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: "Elli Elliott" <elli AT visi.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12
  • Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:45:17 -0600

Notwithstanding Mark's lack of being convinced, I find it hard to envision
Paul being able to speak of castration in the Anatolian context with a
ritual connection in circumcision without it evoking an association with the
galli's ritual castration. Even if 5:12 were the only such allusion, the
association would be unavoidable given their presence. With the other
allusions, this functions fairly neatly as a last "zinger."

My own argument does not, however, begin at 5:12 but in the problems posed
in 4:21-5:1. I remain respectfully unconvinced that the difficulties in the
letter that the allusion to the cult of the Mountain Mothers solves can be
solved very satisfactorily in Mark's analysis alone. Mark's work is at many
points quite compatible with my own argument, however. There was a
discussion awhile back that established this -- at least in some basic
outlines. That's probably what David is referring to.

Regarding the curse material -- I had to leave the discussion (from the
dissertation) of the curse material in Galatians out in order to ever
complete the recently published book. Some of the material on how cursing
functioned in the "divine judicial system" of central Anatolian popular
religiosity is there, however.

Elli



----- Original Message -----
From: <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To: <dhindley AT compuserve.com>; "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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