Corpus-Paul

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

Dieter,
I am confused by your response, since I do not see that I have
misrepresented an element in your post to make the point that while you
avoid the idea that there was influence from outside of Galatia early, there
is influence appealed to later. So here I will highlight within your earlier
post to what I was reacting (it is at the end). If you find this is out of
order, please explain it to me, friend. For balance, I will also add my
positive comments on elements of your post. I believed that I had expressed
appreciation for the thrust of your post, but was trying to point out one
point I found inconsistent, because it seemed like it did not advance your
argument in the direction it had been going.

on 2/19/05 6:22 AM, Mitternacht Dieter at dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se
wrote:

> 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.

Good points.

> 
> 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.

You know I basically concur with those arguments.

> 
> 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.

Perfectly put. Here it is clear that there are no outsiders in you view.

> 
> 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.

Good point. I am not sure that they have accused Paul, but he at least
anticipates the objection to his message that they must resist, and explains
that he too has done that which he calls them to; even if he is an apostle,
he had to and has to often stand alone for this policy. Yet, in spite of
appearing independently standing for this policy, he is not, for the rest of
the apostles also stand for it, except when they waver. And when they do,
Paul let's them have it, just as he is letting the Galatians have it now.

> 
> 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! 

It is that statement that raised my criticism that you are introducing an
outside influence, "advice from Jerusalem" to "a situation in Galatia." No?

>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.

Well put.

Peace,
Mark