Corpus-Paul

[lungu AT andrews.edu]

I have several problems with Martin's suggestion:
First, as it stands Gal 3:28 seems more as a reminder of the Galatians' 
experience of baptism than a reaction to "the extent of the obligations of 
circumcision" (Martin, 120).

Second, the distinction that the Pentateuch makes between household slave and 
resident alien makes sense in Palestine but it seems irrelevant in Galatia. 
Could it ever occur to any Galatian business person that his/her day laborers 
were also to be circumcised? 

Third, I can not make sense of the statement: "Although not obligated, the 
Greek and the free person may choose to become circumcised, but the female 
may 
not. This feature of the circumcision legislation probably explains the 
variation in the syntax of Gal 3:28 from ouk ...oude in the first two pairs 
to 
ouk ... kai in the third" (Martin, 121).

Could somebody shed some light?

Best!

Oleg
lungu AT andrews.edu