Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:28:40 +0200


Constructions of the Galatian situation are many. Here is one that may throw
a different light on the issue of the identification of the origin of the
calendar in 4.10:
1. the Galatian Christians did not want to abandon Christ and they were
absolutely astonished at the accusations by Paul, just as, I might add, Peter
and Barnabas at Antioch may have been over being called hypocrites by Paul
(if they ever really did hear of it. Anyway, I think we should not equate
accusation with fact! I may also add, that my reading of the argumentative
strategy of e.g. ch 5.1-12 convinces me, that Paul is well aware, that the
Galatians had not abandoned the Christ-faith.)
2. The pastoral advisors from Jerusalem (called 'opponents of Paul' by those
impressed, dare I say deceived, by the hyperbolic rhetoric of Gal), having
been called in for advise in a difficult situation by the Galatian
Christians, did agree with Paul on the insignificance of circumcision for
salvation. Everybody agreed on that!
3. In order to ease social and political pressure, the famous decision from
the Jerusalem council 'not to lay burdens on the Gentiles' was implemented.
The anoying thing is, that THIS situation required a reverse implementation
of the principle agreed upon. In Galatia the combination of UNcircumcision
with Christ-faith was the burden to be lifted.
4. The issue at stake in Gal, once the rhetoric is critically dismantled, is
not circumcision as such, but the imitatio Christi crufixi. Paul had
portrayed vividly, from the very beginning of his association with the
Galatians (3.1ff, 4.13), a Christ-like life that was characterized by
suffering. The betrayal (to Paul's perception) of this principle, I think,
constitutes the core of the problem. Circumcision and calender observances
are assaulted not because there was a danger of returning to native paganism
or of leaving Christ for Judaism (whatever that would have meant), but
because of the betrayal of the committment to the imitation of the suffering
Christ.
5. Even the Galatian Christians were ready to suffer for Christ (4.14).
However, they did not think, an insignificant issue (5.6, 6.15) was worth
trouble. Ttheir attitude towards Christian living was pragmatic rather than
fundamentalistic.
6. We can get a clue of Paul's perception of dicipleship and why it clashed
with the Galatians', from a comparison of Gal 5.9 with 1 Cor 9.24. Add to
that Gal 2.19-20, Phil 2.5ff, 3.12ff a.o.
7. The theological argument with regard to the nomos, is secondary, added
for purposes of persuasive pressure rather than for engaging the recipient's
intention.

With regard to the discussion of whether the calendar in 4.10 was pagan or
Jewish, I would argue, therefore, that we could leave that question
unanswered and still grasp the issue at stake. However, if it was pagan, it
would strenghten the claim, that not choice of religion but cost of
dicipleship was at the heart of the matter.

With regards,
Dieter

*****************************
Dieter Mitternacht
Lund University
Dept of Theology
Allhelgona kyrkogata 8
S-223 62 Lund
SWEDEN
E-mail: Dieter.Mitternacht AT teol.lu.se
URL: http://www.teol.lu.se
*******************************



----- Original Message -----
From: "Elli Elliott" <ellielliott AT email.msn.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:39 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] RE: Galatian situation


> Mark,
>
> Thanks for your response. I'm sure that we will continue to be mutually
> non-persuaded. We each have a whole interpretation of the letter which
> departs from the main currents and find it hard to think outside our own
> constructs. This is especially true while the work is underway. I'm about
> half finished writing a book based on the dissertation (which was long and
> gangling and partially-formed in many places, as I've acknowledged before.)
>
> I'm again pressed for time but wanted to respond on a couple of points.
>
> You asked Moon how he means that "circumcision 'really means' a return to
> paganism?" I'd be interested to hear more about this, too, Moon.
>
> Mark, You also wrote in response to my statement that 4:10 "makes the most
> sense if the calendar they're keeping is the one that goes with
> circumcision, i.e. the Jewish calendar.
> > Makes the "most" sense to whom?
>

> Well, to me, I guess. We're in the realm of "I'm persuaded" and "I'm not
> persuaded" here.
>
> >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.
>
> My own work focuses on another aspect, circumcision as a ritual action on
> the "flesh" and the significance of the ritual action as boundary-crossing
> into and out of a sphere of influence. Your suggestions here help me
> realize that I have had an unstated "hypothetical reconstruction" which
> assumes that the Galatians have already made a break. (I use this term
> assuming the original situation as the construction for which we proposes
> reconstructions which are our own hypotheses. Given the nature of the
> evidence, they're all speculative -- some moreso than others, present
> company not included.) I realize that I have assumed that the community has
> made some significant break from their previous practices and/or from the
> cults in their context to become part of something new. Perhaps some of the
> social pressures you picture are driving them toward Jewish groups or
> practices, partly because there is a long-standing acceptance of Jews in
> Anatolia. I see Paul basing his argument, in part, on identifying this
> option with a cult and practices that they have already rejected.
>
> I'm not sure that your construction of social pressures in Anatolia is
> entirely consistent with the evidence. It's certainly a religiously complex
> and mixed area and especially with the coming of Rome also economically
> complex. Since it's difficult to place the letter with any certainty more
> specifically than in central Anatolia, it's hard to say what options would
> be for someone who made a break from their family's practices to ally with a
> new cult (Christianity). Other new cults were clearly part of the mix, too.
> The well-known cult rule from Philadelphia leaps to mind, but there are
> other inscriptions that indicate a religiously creative mix. Economic
> opportunities and options for relocation were also increasing in Paul's day.
> My impression is of the social conditions in which some people do make a
> break with family and form new communities. Your proposal is
> thought-provoking along these lines.
>
> Elli Elliott (elli AT ria.net)
> Pastor, Zion United Church of Christ, Sterling, Colorado
> PhD, New Testament & Early Christianity, Loyola University Chicago
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as:
> dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page