Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

>"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:
>
>> The question for your proposition of a pagan setting, is, then, why do
>> these non-Jewish people in a pagan setting who are disciples of Paul want
>> to be circumcised, i.e., gain Jewish identity?
>
Sheila McGill responded:
>Mark, I think that the first part of your comment hits it EXACTLY on the
>head, and the
>second part is where we go askew.  Given the social location of the
>Galatians and the
>predominance of the Cybele cult in this part of Asia, I see the attraction of
>circumcision to the Galatian men not as a means of attaining Jewish
>identity, but a
>way of becoming closer to the deity -- now Christ, rather than Cybele.
>Remember,
>Cybele was the "cruel Goddess" who required castration of men who were
>fully initiated
>into her cult.  This is a little more theoretical to me than, say, to a
>man like
>yourself, but my guess is that men who see the two options of castration v.
>circumcision as means of full initiation into a cult would opt for
>circumcision hands
>down.  (And, I can say that, if my husband asked for my advice, I would
>certainly
>discourage the former option.)  This suggests that 6:12 is a bit more
>pointed remark
>(no pun intended) than one might have thought before.  So circumcision is not
>necessarily viewed here (i.e., by the Galatian men) as a way to be more
>closely
>affiliated with Judaism per se, but rather with Christ.  BTW, this
>explains some of
>Paul's astonishment that the Galatians don't understand that circumcision
>requires
>obedience to all the Torah precepts.
>
>Now, this only partly answers your question, because we still have to ask
>why the
>Galatians would think that circumcision would join them closer to Christ.
>I would
>plead the social influences of their indigenous religious traditions,
>which are very
>ascetically inclined (if Socrates Sozomen is right).  I can see the
>Galatians being
>very susceptible to the idea that baptismal initiation was "too easy" to
>really "work"
>for full admission into a religious cult.  I don't think my ideas here are
>very
>well-developed, but it gives you an idea of where I'm going.

Sheila,
I am not sure where you are going, but I think I understand what you have
said herein. I admit that this association, if it was made by the
addressees, of Christ and Cybele, and circumcision and castration, would
"perplex" Paul! But I would like to think he would then address this
exigence in his letter to them. I am familiar with a view somewhat along
this line by reading last year the (3 volume!) dissertation of Susan
Elliott on the galli. This had a great deal of information about the
various indigenous religious practices of the time and area, and it was
interesting. But I just could not get the connection with the rhetoric of
Galatians, even as I do not see the connection in your post. Are you
working on a project where you will show how this corresponds to the
rhetoric of Galatians?

My initial reaction, as it was to Elliott's work which deserves much more
consideration than may be reflected in these sketchy comments, is that I do
not see any rhetorical connection for the implied situation.

1. As you note, circumcision and castration, not to mention the religious
culture of the galli and that of Judaism, are worlds apart! So too Christ
and Cybele. More on this below.

2. Paul reaches for several examples in constructing his letter for the
Galatians. These examples are not about Galatia per se, but they are
connected to his arguments in ways he believes make important points. But
the material he develops has everything to do with Jewish, and nothing to
do with pagan religious stuff. They are all constructed to explain why
gentiles in-Christ should not become Israelites. So his autobiographical
material (1:13-2:21); construction of a midrash on Abraham and his seed
which culminates in an assertion of adoption as sons, so that by way of
being children of Abraham they might be certain of being children of God on
equal standing with children of Israel (3:6--4:7); and allegory of
Abraham's two sons by different women in order to bring about the promised
blessing of a son, so that a conflict results from trying to have it both
ways (i.e. by surrogate according to tradition and by waiting for miracle
by way of promise), rather than accomplishing what one might expect to
happen when adopting the traditional way to provide a son when one's wife
is barren. But these have nothing to do with the exigence you suggest, as
far as I can see on my own that is.

3. The occassional material in the letter does not address the concern of
pagan identity or religious practice either. The comment in 4:8-11 is
ironic; the pagan stuff provides the analogy to which he appeals to explain
the failure of perception in their current thinking.

A few specific questions.

1. I take you at the end of your post to suggest that the Galatians might
like a little more painful entrance, yet 6:12 is predicated on some
aversion of suffering on the part of the ones influencing them. Do you mean
that Paul is appealing to this aversion on their part to undermine them,
because the Galatians liked being persecuted for the cross of Christ? If
so, why? and by whom?

2. I do not see any suggestion in the text that the Galatian addressees
liked the/any pain, if you will, but rather that they were seeking social
acceptance. Where do you find this? How does a suggestion of unrealized
obligation (5:3) check those with a tendancy toward asceticism? I would
expect the opposite point to be made. I do not see the rhetorical
connection.

3. Where is the connection of Cybele and Christ in the text or implied
exigence? Or galli and proselytes? While many might worship Cybele, many
did not become galli; it was not for everyman, you might say!

4. Where is the connection of circumcision and castration?
On this one, there is of course Paul's sarcastic comment in 5:12. But this
loses its force if the ones who are influencing the Galatians are
themselves already castrated. More appropriate might be: I wish those who
are upsetting you would be reattached!

5. What is the purpose of Paul's concern with Torah and the historical
people of God, rather than with pagan religion? On the verse you mention,
5:3, what is the point Paul is making if it is not proselyte identity, that
is Law-obliged identity that is in view? His point is simply wrong, for
galli are not obliged to keep the whole Law. Or in 5:5, how could they be
seeking to be made righteous ones by becoming people of the Law by becoming
galli of some sort?

6. What is the other message of good news?

I had to laugh when I first saw your post. It seems so far out to me that I
was immediately aware of how my work might seem to someone who has only
read Paul through reformation lenses, for example. Or a fundamentalist
unaware beforehand of any critical thought or work who might stumble upon
this list. Everything was all nailed down into a system, and someone
questions these "facts" as though just "assumptions" and "interpretations."
Are they crazy? Sometimes you have got to wonder if we are reading the same
stuff.

Take care,
Mark Nanos

Businessman, author, and postrgraduate student,
University of St. Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri