Ben C Smith

Yes.

I do not understand the relation of this statement to the debate.

I gave the Greek, my own translation, and an explanation. This statement of yours, again, is off the mark. I sense that you mean something else (at which you are making me guess), but what you are saying is not correct.

I read that. And the whole point of my exegesis was to show that it was not an afterthought within its own sentence.

Galatians 6.12-15:

[Circumcision:] 12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised....

[Cross:] ...simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

[Circumcision:] 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

[Cross:] 14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

[New creation:] 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Paul is saying that he preaches both the cross and gentile noncircumcision despite the consequences (see 5.11), while his opponents, finding the cross alone enough of a hot potato, preach gentile circumcision. IOW, so long as the cross of Christ is interpreted to mean gentile salvation that includes gentile circumcision, persecution can be largely avoided; but he does not take this expedient, preferring to face fully what he, at least, sees as the natural consequence of the crucifixion.

Ben.

spin

Then it misrepresents the text. Paul puts up front the reason for their compelling people to be circumcised: "they want to make a good showing in the flesh". It is continued in 6:13. You are as I said, inverting the importance of the statements, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. We know that these people are in some way bragging of their deeds, as Paul admits to them doing so for their public. However, 6:12c is not a part of the ongoing idea. It doesn't fit (until you start lopping off the corners).

In your effort to upgrade 6:13c into center-stage you negate what's already there and admitted.

What you are deriving from the verse, has not been made sense of here by you.

I'm at a loss to see you show you can't make sense of the text, and we'll see this more clearly in a moment...


This doesn't seem to me to be following Paul's argumentation, Ben C, which I see this way:

they want to make a good showing by compelling you to be circumcised

they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh

I never boast about anything except the cross... by which the world has been crucified to me

neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything.

Persecution has nothing to do with this discourse. Paul introduces the cross into the discourse as his only reason to boast. The movement is from making a good show to the emptiness of doing so as the only thing worthy of boasting about has nothing to do with what one does: this leads to the last repudiation of what was being boasted about, for neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything.

Who is it that Paul sees persecuted for the cross of christ, Ben C? The idea of being persecuted for the cross isn't something that is used in the discourse, which once again deals with the vanity of torah observance.


spin

Ben C Smith

I am not putting it on center stage. I am explaining it in its context. You asked. I answered. Had you asked for my explanation of 6.12a, I would have answered that, too, and then you could have accused me of putting it on center stage. Had you asked me my favorite color, I would (probably, but bemusedly) answered, and then you could have accused me of putting colors on center stage.

Of course not! You took it out. Take out that last line about a new creation, and suddenly this discourse has nothing to do with that, either.

In 6.12, no one. Because this verse is about his opponents, who are avoiding being persecuted for the cross by pushing hard for torah.

In 5.11, Paul. Because that verse is about Paul, who is not avoiding persecution for the cross by pushing hard for torah.

Sure it is. It is right there in 6.12c. You know, the part you explained by removing from your version of Galatians 6.

Ben.

spamandham

Just to clarify, that was in response to a request for arguments supporting the idea that Paul invented the crucifixion. I have formed no opinion on that matter at this point, but am maintaining an open mind allowing the best argument to win (or to remain agnostic on the point if neither seems substantially more compelling).

I believe another interpretation is equally likely (or possibly more likely?), which is, that the Jerusalem gang was aware of the crucifixion, but did not apply theological significance to it.

This is consistent with the Gospel of Mark, which (excluding the added ending) seems to intentionally leave out the resurrection, while simultaneously allowing for it. There is no reason I can think of to do that except to harmonize two differing sects - one that believed in resurrection and thus applied theological significance to the crucifixion, and one that did not believe in the resurrection nor apply any theological significance to the crucifixion.

I slightly favor the idea that the Jerusalem sect accepted the crucifixion without theological implications. Perhaps, they simply accepted a nonspecific humiliation/death of the Christ, and so crucifixion was not disagreeable to them.

Ben C Smith

More than fair. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you think it possible that the Jerusalemites (A) were aware of the crucifixion, and (B) applied theological significance to it, but (C) that theological significance was not always or exactly the same as the significance that Paul attached to it?

Ben.

spin

I see. You generally show no interest in the reason he gives for their compelling of circumcision and I mean the one he runs with. You tack it on to the end of your analysis.

Can one not expect any better that such a umm, response?

Because you need the full text, here it is:

12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that compel you to be circumcised only that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the law themselves, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh.

14 But I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

15 For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything.

What has being persecuted got to do with making a good show or boasting? What has it to do with circumcision? These are the two themes he works through the discourse, disposing of both by the end of it.

Now persecution is back in for your benefit, but it doesn't change anything. It is stated and ignored, while the making a good show and circumcision form the basis of the discourse. The payload is in v.14 with the use of the cross to nullify the previous concerns as seen in 15a and leading to 15b, the new creation.


spin

Ben C Smith

Paul is not talking about boasting in general. He is talking about boasting in the circumcision of gentile converts. Leading us to your next question...:

Circumcising gentile converts is a good way to get praised. Telling gentile converts that they do not need to get circumcised is a good way to get persecuted.

Does that mean that Paul did not mean it? Always recall that Paul is not introducing the conjunction of persecution, circumcision, and cross for the first time here in this epistle; he has already mentioned it.

And persecution is not back; it never left.

Ben.

spin

Umm, I think that's what he said. But how is that related to an answer to the question you seemed to be dealing with?

Trying too hard, Ben C.

That doesn't seem related to the text at all. The statement about persecution relates to the cross of christ. We are trying to figure out how the discourse works in the bounds of Gal 6:12-15.

Look at the dynamic of the particular discourse unit before us. It has form, direction and movement. I know I've had difficulty communicating this idea with numerous people here, but you must deal with the local manifestation before getting involved in the wider context.

You were the one who made the silly remark: "Of course not! You took it out." Hence, I put it back for you. Hell, you're acting like you're under siege.


spin

Ben C Smith

What do you mean? Do you disagree that getting gentiles circumcised as proselytes would earn praise from many Jews?

Galatians 5.11a:

But, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?

Galatians 6.12 is an obvious recall of Galatians 5.11. It would be derelict to ignore the latter in trying to understand the former.

In order to explain the clause about the cross you removed that clause from the passage and then said: This passage has nothing to do with the cross. I honestly laughed out loud at my desk. It was funny.

I am not disagreeing that the cross is not the main theme of this passage. But it certainly is a part of the passage, and it should be explained. And it is hard to explain without assuming that Paul thinks his opponents hold to the cross, but not to gentile circumcision.

Do people under siege laugh out loud at their desks?

Ben.

spin

Again, trying too hard. If you cannot understand the responsibility of dealing with the passage at hand without first flight to something else, then I can't see how you can do text criticism. The burden is always first to deal with what you are trying to understand, the meanings of its words and phrases, how it fits into its immediate context. All you are saying to me is that you can't fit it into its immediate context.

I omitted the bit about the persecution in the first presentation of the discourse, to show the interrelations of the discourse so that you could see it didn't reflect that discourse. Your reaction was, well, just lightweight, Ben C. The laughter one would imagine is a furtive titter. I sometimes get the feeling that you leave your brain in some random location as I do my glasses.

You've failed so far.

I see it possibly as Paul gratuitously slagging them off to the Galatians. (He's already said why they were trying to compel circumcision and that is followed through with in the discourse. The persecution thingy is dropped like a bad smell.)

With an upped dosage of meds.


spin