Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: North/South Galatian Theory

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: North/South Galatian Theory
  • Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:28:15 -0600


Mark Nanos wrote:

> >I do not see anything in the letter of Galatians
> that offers
> >definitive case for just where in Galatia the
> addressees were...

Loren replied:

Nothing definite, to be sure, but I see fairly clear
allusions to the northern region. As Edgar noted, "O
foolish Galatians" (3:1) evokes the tribal region. And
I'm persuaded by Elli Elliot's suggestion that in
3:1-5, 5:10-12 Paul rhetorically associates
circumcision with the northern pagan practice of
self-castration (see her Sept 12 and 18 posts). But
the pagan practices referred to in 4:8-10 could
admittedly refer to either region.

Loren,
So too those Elliott suggests, and I answered the 3:1 comment in my previous post. Nothing supporting north or south in these clues.


Mark continued:

> I also do not see
> that it matters for the interpretation of
> Galatians...

Edgar Krentz affirmed:

> I agree with Mark on this. It does not affect how
> one interprets the
> text.

You lost me, guys. Obviously "it matters" and "affects
our interpretation of the text". If, for instance, the
South Galatian theory is correct, then, for instance,
Elli Elliot's "interpretation" of Galatians doesn't
hold much water.

Not so, although perhaps she will comment. The practices to which she refers are not specific to the north. Moreover, I remain unconvinced that 5:12 makes sense as an allusion to "galli," who would have been already castrated. It makes sense of sarcasm aimed at "mohelim," those who circumcise. All this requires is a Jewish communal context that constrains the identity as righteous ones that the addressees seek.


Edgar noted:

> One can still see the Temple to
> Rome and Augustus in Ankara (Ancyra), with the great
> "autobiographical" Res Gestae of Augustus inscribed
> on it in both Latin and Greek. It dates to a period
> earlier than Paul's activity in
> Galatia.

Yes, and Pessinus was an important center for the
imperial cult as well. There is enough epigraphic
evidence for sacrifices, banquets, and gladitorial
combats orchestrated there by the priests of Augustus.

But these are also in the south, such as Pisidian Antioch and Iconium.


[Mark]

> >What makes the northern theory (more) attractive
> for you? How do
> >Paul's eyes come to play in locating him there?
> Moreover, how do
> >Paul's eyes play a role at all? I have read a
> theory that Paul was
> >on his way to the north (to S. Paulus' lands) and
> stopped at a
> >healing spa for his eyes. However, even if this is
> so (and again, I
> >do not see it from Galatians, where the "weakness
> of flesh/body" is
> >not defined as an eye problem)...

If we give the allusions in 3:1-5, 5:10-12 (and
4:12-20, on which see below) their due, we would
naturally conclude that Paul founded churches in the
northern region. With regards to Paul's
"eye-infirmity", I assume that 4:15 -- "I know you
Galatians would have torn out your eyes and given them
to me, if possible" -- refers to the "weakness of
flesh/body" in 4:13. You're evidently skeptical of
this, Mark. I'm reticent about going into the details
of what I'm doing with this event (typical novelist!),
but our interactions demand engagement, and so, for
now, let me answer in brief:

Gal. 4:12-20 gives the definite impression that Paul
had dropped on the Galatians unexpectedly, and that he
had not intended originally to include them in his
missionary scope.

This goes beyond what Paul says. Perhaps it is so, but, perhaps not.

This pretty much rules out the
southern region from the start, doesn't it? The
southern "Galatian" areas along the Cilician road seem
to have been precisely targetted on the first mission.

We do not know where the Galatians addressed were. If in villages or smaller towns along his route, or in a city he did not plan to go to otherwise. Moreover, he writes that this flesh/body weakness/illness gave rise to his proclaiming Christ to them, not to his being in their village/town/city per se.

4:12-20 conveys the sense that Paul was driven to take
refuge "far off the beaten path" -- off the Cilician
road, into the northern tribal region.

I read no such thing.

I imagine
(please note the word "imagine") that Paul was fleeing
lethal enemies who had seriously harmed him (the eyes)
and were still hot on his trail. Thus the need for
leaving the main road and venturing up north.

In other words, I do not assume that the eye-illness
had anything to do with being "blinded" by any
revelations (like those reported in Gal. 1/Acts 9, II
Cor. 12, etc.).

On the other hand, I may be leaping a few fences here,
because the phrase in Gal. 4:13 smacks more of
"illness" than "injury".

The reference to their generosity in terms of eye-sharing is also metaphorical perhaps, and there is a larger context of evil-eye imagery also at work in this letter (I gave a paper on this at last years annual SBL meeting, which I am hoping to get published). Moreover, Paul does not relate the two, that is, his weakness/illness and his eyes; it may be so, but it may be otherwise. Not sufficient to decide where the addressees are located on the north/south axis.

Please note that I am not arguing for the south, just that there is as yet no evidence of which I am aware to suggest the north more strongly than the south, and we at least have Luke and travel routes to go on in the south/central. In my own work to date I have refrained from drawing any implications from north/south theories for the interpretation of this letter, and remain unaware of any disadvantage in that.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page