Corpus-Paul

["Mitternacht Dieter" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>]

Richard,


Richard wrote:
Let's first consider the possibility that Galatians was written during Paul's initial visit to Macedonia and Achaia. You agree that it is doubtful that an Galatian envoy would made the long journey to the Aegean or known where to find Paul. The other possibility is that Paul sent someone to Galatia to check up on the Galatians and that that someone returned to Paul and that Paul then sent someone with the letter. I find this equally unlikely. The churches in Macedonia and Achaia were small and new and from 1 Thess it seems that Paul's communications were infrequent even with the Aegean churches. There were enough local churches needing the attention of Paul and his very small team. Communication between Paul and Galatia is more likely during the later stages of his Aegean career, such as during his Ephesian period.

Dieter responds:
I have no definite opinion on the chronological order. I agree with you basically on the questions of probability, but as to when Paul had or had no means to send an envoy to Galatia, I don't think we can know. My point is simply, that it seems more plausible that Paul (being on the road) would send someone to Galatia, rather than the Galatian churches sending someone to him. On the other hand, during his two years in Ephesus contact back and forth is probable, as you say.

Richard:
However, as I said before, such a late date makes it difficult to account for the confusion in Galatia. Would anyone at that time have thought it plausible that Paul taught circumcision? I doubt it. Paul would have visited them two or three times by then. Furthermore, the apostles had known Paul's position on circumcision for many years (See Gal 2). And we are not justified in dismissing the evidence of Acts 21, which tells that Paul did have a reputation for opposing circumcision.

Dieter:
Depends on what you mean with reputation. Acts 21-22 involves many complicated issies which we cannot get into here. But in short, I believe Acts 21:17-ff refers to a reputation which James wants Paul to rebut since it is a false rumour. This, it seems to me is the point Luke is trying to make. And I think it is inagreement with Paul's letters too. Paul did not teach JEWS to abandon the Thora or circumcision. I am not implying that I think Acts is reliable in all of ch 21-22. But on this particular issue, I can see no reason why I should question the overall picture. The basic principle I am applying is 1) priority to Paul's letters; tempered by 2) alertness to Paul's own rhetorical stategies.

Richard:
Also, if Paul had sent an envoy to Galatia, as you suggest, Dieter, why did that envoy not simply clear up any confusion that the influencers had sown? Why did he not simply point out that Paul did not preach circumcision? And if the influencer had been in contact with the Jerusalem apostles AFTER the Gal 2 visit, as you suggest, why did the apostles not explain to them that Paul did not preach circumcision? I'm having difficulty reconciling 5:11 with your reconstruction, Dieter.

Dieter:
If it had just been a matter of clearing up a conceptual confusion..... I don't think so. I will not burden the list with reiterating my view of the crisis in Galatia again, but refer you to two of my articles in English instead. One is in the "Galatians Debate", ed. by M. Nanos, the other in vol 3 of Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures (4 vols). J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins (Eds). Praeger, 2004: 193-212.

Richard:
Partly for these reasons I prefer to place Galatians early. I am impressed by Longenecker's analysis. He writes that the influencers included in their presentation "the charges that Paul, as a matter of fact, actually did preach and practice circumcision, but that he withheld this more developed rite only so as to gain his converts' initial favorable response. Thus, in effect, he was more interested in winning their approval than God's approval (cf. 1:10), since he really did believe in circumcision...". This makes good sense. The influencers' false assumptions about Paul's position are understandable at a time when he had visited Galatia only once and was not well known in Judea (Gal 1:22) and had not even yet laid out his gospel to the apostles (Gal 2:2). I imagine that the influencers told the Galatian believers about the need for circumcision and that they remarked that Paul had not told them that they needed to be circumcised. To this the influencers replied that Paul had presumably decided not to burden them with too much too soon and that he would doubtless urge them to circumcise when he next visited.

 

Dieter:

It seems improbable to me that Paul would not have shared a major conviction with the Galatians already on his first visit there. In deed since in my view the issue is not circumcision as such but the reason for desiring it (i.e. avoiding persecution), I am quite positive that Paul thinks he has been very clear on the matter by vividly portraying the crcuiform life before their eyes (3:1, 4:12ff). Also, as I have mentioned before, I do not think we need outsiders to understand the problem in Galatia.

Richard:
Dieter wrote:
<<It seems plausible to me that the crisis in Galatia arose from socio-religious intra- and inter-group problems IN Galatia, and that support from Jerusalem was sought not because there was a conscious effort to oppose Paul, but maybe simply because (as you said yourself) Paul was harder to get in touch with than the Jerusalem apostles.>>

How do you explain why Paul proclaims his independence of the Jerusalem apostles?

Dieter:

The way I look at it, Paul did indeed express his independence, because he wanted to make sure to his readers in Galatia that HE would never vacillate just because he found himself in a tight spot. His message of weakness and crucifixion with Christ had apparently been mistaken for spinelessness. Paul makes sure to rebut that misconception beyond doubt. I believe that Gal 1:10 makes sense once you view ch's 1-2 from this point of view.

 

When Acts reports: "Let us not lay burdens on those Gentiles who turn to God...." (the historicity of which I find no reason to question, based on the approach mentioned above), Paul found the decision acceptable, since it meant for him that he could continue proclaiming that Gentiles were not to become Jews in order to partake of God's blessings to Israel in Christ.

 

However, "what is a burden" may shift from place to place. Suddenly we have a situation in Galatia where circumcision  of Gentile Christ-believers was considered lifting a burden. And so the advice from Jerusalem may have been: Go ahead! For Paul, however, this meant violating the most fundamental principle which says: We are imitators of the crucified Christ!! Never ever withdraw in order to make discipleship easier. I could list a number of passages from all of his letters to support the depth of this conviction, quite independent of - and, I think, prior to - the circumcision issue.

 

Dieter