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 12:47:19 -0500



-----Original Message-----

Billy Evans wrote:

"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."

Jerry responded
Ithink Gal 5:2-3
shows that the teachers being rejected did NOT require the whole Law.
Saying the circumcision commits one to the Law is one of Paul's arguments
against listening to those teachers.

Jerry:
yes, I agree.
I cannot claim genius for that: enlightenment for me in this regard came
from the watershed book by E P Sanders and the work done by James Dunn. My
doctoral work in rabbinics at HUC up the road from you seemed to confirm
that position. After ten years I am still excited about it.

I could still be wrong of course, but I wonder about the following:
circumcision in Gal. to mean the total agreement to follow the Law. I know
the rabbis debated that later and the fact that it is a late reading kills
their imput for our purposes unless some i.e. Neusner has traced such
thoughts from later writings to the first century.

So for now if I understand Paul correctly, he is saying in Gal 5 that
submitting to being cut severs one from Christ and thus, 'you must keep the
whole law'. The teachers in Gal 5 already knew what they were getting into
didn't they, so I think Paul was drawing a line in the sand and reminding
them of what they knew but weren't saying. In other words, I wonder if this
was a Pauline reminder of what everyone already knew? Pardon the example:
If my son says he is going to buy and trombone and be a trombonist, he knows
he will need lessons and ALL that goes along with it. If I remind him of
that, I wouldn't be supplying him with NEW information: that's my thinking
behind the belief that one cannot accept circumcision and reject the Law
(remember Torah in Jewish thought is not 'Law' but 'Instruction', i.e., most
of the Pentatuch is narrative and not Law). I know you know this so forgive
my reminder: it is not meant to be sharp like Paul. Anyway, having said
this, circumcision might be classified as a metonomy for 'Jewish member'.

Now, since I mentioned Sanders and Dunn and do not wish to make someone
think that the above came from them, let me say that the example etc is my
own doing and any rebuff should only be addressed to me. But, even though
neither Sanders nor Dunn say what I have said explicitly, I think I have
represented is their idea(s) corectly.

Thus accroding to Sanders, Paul is saying the only thing wrong with Judaism
is that it lacks Christ. That position would cause confusion among the
ranks regarding WHAT THEN IS REQUIRED?! THUS, Sanders helps here by
providing categories for our reading of Pauline categories THAT HE (PAUL)
DOES NOT STATE but addresses what is essential to 'getting in' and 'staying
in'.

Well, I have been silent for months with this group and have read remarks
with interest and thankfullness, but I fear that I have opened pandora's box
now. In a nutshell, Jews got saved before Christ by grace so their 'getting
in' just involved circumcision. The 'staying in' was as you know the issue
Jesus addressed. Paul got exposure to a 'staying in' issue in Gal 2, but I
think Gal 5 falls under his understanding of how circumcision 'got one into
Judaism' and so he reminds them of the yoke they were putting on: that to
'stay in' they must do just what Jews had to do and Jesus confronted because
the Jewish leaders had it wrong that keeping the Law was more than anyone
would want to do. That is, a yoke no one could keep and I think Paul might
have been thinking about what sacrifices no longer could (or would post 70)
be able to address. Thus it was Christ or back to square one.

Loren has brought up a good point regarding the position that holds that
circumcision was only meant for 'god-fearers' and the like. That is true
when one WANTED TO ACCEPT THE YOKE OF JUDAISM according to some of the
Jewish leadership, but not all Loren. But, your point is well taken even
though we know that it was debated. But, I am not interested in drawing
lines there right now. I've said enough for today to this learned group;
so, let me leave it there for now.

regards and blessings
Billy Evans ____________________
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