Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: galli (was North/South Galatian Theory)

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: galli (was North/South Galatian Theory)
  • Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:50:31 -0600


Mark, it seems to me that 5:12 can ALLUDE to the galli without being addressed TO
THEM. Obviously, circumcision is moot for those who are castrated, but it is not a
moot point to those who are not galli but happen to know about them (i.e., men and
women everywhere in Anatolia where this practice was common). Certainly it could be
sarcasm aimed at mohelim, given the Jewish context you suggest. However, we do have
indisputable evidence for the galli, whereas we do not have concrete evidence for the
Jewish context you suggest. And now back to lurking.... SEM

"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:

> Moreover, I remain unconvinced that 5:12 makes sense as an allusion to "galli," who
> would have been already castrated. It makes sense of sarcasm aimed at "mohelim,"
> those who circumcise. All this requires is a Jewish communal context that constrains
> the identity as righteous ones that the addressees seek.

Hi Sheila,
Nice to hear from you. Please note that I do not suggest Paul is here addressing those influencing the addressees (e.g., mohelim); I do not think that is the case in the letter anywhere. He writes about them, not to them.

I do not understand your comparison of evidence either, by the way. We have indisputable evidence of galli castration but not of Jewish circumcision? Where? When? What is the "indisputable evidence" that you "know" about the identity of the influencers or situation of the addressees that I have missed?

But here is what I don't understand about the citation of 5:12; perhaps you (Elli, someone) can explain it to me. I have no problem with an allusion, with the suggestion that galli castration might illuminate the comment about castration in the world of the addressees, but is that what is being claimed at work here? If so, then I do not see what this tells us about the players themselves, except that they live in a world in which this allusion is alive, and undesirable, not what they had in mind by their present concerns at all, so that the comparison has ironic effect, associating two things that the addressees did not consider comparable.

The point is that Paul vents his feelings by expression of a wish that whomever is unsettling his addressees to seek circumcision (not castration) would instead castrate themselves. Right? But if they (the ones influencing) are already castrated, i.e., galli, then what weight does this expression of disgust toward them carry? Why wish castration of those already castrated? However, if they are merely circumcised mohelim, then it is a sarcastic cut, alluding to a slip of the knife bringing unintended results for the cutter. That is not a nice wish, but at least comprehensible, to me at least. That it is perhaps accentuated by comparison to the results of a practice that Jewish mohelim (i.e., an allusion), in the case of those being persuaded by their views, would find insulting, seems to me to be another matter altogether. It further suggests that the influencers are not galli, and would not consider circumcision and castration comparable. Help, please.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page