Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:00:21 -0600

on 1/8/04 1:04 PM, Dieter Mitternacht at teol-dmi AT cassandra.net.lu.se wrote:

> The observation that "were not
> compelled" seems somewhat redundent if Titus actually was circumcised is
> important, I think.

Dieter,
I do not see this point as very strong, although the issue of perspective,
including geographical is important. It does not seem to me that mention of
(not being) compelled is redundant, but rhetorically pertinent. This aspect
(of resistance) relates the the rhetorical purpose of the account, that is,
to that which Paul writes to the non-Jewish Galatian addressees about, for
which he supplies this example from elsewhere. They should not let
themselves be compelled (by whatever, in this case, I think, the traditional
way of attaining identity as children of Abraham, which they claim, because
of Paul's message, to have become without proselyte conversion) to be
circumcised.
>
> Also the fact that the lack of clarity in terms of "victory" as you call it
> occurs three times, may indicate that while readers may look for victory
> Paul had a different concern.

Just for clarity on my position, I do not think that victory is the message
either. It is unified resistance on the part of the members of this
coalition, including the leaders, who have suffered marginalization for
this, as do (and will) the non-Jewish addressees. The discussion of victory
arose from discussing something else.

> This reasoning of mine, as you know, is supported, of course, by the fact
> that I do not think that issue of Galatians is circumcision: yes or no?!,
> but circumcision: for what purpose? Are the Galatian Gentile Christ
> believers wishing for circumcision, because the suffering that surgery
> entails is less painful than the ostracised situation they are in. And is
> Paul interpreting such a wish to be a denial of "Christ portrayed before
> your eyes as crucified" (3:1)?
>
> Circumcision of Gentiles in Galatia (a city environment like Corinth may
> trigger quite different reactions) had become a focal point not in and of
> itself, but because it entailed (in Paul's view) a lack of Christlikeness in
> terms of cruciformity.

This is an interesting point of differentiation that you make clear. I like
your appeal to 3:1, and it corresponds well with 6:17, as we have both noted
in our work. Perhaps the difference between us is mostly one of degree, but
I am not sure.

I would agree that becoming like Christ in the sense of suffering communal
shame in the present age in anticipation of God's ultimate action to grant
honor (if I may put it this way and still represent your statement
accurately; yes?) is what Paul's message is driving at. But why in the area
of resisting proselyte conversion?

Here are a few thoughts in response to your argument. They will still likely
be marginalized if they become proselytes, both in the sense of being
formerly otherwise (e.g., freedpersons carries the stigma of formerly
slaves; see Philo's efforts to dissuade his fellow Jews from thinking this
way), and more importantly, in terms of their "pagan" family and
neighborhood social networks, not least in terms of their ability to achieve
status and goods in that social world. And they will likely be marginalized
for their faith-in-Christ group association, at least in intra-Jewish group
terms, for various reasons, even if not to the same degree as they will be
if claiming equality of standing with proselytes without becoming
proselytes.

So I think that the issue of why Paul does not here allow proselyte
conversion for non-Jews wishing to undertake that rite is still alive.
Proselyte conversion would then (if these points stand) still involve
marginalization, and thus identity with the cruciform Christ, although for
different reasons.

If my point is granted (that they would be marginalized if they were
circumcised, albeit for different reasons), for the sake of argument, why
then would you argue that Paul did not permit their circumcision?

As you know, I think that Paul's demands resistance because of a logical
extension of the claim Paul's (and the Jerusalem leaders') message of Christ
makes. Namely, that the time has begun when the nations "also" worship the
One Lord of Israel as the One God of all humankind. To become proselytes is
to undermine that claim, since then it is a claim made only for one nation,
as things are already in the present age apart from Christ's actions or
faith in him (by way of proselyte conversion, when representatives of the
nations become members of Israel). Paul sees the "truth" to be that they do
not become Israelites, but remain representatives of the other nations. So I
see it. And you (all)?

Take care,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst Universiy
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page