CHAPTER TWO

IDENTITY AND THE SOCIORELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF PRE-CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTIAN

A History of Research

In the methodological discussion, I reframe socioreligious and colonial contributions in terms of a sociopostcolonial hermeneutics. The epistle to the churches of was written to people living under impe- rial/colonial Rome. Paul calls his addressees Galatians (Gal 3:3). Who these peoples were has been the object of unresolved debates linking their identity to the dating of the epistle [often reconstructed from the accounts of both Paul (Gal 2:1–10) and Luke (Acts 13–16) expressed through the so-called southern Galatian (Acts 13–14) and northern Galatian (Acts 16:6; 18:23) hypotheses].1

1 For details on the hypotheses, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Com- mentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 3–18; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; Dal- las, TX: Word Books, 1990), lxiii–lxxii; Martyn, Galatians, 156–7. Debates over when Paul’s confrontation with Peter occurred range from a post- (Bruce, 128; Longenecker, 64), to a pre- Jerusalem conference date. A reading of Acts 15 in conjunction with Gal 2:11–14 led Gerd Lüdemann to conclude that the confl ict at Antioch was behind the reason for the Jerusalem conference [Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (trans. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 77, 75–77)]. Adopting this assertion does not mean the argument has no weaknesses. Gal 2:1–10 appears to have been overlooked by Lüdemann. This passage seems to refer to an earlier visit subsequent to Paul’s experience of Christ’s revelation. Keeping this in mind, Gal 2:1–10 can only be read in conjunction with Acts 9:26–30. In this case, the confl ict at Antioch would have happened before the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15:1–30. Whether he is right or not, the present passage presupposes that what happened in Antioch, namely the enforced “cultic separation” between diaspora Judeans and other people, reoccurred in Galatia (Betz, Galatians, 106). Betz rightly says: “Eating with Gentile Christians implied the crossing of the line drawn by the Torah covenant as understood by some Jews and Jewish Christians. Taking up table fellowship was consistent with Paul’s understanding of the argument made at Jerusalem; withdrawing from the table fellowship was in line with the conservative Jewish understanding of these agreements. Paul’s emphasis was on the unity of salvation in Christ; the Jewish Christians’ emphasis was on cultic separation” (ibid.). 34 chapter two

Since these debates do not resolve whether Paul is referring to Northern2 or Southern Galatia,3 a shift to the socioreligious context of the Galatians is necessary because the above mentioned discussions say little or nothing4 about the socioreligious convictions of Paul’s addressees.

Who Were the /Galatians? Gauls in Classical Literature

To fl ippantly identify all the ancestors of Paul’s addressees as ελταί/ ελτοί “,” and Γαλάται “Galatians”5 may be somewhat overdrawn. Philip Freeman states that after the fourth century B.C.E. Greek writers use both names invariably to refer to the Celts of Europe. Γαλάται, however, is used of the inhabitants of Asia Minor6 and “whenever Roman authors write of the Galatae, we can be fairly confident they are referring to the Galatians of Asia Minor.”7

2 Betz, Galatians, 4–5; Martyn, Galatians, 15–16. Proponents of this hypothesis believe Galatians were of Celtic or Gallic descent. 3 Bruce, Galatians, 8–10; Longenecker, Galatians, lxii–lxxii. Advocates of this view hold that Galatians were of mixed Gentile origin. Both views appeal to texts such as Acts 16:6 and Act 18:23 to bolster their hypotheses. 4 Paul addresses his readers as Galatians (Gal 3:1)—probably an eponym (Gal 1:2 and 1 Cor 16:1). The account in Acts 13:13 and 14:28 shows Paul and Barnabas evangelizing in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe in the province of Galatia in agreement with 2 Tim 3:11. These passages do not provide much evidence on the identity of Paul’s addressees. 5 See Bruce, Galatians, 3 who considers ελταί/ελτοί (Celts) as variants of Γαλάται. This conclusion must have been based on earlier Greek writers. In contrast to Bruce, Longenecker rightfully identifies the Celts and Gauls geographically but also chrono- logically following their invasions. 6 Philip Freeman, The Galatian Language: A Comprehensive Survey of the Language of the Ancient Celts in Greco-Roman Asia Minor (ANETS; New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), 5. He also notes that earlier Greek writers did in fact use both names inter- changeably. On Celtae/Keltoi, see Barry Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 2. 7 Freeman, 6. The spread of ancient Celts throughout Europe and Asia Minor is crucial for determining who these ελταί/ελτοί (Celts) or Γαλάται were. Whereas biblical and Judean authors knew of a people called “Γαλάται” (1 Macc 8:2; 2 Macc 8:20; Sib. Or. 3.508–110, and Gal 3:1; Josephus, Ant. 1.123; J. W. 1.5, 397, 672; 2.371) located in a territory known as “Γαλατία” (Gal 1:2; 1 Cor 16:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Tim 4:10; Acts 16:6; 18:23; Josephus, Ant. 12.414; 17.344; J. W. 4.440, 494, 547, 634; 7.88), New Testament writers make no mention of the Celts. Josephus appears to differenti- ate the Γαλάται from the ελτοί ( Josephus, J.W. 1.5) in speaking of the Celtic legion to which German guards of Gaius belonged ( Josephus, Ant. 19.119). James M. Scott makes an important contribution by discussing Galatians in a broader context: The so-called Table of the nations in Genesis ( James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the