Corpus-Paul

["Stephen.Finlan" <Stephen.Finlan AT durham.ac.uk>]

> Stephen wrote:
> >...the "offense of the cross" in Gal 5:11 is 
> >the strange and embarrassing idea of a humiliated Messiah...

"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:
> Paul ties the purpose statement in Gal. 5:11 to the issue of his not
> "still" proclaiming circumcision

Yes, you're right.  IF he preaches circumcision, THEN there is no
offense.  So at least part of the offense is non-circumcision.
As you say, it is not--
> gentile "inclusion" per se, as
> you suggest, but "how" they are included,  ...

I stand corrected.

> However the meaning of the death of Jesus is expressed here, I do not
> presume what you do about an offense of gentile-inclusion per se; on
> what basis do you do so? 

I was speaking in shorthand. Of course, I meant non-circumcised
inclusion, inclusion of Gentiles AS Gentiles.

> On another note, whether crucifixion is "the ultimate humiliation" is
> arguable. It is not my intent to quibble, but .....the meaning of
> crucifixion would vary with whomever is being considered; so too who
> should be ashamed! 

But it clearly was intended to be humiliating.

> (The marks on those protesting what they deem to
> be political injustices are often badges of honor proudly worn
> thereafter, and mark for them the shame of the regime which inflicted

Right, but that involves a deliberate reversal of the intended humilia-
tion, just as Paul's rhetoric involves reversal of the intended 
humiliation of crucifixion (same device seen in Fourth Gospel).

> it is
> not necessarily humiliating to be crucified by the enemy, 

Again, that is true IF you are able to reverse the INTENDED message.
Perhaps religion has a peculiar ability to reverse such messages.

> In other words, it is humiliating in
> the Roman court of reputation (kosmos), but not necessarily in the
> inner-Judean one. 

Even in that audience, one would have to employ rhetorical force to
reverse the perception of defeat that crucifixion conveys.  But if 
the majority of Paul's audience in Galatia was Gentile, a Judaean
patriotic reaction will not take place.  Crucifixion will sound like
defeat.  And since non-believers in Jesus never saw the resurrected
Jesus, Paul can't use that as his sole evidence. 

> So I put these questions to you: does not Paul's statement in Gal.
> 5:11 imply that if he proclaimed Jesus Christ as well as the
> proselyte conversion of gentiles who wished to be full members of the
> community of the righteous ones, that he would not be suffering
> persecution for what he proclaimed? 

You're probably right, but I think there is a real scandal in the
fate of Christ (in Paul's rhetoric), although it is the scandalous
image that becomes powerful.  The Galatians will probably
resonate with the image of the Abomination that becomes powerful, since
this was an element in the Phrygian religion of Cybele and Attis, 
where the god is actually castrated.  It is no coincidence that in 
the next verse Paul refers to castration.
  In Gal 3:13 Christ becomes a curse for them...yet the curse redeems
them.  Relying on Susan Elliott here ("The Rhetoric of Galatians,"
Chicago University Loyola 1997 diss.), this would resonate with the
system of judicial curses that was current in Anatolia.  A person
who had been wronged would inscribe a curse against the offender,
calling on a god to find and punish.  Sometimes the offender would
inscribe a confession inscription, acknowledging that the god had
punished him or her.  A curse had judicial power, even the power to
vindicate the plaintiff's cause.
  Elliott has shown that Galatians contains a number of themes
that allude to Anatolian religious practices.
  But even without Elliott, there is evidence in 1 Cor and Rom that
crucifixion was seen as humiliating, but that Paul reverses that
image.

Stephen Finlan
University of Durham, Theology Dept.