An elaborate anti-Roman position in Galatians 1:1-12?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

An elaborate anti-Roman position in Galatians 1:1-12?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Giuseppe’s recent thread on Pseudo-Clementine Homily II:XVII has incited me to take a closer look at Galatians 1, especially at its possible anti-Roman message.

Verse ------------------Text ---------------------- -----------------------------------------------------Discussion -------------------------------------------------
1 From Paul, apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. From the onset Paul posits an opposition between God and the Christ on one side, and ‘men’ and ‘man’ on the other. Given this opposition at the highest level, and given Paul’s anti-Roman focus in general, the ‘men/man’ could well be the Roman emperor(s). So from the first sentence Paul takes an anti-Roman position.
2-3 And from all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: (3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
4 Who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; (5) whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. ‘To deliver us from the present evil age’ is a possible translation, encouraged by a textual variant of this phrase. The majority of the texts give ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ, which can be translated as ‘from the age of the present evil one’, (the present Roman emperor), considering πονηρός as a noun instead of an adjective, as is frequently the case elsewhere in the NT also (BDAG p. 851). If we encounter an evil man here, how shall we call the man/men elsewhere in this chapter?
5 Whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ* and turning to a different gospel. In line with the opposition between God and Christ on one side and the Roman emperors on the other, here follows the opposition between Paul’s ‘Christ’ gospel and the alternative gospel of the Roman imperial cult.
This rival gospel seems to be attractive to a part of Paul’s audience.
7 Not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of the Christ. To Paul this other gospel is not an alternative.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. Paul shows his deep aversion towards this rival doctrine.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. Similarly, Paul shows his deep aversion towards those who proclaim this opponent gospel (of the Roman imperial cult).
10 Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of the Christ. Paul diametrically opposes ‘seeking the favour of men’ (Roman emperors) and ‘seeking the favour of God’, and similarly ‘pleasing men’ (Roman emperors) and ‘to be a servant of the Christ’. Paul sees himself as the propagator of κύριος Χριστός against κύριος Καῖσαρ.
11-12 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ‘Is not a man’s gospel’, literally ‘is not the gospel according to man’ – Paul does not preach a human gospel, the all too human gospel of the divinized Roman emperor. He preaches the truly divine gospel of the Jewish/Essene Christ, who appeared to him through a revelation.

I believe that if Paul was fighting a rival Jewish/Essene/Christian gospel, he would have openly discussed the concrete content of the (limited) differences between the factions. On the contrary, in a world dominated by the Romans Paul of course could not openly attack the gospel of the blessings which the divinized Roman emperor bestowed on his subjects. For his informed audience his masked attack probably was clear enough.

* Nestle-Aland considers this ‘Christ’ to be ‘of doubtful authenticity’. Some manuscripts have θεός.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Post Reply