Doug Shaver

Reputed by whom?

ApostateAbe

Reputed by anonymous Christians, or perhaps Barnabas. I thought I would be nailed on this point, since it was really only my guess that the apostles and disciples of Jesus would be reputed to have seen Jesus crucified, since they themselves are likely to have claimed it in order to bolster their authority. But, I found Luke 23:49. Not that it is a good excuse to "shoot from the hip," as Toto would say.

And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things.

The word "acquaintances" would be an exaggeration, because Jesus would have hundreds or even thousands of reputed acquaintances, but they would presumably include his immediate disciples regardless.

ApostateAbe

The opinion has been noted. Celts? Who are the celts?

DCHindley

Most likely the Boston Celtics.

Seriously, though, he is referring to the supposed ethnic makeup of the Galatians. The Greeks and Romans, at least, thought the Galatians were Celtic peoples from Gaul (think druids). Some of these Celtic tribes migrated across southern Europe and what is now Greece, and came to be known by the Greeks as Galatians.

They migrated into Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and held considerable power in Asia Minor and even Syria until they were subdued by the king of Pergamum around 230 BCE. There were three main tribes: The Trocmi occupied the easternmost portion, bordering on Cappadocia and Pontus. The Tolistobogii settles to the west along the frontier with Bithynia and Phrygia Epictatus. The Tectosages occupied the center, and their capital of Ancyra served as the Metropolis of all of Galatia.

They continued to exist as a less powerful nation, but still having a military influence on the region. The population included the Galatae peoples who formed the upper crust, the indigenous Phrygian peoples at the bottom as peasants, interspersed with Greek settlements established by Alexander the Great. While serving as mercenary troops for the Syrian Greeks, they got the attention of Rome, which conquered them in 189 BCE and made Galatia a client kingdom.

After 150 or so years as a faithful and exceedingly useful client kingdom, additions of territory were given as rewards for military assistance to Rome. These were Lycaonia, Isauria, Pisidia, parts of Phrygia, Cilicia Tracheia (the barren plateau portion, not the coastal plains or Tarsus), and parts of Pamphylia. Upon the death of the last monarch, the country was annexed as a Roman province in 25 BCE, and initially called Gallogrecia (ignoring the Phrygians).

As a Roman province the territory was reconfigured a bit, with a few parts apportioned off to other provinces and clients, but keeping the Galatian heartland, Lycaonia (including the cities of Derbe and Lystra), Isauria, the SE district of Phrygia, and a portion of Pisidia (including Pisidian Antioch). While before the annexion the three peoples, Gauls, Phrygians and Greeks, did not much intermingle, after the formation of the Roman province they amalgamated. Romans, either the Roman ruling elite or their functionaries, created an urban subculture in the governing cities.

Two thousand Jewish families had already been forcibly settled in nearby Lydia and Phrygia by Antiochus the Great, and by the time of Augustus they had found their way into Galatia to such an extent that he granted special privileges to the Jews, and had it inscribed at his temple located in Ancyra, the Galatian metropolis. Archaeological remains from the region covering several centuries also preserve Jewish names and symbols, so they had a presence both there and in the region generally.

Acts claims Paul visited Derbe, Lustra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch. These are Greek cities included in the Greater province of Galatia. Paul may have directed his epistle to the Galatians to the Galatian metropolis in Ancyra, in the heart of old Galatia.

All this is stolen from J B Lightfoot's St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1865) available as part of a four volume set of Lightfoot's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk) from Hendrickson Publishers. The set is available in new condition as remainders for as little as $25.

DCH

ApostateAbe

DCHindley, thanks for that.

Doug Shaver

Looks like quite a reach to me. But, I suppose it could be construed as you have construed it.

dog-on

I like to picture this as a Marcionite polemic against the proto-orthodoxy, in it's orginal form.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia#Celtic_Galatia

andrewcriddle

One problem is agreement in number.

The passage reads You foolish Galatians [plural] who [TIS singular] has bewitched you [hUMAS plural] before whose [hOIS plural] eyes...

The plural whose seems to go with the plural Galatians rather than the singular bewitcher.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

I don't think that option #2 makes any sense. Option #1 is not as clear cut as you seem to think. In answer to #3, I would refer you to Mark D Nanos, Irony of Galatians (or via: amazon.co.uk).

In an essay entitled "The Local Contexts of the Galatians: Toward Resolving A Catch-22," Nanos says:

Most interpreters hold that the addressees are non-Jews who are being influenced to consider the benefits of circumcision, and many understand that this particular action symbolizes the completion of the rite of proselyte conversion for males. I suggest that Paul’s [Galatian] addressees’ interest in undertaking this status transformation [i.e., circumcision] is best explained to be the result of local Jewish and pagan communal pressure to decide who they are, and what they are thereby entitled to expect according to prevailing cultural norms. Those who Paul accuses throughout this letter of manipulating so as to obstruct the progress of the addressees [i.e., the influencers], but to whom the addressees have responded positively to date as though [they were] helpful guides, are not likely newly arrived strangers with a different message about Jesus Christ that adds the requirement of circumcision (or Law observance). They are rather those intimately involved in the welcoming and accommodating of pagan guests into Jewish communal life, and in the case of those guests expressing interest in becoming members, they are the ones who respond to this interest. If proselyte membership is undertaken, they are the ones who instruct and guide them during the process of completing this rite [which involves circumcision].
http://www.marknanos.com/GalatiansLocalContext-6-03.pdf page (14 of 17)

So, in Nanos' analysis, it was not about representatives from Judea, representing Cephas, James and John, telling the Galatian pagans interested in Christianity that circumcision is required to be fully part of the Christian community (i.e., you have to be Jewish to be a Christian), but Jews (maybe even Jews who were also Christians) and pagans who want them to make up their minds whether they are pagans or Jews, in order to preserve the social norms that governed the relationships between the local Jewish community and the larger pagan community they coexisted with. Paul, for his part, did not think that pagans needed to convert to Judaism in order to benefit from the sacrifice of Christ, and opposed proselyte conversion on principal. This put him in conflict with the normative Jewish communities.

Hi ho

DCH