Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:14:29 -0500


Elli Elliott writes:
Getting circumcised "really means" returning to paganism because Paul
associates it with the self-castration of the galli (starting at 3:1-5) and
shows throughout the letter that to be circumcised is to enter the sphere of
influence of the Law portrayed as a mountain Mother (Gal 4:21-5:1).

I understand that this is your hypothesis of the situation, having read your dissertation, from which I learned much about a possible way to understand the pagan sphere of the addressees (I do hope you will publish more from this), but I am not convinced of the association with the text of Paul's letter, such as with galli in the letter at 3:1-5, or the Jewish Law as a mountain mother in 4:21--5:1. Is this what you meant Moon? If not, how do you or others who hold a similar view suggest that circumcision "really means" returning to paganism?

Elli, I simply do not see at work in these texts what you suggest, and welcome any elaboration of your ideas in the text of the letter that you would like to make. I agree with you (in your recent post) that the pagan sphere of the addressees should be attended to the construction one suggests for the situation of the letter, which traditionally has not been done, and I suggest one in my recently completed and forthcoming work, which was briefly noted in the post to which you respond.

What they're considering is circumcision. They also appear to be keeping
somebody's calendar in a manner similar to pagan practices. The verse makes
the most sense if the calendar they're keeping is the one that goes with
circumcision, i.e. the Jewish calendar. If this is the "traditional view,"
I see nothing wrong with it.

Makes the "most" sense to whom? I take circumcision to be symbolic of a much more involved process than a mere cut in the flesh, which is one aspect (for males) near the completion of this involved ritual process resulting in proselyte identity for "former" pagans. The enormous implications for such an identity transformation in terms of both the Jewish community and pagan one are too often overlooked. For example, on the pagan side, where will they now work if they should stop observing the family and neighborhood practices? What will they do about family and community events, which involve idolatrous practices at meals, festivals, parties, closing business deals, whatever.

In order to maintain the view that Paul is referring in this negative way to the value of observing Jewish time, you would have to ascribe to the view that Paul does not practice in any way this essential aspect of Jewish life (nor his communities, fellow-workers), would you not? So you see this as an already non-Jewish group, a pagan group in terms of the Jewish sphere/perspective? Also, what about those passages in Paul's correspondence which indicate some concern with Jewish time-keeping on the part of Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:8)?


This hypothetical reconstruction would seem to require that at 4:8-10, Paul
is suddenly addressing another issue.

Another issue presupposes an issue other than this one, does it not? I suppose that the situation, however one presents it, effects the interpretation of every element of Paul's rhetoric; don't you?

By the way, why "hypothetical reconstruction"? Does not reconstruction, or as I prefer, construction, suffice, since we do not have a construction to re- construct, but a text to interpret, which requires us to construct a context for the use of the language found in the text? Are not any proposals "hypothetical," including the traditional ones, including what they may assume without argument, often it seems without realization that this is so, so that hypothetical is understood? (Here Zeba Crook and others, with whom I assume you also agree, have recently tried to inform those who appeal to traditional views as though somehow more objective by nature that these are also the products of ideology among other subjective factors; one might even argue that the traditional views are even more subjective, since they did not even attempt to practice historical criticism before recent years). But surely you and I who challenge the traditional constructions realize this.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page