Corpus-Paul

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

Jerry Sumney wrote:
>         I think Jim Hester is on target when he says that "works of the law"
> is Paul's caricature of the other teachers' demands.  It seems to me
> unlikely that circumcision is seen as the last step in becoming a proselyte,
> as Mark N. argues, because I think 5:3 shows that the Galatians will be
> surprised, even distressed, to hear that accepting circumcision means they
> will be obliged to keep the whole Law.  I say this because this statement is
> the second in a list of three (Christ of no benefit the 1st and cut
> yourselves off from Christ the 3rd) unacceptable consequences of accepting
> circumcision.
>         What I think this indicates is that Paul is the one (perhaps only
> one or at least one of the few) who thinks there is a big theological issue
> at stake.  I don't think the Galatians or the other teachers thought all
> these theological matters were bound up with the question of circumcision.
Dear Jerry,
Sorry for the delayed response; been on the road. I wonder if you 
might explain this post a bit more. I agree that Paul is using the 
phrase "works of Law"--however translated and understood--to 
undermine the position of those influencing the Galatian addressees. 
I wonder if the addressees will be so surprised by Paul's remark 
about obligation to observe the whole of Torah. Rather, it seems 
possible that he is bringing into relief the real purpose of 
completion of this ritual for conversion for the addressees who 
rather are concerned at the moment with another goal, namely, gaining 
indisputable acceptance upon learning that their expectation of 
acceptance without completion of this rite of passage is not a view 
shared by the guardians of the larger community's norms. They seem to 
have taken their eyes off of the issues, but that is not to say they 
may not recognize them upon reminder. In this sense he may be 
reminding with emphasis, a common strategy in addressing what he 
perceives as naivete, which is an approach taken throughout the 
letter. The assault throughout seems to be upon their motives for 
compliance, and their failure to recognize the implicit subversion of 
their current standing by way of Christ that results from trying to 
gain that which the message of Christ declares that they already 
have. It seems that people in liminal stages of ritual process are 
particularly vulnerable to such questioning of motives; at least 
anthropologists of ritual often comment upon this dynamic.

A few questions:

First, what do you think that circumcision represents for those who 
would influence the Galatian addressees toward it, if not 
"completion" of the ritual process of proselyte conversion? Which 
leads to the second question(s).

What do they have invested in this action on the bodies of the 
addressees? What if the influencers simply do not share faith in 
Christ? Then they would not be considering this theological matter in 
connection with the proselyte conversion of the addressees, but that 
is not the same as no theological understanding of the matter of 
circumcision. It just has nothing to do with Christ, pro or con, from 
their perspective.

That is to say, while I agree that Paul approaches the matter of 
circumcision for the gentile addressees as of enormous theological 
consequences, and his addressees seem rather to have missed the 
weight of it from Paul's vantage point for themselves in terms of 
undermining their own faith in Christ until then, do you not think 
that either the influencers or the addressees gave the matter "any" 
theological consideration? If not theologically, then how did they 
consider it? What does it represent; symbolize? For the influencers 
or the addressees, What do you suppose circumcision meant?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City