Why Galatians 4:10 is Important

[robert j]

Thank you for this clarification.

Regarding the comment about "importance," etc., all I meant is that the passage of Gal. 4:10 does not have a very great importance in terms of being used as support for the conclusions of Detering and Price (because they can appeal to several other sections of the letter for their interpretations). Perhaps it has importance as a refutation of them, because it appears to have importance in support of a "North Galatia" hypothesis, and it appears to have importance in support of seeing ethnic Celts as the audience of the letter. That's all that I meant by that comment.

Thanks for clarifying that. I had taken the comment as making it about me rather than about my arguments, but I see now the point you were making.

[robert j]

(1) Would you say that a "Celtic" interpretation of Galatians 4:8-11 is possible, plausible, probable, very probable, highly probable, or .... secure?

(2) What about the possibility that it is a generic reference to pagan polytheism? Possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

(3) And could the Marcionites have been interested in the repudiation of pagan polytheism? Is that possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

I would say "possible" or "plausible" to (1), because it is very specific, relies on the genuineness of the letter and further relies on a particular interpretation of the genuineness of the letter that many have rejected, primarily (but not exclusively) due to the presence of concerns about Judaism that seem unlikely in a North Galatian context.

I would say "probable" to (2), given your arguments have persuaded me that Gal. 4:10 in the context of Gal. 4:8-11 seem likely to refer to paganism.

I would say "secure" to (3), given that Marcion taught about the revelation of the one good God in Jesus Christ, repudiating any other lesser powers.

Given that (2) is compatible with (3), I don't think it takes a straw man to dismantle the argument against a Marcionite origin of the epistle on the basis of Gal. 4:8-11.

OK, I’ll play.

(1) Would you say that a "Celtic" interpretation of Galatians 4:8-11 is possible, plausible, probable, very probable, highly probable, or .... secure?

IMO a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution.

(2) What about the possibility that it is a generic reference to pagan polytheism? Possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

That’s rather broad without proposing a candidate for an alternative religion.

(3) And could the Marcionites have been interested in the repudiation of pagan polytheism? Is that possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

I would say Marcionites, rubbing elbows with pagans of all sorts throughout the empire, would have less of a reason to do so in Galatians 4:8-11 than would their jealous preacher-man Paul. Marcionites had their sights set on their inferior god of the Jews. It seems unlikely they would take a detour (Gal 4:8-11) in an important “Marcionite polemic pamphlet” --- aimed at catholics --- to admonish some random pagans for worshipping the elemental forces, multiple gods, and closely following auspicious seasons and cycles of time. Why not take a shot at the garish and foppish Phrygian attendants of Cybele? Or other idol worshippers in their temples?

Given that (2) is compatible with (3), I don't think it takes a straw man to dismantle the argument against a Marcionite origin of the epistle on the basis of Gal. 4:8-11.

You haven’t “dismantled the argument”, but only provided your opinions.

[Peter Kirby]

(1) Would you say that a "Celtic" interpretation of Galatians 4:8-11 is possible, plausible, probable, very probable, highly probable, or .... secure?

IMO a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution.

That wasn't the question.

(2) What about the possibility that it is a generic reference to pagan polytheism? Possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

That’s rather broad without proposing a candidate for an alternative religion.

So?

(3) And could the Marcionites have been interested in the repudiation of pagan polytheism? Is that possible, plausible, probable, etc.?

I would say Marcionites, rubbing elbows with pagans of all sorts throughout the empire, would have less of a reason to do so in Galatians 4:8-11 than would their jealous preacher-man Paul. Marcionites had their sights set on their inferior god of the Jews. It seems unlikely they would take a detour (Gal 4:8-11) in an important “Marcionite polemic pamphlet” --- aimed at catholics --- to admonish some random pagans for worshipping the elemental forces, multiple gods, and closely following auspicious seasons and cycles of time. Why not take a shot at the garish and foppish Phrygian attendants of Cybele? Or other idol worshippers in their temples?

Perhaps it isn't just a "polemic pamphlet," aimed only "at catholics," but that doesn't mean that it isn't Marcionite in origin.

Particularizing the point with examples of a particular gods is not demanded in a pseudonymous letter.

And in fact the letter does not have enough to identify the exact nature of the religion or to conclude that a particular religion is in view.

Given that (2) is compatible with (3), I don't think it takes a straw man to dismantle the argument against a Marcionite origin of the epistle on the basis of Gal. 4:8-11.

You haven’t “dismantled the argument”

The argument is "dismantled" if it is not shown that the letter was addressed particularly to the concerns of the Galatian Celts and their religious beliefs, which is quite different from showing "IMO a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution." Your argument focused on that statement, that "a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution." As such it failed to establish its premise, which is that "a Celtic solution" is in the the background of Gal. 4:8-11.

[robert j]

The argument is "dismantled" if it is not shown that the letter was addressed particularly to the concerns of the Galatian Celts and their religious beliefs, which is quite different from showing "IMO a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution." Your argument focused on that statement, that "a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution." As such it failed to establish its premise, which is that "a Celtic solution" is in the the background of Gal. 4:8-11.

Again, I made it clear in my OP, and in related posts, that “the letter” was devoted to “a wider and much more important problem” (the issue of circumcision for Gentile believers) --- but the author took a detour in Galatians 4:8-11 for “a brief admonition”, IMO, to address pagan backsliding by the congregation, and characterized in a way consistent with Celtic beliefs and practices.

You wrote that I have “not shown” and “failed to establish” my premise. Certainly you’re not expecting proof --- proof is not yet to be found here, either way. In the OP and the linked post, I’ve presented evidence and arguments in support of my interpretation --- an interpretation that represents a viable solution.

It’s seems clear that we disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, and the implications. OK, fine, moving on.

[Ulan]

OK, I’ll play.

(1) Would you say that a "Celtic" interpretation of Galatians 4:8-11 is possible, plausible, probable, very probable, highly probable, or .... secure?

IMO a Celtic solution provides a better fit to the evidence than a Jewish solution.

You don't seem to be into Bayesian calculations .

[Peter Kirby]

It’s seems clear that we disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, and the implications. OK, fine, moving on.

I apologize if I seem to be dragging things out. I also hope that I've been very clear. I appreciate your contributions, whether you want to continue down this particular thread or not. Thank you for the OP here and in your other threads.