Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

I had written
> "Communication between Paul and Galatia is more likely during the later
> stages of his Aegean career, such as during his Ephesian period. 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?"

Mark responded:
> This "interpretive" move from Gal 5:11 is the first logical requirement of
> your hypothesis, but it is problematic. I initially found this suggested
> reading of the implications of 5:11 attractive too, and I think it arose
in
> the 80's in the work of Howard, Crisis in Galatia, if I remember right.
> Before that it was not the general reading of the implications, for what
> that is worth. But that is not why I find it suspect. I simply want to
point
> out that this reading, which your argument requires here, is not self
> evident.
>
> I think that Paul's rhetorical point is not raised because someone now
> states or accuses him of "still" proclaiming proselyte conversion (i.e.,
> circumcision) in Gal 5:11. There are two other implications I think are
> stronger. One, that he had proclaimed it before his vocational change to a
> non-proselyte converter to the nations (see 1:13-16) (I am not inclined to
> think he is referring to earlier in his Christ-proclaiming ministry, but
> that too is an option for the interpreter to explore; see discussions in
> Donaldson's Paul and the Gentiles). And two, that he is expressing the
> policy of resistance in his own ministry to which he is calling his
> addressees. For he could escape the pressure in his life if he observed
the
> conventional way to incorporate Gentiles as full-members by "still"
> proclaiming circumcision, just as they are being influenced to believe
they
> could avoid the pressure in their life if they would but undertake the
> conventional route of proselyte conversion (it is "still" available to
them,
> and appears to represent "good news" in this sense).
>
> >From Paul's point of view, as expressed in ironic rebuking terms here, it
is
> no more "still" available to them to become proselytes than it is "still"
> available to him to proclaim it--that option is gone with the coming of
> Jesus Christ.
>
> If this interpretation is accepted, since I believe it more probable than
> the one that you cite, then you do not have the basis for the rest of the
> hypothesis as expressed in the post to which I respond. Now what remains
> available to ascertain how Paul learned of the situation, where, or when?

My point is that there was confusion in Galatia and that the confusion is
more likely to have occured soon after Paul's first visit than at a later
date. I cited 5:11, but there are other cases of confusion, so my argument
does not rest on 5:11 alone. Let's look at 5:11, though. James Dunn lists 6
distinct interpretations of this verse, all of which involve the Galatians
having a misunderstanding of Paul's position, I think, so they all argue
against a late date for the letter.

Dunn's prefered interpretation is the view that the influencers accused Paul
of being inconsistent: "that although he preached a circumcision-free gospel
to the Galatians, he continued to 'preach circumcision' among the Jews". I
disagree with Dunn here. Firstly, Dunn's view requires that Paul did not
preach circumcision among the Jew, but this is doubtful. Secondly, and more
importantly, I don't think it fits the context of 5:2-12. The passage
concerns the issue of circumcision of GENTILE Galatians, not Jews. Thirdly,
5:11 is followed by Paul's shocking remark that he wishes the influencers
would castrate themselves. Clearly the issue at stack in 5:11 is one that
made Paul's blood boil. The supposed accusation that Paul preached
circumcision to JEWS can hardly account for Paul's venom in 5:12. Jews were
already circumcised and it is rather the issue of circumcision for Gentiles
that got Paul so heated. I therefore believe that in 5:11 Paul is denying
that he preached circumcision for gentiles. The influencers had mistakenly
assumed that Paul believed in gentile circumcision, at least as a final step
in the conversion process. Dunn rejects this view, writing that, "it is
difficult to believe that the terms of Paul's gospel to the Gentiles were
not better known among those who counted circumcision important." But Dunn
here presupposes a relatively late date for the letter. If the influencers
were at work in Galatia before the meeting of Acts 15 and before the events
of Gal 2:1-14, as I believe, then it is actually LIKELY that they would have
been ignorant of Paul's PRINCIPLED opposition to the necessity of
circumcision of Gentiles. The gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles is
layed before the Jerusalem church leaders for the first time in Gal 2:2. If
even they had not previously had it explained to them, there is no reason to
suppose that the influencers would have been familiar with Paul's
principles.

Mark, you have offered a very different interpretation of 5:11. I find your
writing style difficult to follow so I am not sure that I have understood
your interpretation. I think you are saying that Paul wishes to say, "I take
a stand against circumcision and am persecuted as a result, so you should
follow my example in opposing circumcision at whatever cost". I have some
serious reservations about this interpretation of 5:11. Firstly, I do not
see how it explains the wording of 5:11. Why does Paul not simply say what
he meant? It is hard to see how the Galatians can have been expected to
extract this meaning from the words written in 5:11. Secondly, there is
nothing in the context about persecution. Paul is writing to those who want
to be justified by the law (5:4) and, while there may have been external
pressures on them, this is not the theme of 5:2-12. In this passage Paul is
worried about the PERSUASION of the influencers. He is not here concerned
with any PRESSURE that they might have exerted. Thirdly, I don't think that
Paul can be giving his own life's experiences as an example for the readers
to follow. If the were, the Galatians would simply reply, "Just because you
are persecuted for your beliefs, that does not mean that we should be
persecuted too". The Galatians were not followers of Paul exclusively.
Paul's authority in Galatia was not so strong that the Galatian believers
would accept persecution just because Paul did. I have the same reservation
about your interpretation of Gal 2:1-14, Mark. But I may have misuderstood
you.

I have two questions for Mark.

Can you explain why the Galatian situation arose only in Galatia? If the
influencers are homegrown Galatians, why do we not see a similar situation
develop in Thessalonica, for example? Why Galatia only? Why did Paul not
have to write similar letters to other churches that he founded?

 Doesn't your reading of Galatians require that it was written soon after
Paul's founding visit to the region in question? Why would your home-grown
influencers sprout up at a later date if they did not sprout up earlier?

Richard.