Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: nanosmd AT comcast.net
  • To: dhindley AT compuserve.com, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12
  • Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:25:30 +0000

David,
I am not sure to what discussion you refer. In any case, Elli and I have had
some conversations about this, including on C-P. I think, as noted here, that
I have all along learned from Elli about the Anatolian context (since reading
her dissertation in the late 90's, anyway), but not been convinced that other
than a possible echo of that matter here in sarcastic meter, the context of
Paul's language deals with proselyte conversion, i.e., circumcision of males,
and not with castration of the galli. I think that proselyte circumcision is
the context for interpreting the situation the rhetoric implies.

It is possible that Paul refers to the cutting off of the addressees' digit
instead of the mohel's, but that seems less probable to me. Such heated
language is probably not constructed with sufficient care to make that clear,
or for it to have really mattered that much to the rhetorical expression of
disapproval of proselyte conversion he was making.

Perhaps I am missing some other point you wish to make?

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
co-moderator
nanosmd AT comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd
> Mark Nanos says:
>
> >>The specific of self-mutliation is, I think, not based upon an allusion to
> the castration of the galli, as Elli understands it (although I do not
> dispute that it could also be a part of the conceptual field to which the
> sarcasm alludes), but works within the metaphorically field of circumcision,
> which symbolizes the issue at hand as one of whether the addressees should
> become proselytes if they are to successfully negotiate acceptance by the
> dominant (albeit minority) Jewish community standard for full (ie,
> proselyte) instead of mere (however "welcome") guest standing.<<
>
> Maybe I'm remembering things wrong, but didn't you articulate here on this
> list an argument resembling Elli's? It was a couple years ago as you were
> preparing to publish one of your books (probably _Irony of Glatians_). Then
> again, perhaps you were seeking comment about the hypothesis in general at
> the time, and simply stated the case as you saw it.
>
> At the time it seemed to me that you were leaning in the direction that Elli
> had stated. Has your understanding of the question evolved over time? I do
> realize that you have been looking into rhetorical criticism for insight in
> the past couple years.
>
> My apologies if the answer to my question is to be found in your volume _The
> Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical
> Interpretation_, which I have not (yet) had an opportunity to order
> (although I may do that later today ... thank goodness for Amazon gift
> certificates).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave Hindley
> Cleveland, Ohio, USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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