Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Billy Evans <biblewje AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:23:00 -0500



-----Original Message-----
From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Loren Rosson
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2003 5:51 AM
To: Corpus-Paul
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians


Vince,

Loren wrote
Circumcision, not diet, was the issue, which is why
Peter feared "the circumcision faction" (2:12). It's
abundantly obvious that circumcision was the bone of
contention in Galatia (3:3, 5:2, 6:12-15)

I would say that in following Dunn and others and trying to understand the
various Jewish sectarian groups, I agree with A Baumgarten that a later
Neusner position opposite of my professor E. Rivkin (and in agreement with
how Greeks and Romans understood the Jews from 60ce to 120ce), I think it is
best to consider circumcision as meaning what some arguments of the spies in
the text mean: Gentiles had to keep the whole law of Moses. In other words
it is the issue of table fellowship which best characterizes the Pharasiees
at this time (not interested in politics but Piety) and this thus addresses
the issue of if the Gentiles had to become Jews before becoming Christians.
I realize that I have not addressed the question as Nanos and others have
done in trying to determine intent. This may be some of my Postmodernism
coming out (or at least cannonical criticism). But, the question certainly
took place. I jsut wonder what theological school the spies represented?
Regarding the 'strangled' issue, this certainly represents the issue Jewish
Christians and non-believing Jews had regarding Gentiles following the
covenant of Noah. This is well discussed in Jewish literature and thus it
makes sense that it was addressed in the same context of the table
fellowship crisis. Circumcision was a mark (pun) of adhering to the Old
Covenant for sure since it was the seal of such. However, circumcision
certainly is not to be equated with whether one has to be baptized as some
well meaning commentators in the 20th century tried to say in order to
dismiss baptism as a work (Gal 2:16f). Baptism is no more a work than
prayer is. Thus, due to the silence regarding Baptism, I would argue that
such silence enhances the position that the issue was whether a Gentile had
to become a Jew first and not anything more.

Billy Evans
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Corpus-Paul mailing list
Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page