site at http://www.ian-w-scott.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------