Rick Sumner

Mulling over Galatians in the light of another thread, I found myself musing over Paul's shift between Galatians and Romans. This shift is usually attributed to a change in audience, which I certainly wouldn't contest plays a role. Another part is probably played by a genuine change of heart, a la Sanders.

But I don't think either of these can really account for what is, in many respects, a fairly dramatic shift. Can we account for it better by assuming that Paul lost the Galatian church to the "other gospel?"

Perhaps more importantly, can we conclude from the shift that Paul himself felt that, at least in some respects, he lost the debate?

Or is another explanation perhaps more satisfactory?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

I would not hesitate to read through what Mark Goodacre has blogged about the epistle to the Galatians. He has two entries called Paul's loss of Galatia and another series called Were the Galatians already circumcised?.

Ben.

Rick Sumner

Good to see I'm in good company with my speculation! Thanks for the heads up, more after I read it.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Does Goodacre make the case? Did Paul lose Galatia?

As an aside, I also read a snazzy paper once (by Bauckham, I believe), that argued that Paul's opponent was Barnabas, but that's for another thread, methinks. Though it might be germane here, since it provides an avenue for Paul to have plausibly been persuaded, laying the groundwork for his shift in Romans.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

After reading Goodacre, I am inclined to think so. But I am not completely certain.

What shift in particular are you referring to? Do you think Paul changed his mind on circumcising gentiles??

Ben.

Rick Sumner

Paul's stance on the Law is decidedly more sympathetic in Romans, as is his stance on ethnic Israel in general. In Galatians he sees no real benefit to being "Jewish" (for wont of a better term), and it's always cast in a negative light to be bound by the Law. Ethnic Israel has, for Paul, been supplanted. Now it's God's Israel (6.16), which included both Israelite and Gentile. This has switched in Romans. The advantage to circumcision is "much in every way" (3.2)

Paul's message has essentially shifted from one where God intends to save all who believe (loosely, there are some qualifiers) simply for the sake of saving them, to one where God will save all who believe (still loosely) for the sake of saving ethnic Israel.

This salvation for all Israel (Rom.11.26) would sit very oddly in Galatians. It's an addition to Paul's message of salvation and the plan that he feels has been revealed to him that is largely at odds with what he preached previously.

So the question is, why? The usual speel about a change of audience doesn't cut it for me. If Paul feels his audience is wrong, he'll say so. We've seen him do it many times. So a genuine change of heart almost has to be the driving force behind it. I suspect that change might owe itself to getting his ass kicked in Galatia.

Romans is just more "pro-Jewish" for lack of a better description.

Nope.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Okay, this is the main thing I was after.

I do not think the situation in Galatians reflects this last sentence of yours very well. Paul is writing to gentiles; gentiles are the only audience in Galatians that Paul can accuse of being wrong. And Paul is certainly doing that. They are wrong because they are pursuing the law; but very little if anything is said about whether Paul would be saying the same thing to Jews seeking to pursue the law. Galatians 2.14 is really the only hint in this direction, and its prima facie meaning (to wit, that Cephas is a Jew who now regularly lives like a gentile) has been questioned. (My mind is not made up on this point.)

I agree, but nobody in Rome has crossed him yet, so to speak. He is presumably free to say exactly what he thinks, all checks and balances intact. In Galatians he may be afraid that any little bit of pro-Judaism might be misinterpreted.

I am certainly not ruling your interpretation out of court, BTW. Just feeling it out from all angles.

Ben.

Rick Sumner

Just to elaborate on this a little. I think in Galatians Paul sees one route to salvation--Jesus. Circumcision is irrelevant, you find Jesus on your own or you don't, and being Israelite isn't going to help you do that.

In Romans, I think Paul still sees the one route--still Jesus--but separate ways to get there. Gentiles can choose Jesus freely. Israel will choose Jesus when God wills them to, whether they want to or not, because God wills them to.

So in Galatians circumcision is moot. It ties you to a Law that is more burden than use. In Romans circumcision for Gentiles Christians is just redundant. The soteriological advantage to circumcision is that God is going to will you to choose Jesus once "the fullness" is reached. There's no point to that if you're Gentile Christian, because you've already chosen Jesus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Is Paul's Galatian church exclusively Gentile? Was it ever?

Imagine a Galatian church that is exclusively Gentile. Now imagine a proselytizing Judaizer--even a team of them--stopping by and telling them, in essence, "God doesn't love you until you cut your penis."

That sounds like a tough sell to me. I don't imagine it was any easier to pitch in the first century than it is in the 20th. The success of the Pauline movement and failure of everybody else' attests to that, I'd think.

I think, instead, we need to imagine a Gentile community that consisted of both Gentiles and Israelites, with proselytizers coming by. Once they arrived, they stirred up the existing Israelite contingent into old habits of exclusivity, habits Paul had insisted they break when he was in Galatia.

This contingent, under the auspices of the proselytizers, either wore down, or were wearing down, the Gentile contingent who were becoming full proselytes to Judaism.

This scenario seems to make the most sense both out of Paul's response, and the fact that the problem existed in the first place. But it tells us something about Paul's audience: They were not all Gentiles.

I think we have to accept that, at least to some degree (we might quibble over how much), Paul is saying it to Jews. Though he might prefer to think of them, with the Gentiles, as a new, homogenous group--"God's Israel."

I doubt Peter regularly lived like a Gentile. I suspect the Pauline mission was a splinter movement for exactly that reason, that only happened to succeed because it's easier to pitch when you don't have to cut your penis.

In the scenario I outlined above, I'm not sure that I see a reason to view Rome as fundamentally different than Galatia, except that Paul didn't found it, and probably has less personally invested.

A failure in Galatia would make sense of his different response to what I suggest were similar communities. If Paul was convinced that he was, at least to some degree, in the wrong this would be doubly true.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...id=25&letter=G

Was he? Hellenistic Jews - especially colonists - had evolved very different Judaisms, and they were in contact with celtic traditions.

Ben C Smith

Maybe, maybe not. But I think the inscribed audience of the Galatian epistle is gentile. (I am relying on S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk), for the difference between the inscribed audience and the actual audience.)

I actually do not imagine either of these scenarios, at least not full-blown. Rather, I imagine Paul preaching principally to the God-fearers. These gentiles would be predisposed to accept Jewish teachings. (I am not saying that Paul necessarily targeted God-fearers in particular, though he may have, but those are the ones that are most likely to have heard him, or any other Jewish preacher, sympathetically. I think Acts 17 shows what might have happened to his message amongst gentiles who were not quite so predisposed to Judaism.)

Why? Which verses are aimed at Jews? Is 5.2-3 aimed at Jews, who could scarcely help having already been circumcised since their eighth day of life?

I do too, yet this verse seems to indicate that he lived like a gentile at least sometimes. I think the idea behind 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 may have something to do with it.

I agree that Paul presented a more palatable way of serving God, but I think we need to be very careful about not importing modern sensibilities into the text. How many cults are out there, after all, especially in Third World countries, which practice self-mutilation? How many of us would like to emulate the Desert Fathers? Or Francis of Assisi? Sometimes a person does not feel as if he or she is really doing anything for God unless it hurts.

I agree with this, and basically said it, though perhaps I am emphasizing that last pair of clauses more than you are.

I may also agree with this, though perhaps I am emphasizing it less than you are.

Ben.