Were the Galatians already circumcised? II

This is the second post in the current series and it follows on from Were the Galatians Already Circumcised? I.

One of the features that has often been remarked upon in Galatians is its lack of thanksgiving at the opening of the epistle. This is in direct and marked contrast to every Pauline epistle:

Romans 1.8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world . . . ."

1 Cor. 1.4: "I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way . . . "

2 Cor. 1.3: "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble . . . ."

Phil. 1.3: "I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now . . . ."

1 Thess. 1.2-3: "We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers. 3 We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith . . ."

Philemon: "I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints . . .

The thanksgiving, straight after the standard "grace and peace . . ." is always present (and in the Deutero-Paulines too, Col. 1.3ff, Eph. 1.3ff, 2 Thess. 1.3ff) and its absence only in Galatians makes its readers sit up and pay attention. There is clearly something pretty serious happening in Galatia if Paul is not able to bring himself to offer thanks. Bear in mind that he faces other tough situations in his letters but still gives thanks. In 1 Corinthians, one of the members of the church is living with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5.1-13) and is commended by other members of the church. Paul thinks this is abominable and pronounces judgement. Yet he still has plenty of time to give thanks at the beginning of the letter. In 2 Corinthians, he has all manner of difficulties about his own reputation and authority to deal with, yet even here he finds time for thanksgiving, albeit in relation to God's comforting of Paul and his companions (2 Cor. 1.3-7).

The question that this raises with respect to Galatians is what has happened that has caused such a negative reaction on Paul's part? The common explanation, that the Galatians are contemplating circumcision is not adequate to the task. What Paul in fact appears to depict is a scenario in which the Galatians are being circumcised. He is responding to reported group actions rather than individual contemplations. Notice what replaces the thanksgiving, what sits, in Galatians, where the thanksgiving would be expected to sit:

1.6: Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον

"I am astonished that you are so quickly turning away from the one who called you in the grace [of Christ] to a different gospel."

Paul is astonished at what the Galatians are doing, turning away, departing from the one who called them – as he characterizes the situation – to a different gospel. Paul's astonishment is easier to understand if he is reacting to news of a process already underway than if he is reacting to news about the Galatians merely considering this step. Paul is expressing shock here, shock that they are turning away, abandoning his Gospel. Something tangible has happened. Something troubling and decisive has been reported to Paul. Turning away to a different gospel is rhetoric more compatible with action underway than action contemplated. In the next post in this series, I will be looking at evidence that Galatian contemplation is not what Paul is describing.

Were the Galatians already circumcised? I

This post begins a series in which I am looking to explore a controversial reading of the background to Paul's epistle to the Galatians. It is related to three recent related posts, Paul's lack of travel plans in Galatians, Paul's loss of Galatia I and Paul's loss of Galatia II, which in turn built on previous posts entitled Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians?, Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians II, Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians III, The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15, The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics.

My thesis is that Paul's loss of Galatia was already practically inevitable at the point when Paul was composing his epistle because a substantial number of the Galatians were already circumcised when Paul heard the news that was the catalyst for the epistle. He is not writing to them to dissuade them from a course of action that they are merely considering. Rather, he is rebuking them for submitting to a course of action already well underway in the churches. The case for this is cumulative and results from a careful re-reading of Paul's text. I aim to take several posts to attempt to establish this, so I am afraid that I will be asking for my readers' patience as I develop the case. In this post, I would like to look at an important verse:

6.12: ὅσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί, οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, μόνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ διώκωνται

Those who want to make a good showing in flesh, these are the ones compelling you to be circumcised, only in order that they might not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Now virtually every contemporary Bible translation takes ἀναγκάζουσιν as a conative present, "they are trying to compel you to be circumcised", but this is one of those cases where the translation is conditioned by the prior reconstruction of the situation of the epistle. [For those who need refreshing, the conative present is, in Funk's definition, "used to refer to an act attempted but not achieved (in present time)."] Because commentators assume that Paul is trying to dissuade the Galatians from being circumcised, they resist the force of what he appears to be claiming here, that the Galatians are being forced to be circumcised. There is in fact nothing in the epistle that suggests that we are dealing with attempted rather than actual coercion, and there is a good deal to suggest that Paul is describing compulsion.

The language of compulsion has an important parallel earlier in the epistle. When Paul is relating the incident at Antioch, presumably included in the epistle because it evokes for Paul a very similar situation to the one that he is now faced with in Galatia, he uses the same language of compulsion. In 2.14, Paul challenges Cephas before them all with, “If you, a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?” (Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν;). Now if there is a parallel here between the two occasions, in both the Gentile Church (Antioch / Galatia) is being compelled to Judaize (withdrawing from eating with Gentiles / circumcision) by a third party (Peter and those from James / the influencers in Galatia). In the Antioch incident, the “Judaizing”, specifically involving the compulsion to avoid mixed table fellowship, has already taken place. Likewise in Galatia, the compulsion to Judaize, this time represented specifically in the demand for circumcision, was already taking place.

But just how prevalent is the conative present in the New Testament, or indeed anywhere in Greek literature? Since it is, by necessity, determined by context, this is a tough one to judge, but I cannot find a single example of ἀναγκάζω being used conatively either in the imperfect or the present tenses. Outside of Galatians, ἀναγκάζω occurs in Paul's letters only in 2 Cor. 12.11, γέγονα ἄφρων ὑμεῖς με ἠναγκάσατε ("I have become a fool but you forced me . . .") where it is aorist and clearly used of successful compulsion. There is an alleged conative imperfect use in Acts 26.11, καὶ κατὰ πάσας τὰς συναγωγὰς πολλάκις τιμωρῶν αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν ("And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I forced them to blaspheme"), but it is unnecessary to translate the imperfect ἠνάγκαζον here with "I tried to compel them to blaspheme". Rather, Luke's pre-conversion Paul was compelling them to blaspheme, i.e. he was compelling them to call on the name of the Lord (cf. Acts 9.14, 21 – those who are persecuted are those who “call on his name”), which, from that pre-conversion perspective from which Luke's Paul is speaking, is constituted as "blasphemy".

But what about other cases? BDAG gives one other alleged example of a conative use of ἀναγκάζω, again in the imperfect, Ps.-Pla., Sisyphus 1, p. 387B, συμβουλεύειν αὐτοῖς ἠνάγκαζόν με, which it translates as “they tried to compel me to make common cause with them”, but again the conative sense is unnecessary, indeed puzzling. In George Burges's translation, this is the context: "For our rulers had a consultation yesterday and they compelled me to consult with them. Now with us Pharsalians it is a law to obey the rulers should they order any of us to consult with them”.

What we have here, in Galatians 6.12, is an indication of the situation as Paul sees it, based on the news that has come to him, and he depicts the scene in the Galatian churches as one in which his opponents are forcing his converts to be circumcised. In future posts in this series, I will attempt to show how other evidence in the epistle points to the same conclusion.

Surviving SBL

On Sean the Baptist, Sean Winter asks for tips on surviving the forthcoming SBL Annual Meeting and on Reception of the Bible, John Lyons has some excellent advice. The DC meeting will be my ninth consecutive SBL and I must admit that I am one of those who really enjoys the meeting. Here are few of my own thoughts since Sean asks. Several of these overlap with John's comments:

(1) Find people you like spending time with (and who like spending time with you, I suppose!) and your experience will be ten times more enjoyable than otherwise. I have heard some people say that they find the SBL a bit of a maze and rather overwhelming. I have never found that, and perhaps because I have been lucky enough to spend time with people whose company I greatly enjoy. The intellectual stimulation will often come more from those small gatherings with friends over a beer than it will at the sessions.

(2) Don't be over ambitious about how many sessions you can get to. I used to treat the SBL a bit like the way I used to treat the Christmas Radio Times and TV Times when I was a kid -- so much packed in that I hardly had five minutes spare.

(3) Don't feel obliged to stay for the whole two-and-a-half hour session. Several times I've got stuck in the world's most boring papers by accident because I was interested in the paper before it or after it. Unlike the BNTC, where one is encouraged to be loyal, you are allowed to be a tart at the SBL. People arrive and leave as papers begin and end. I remember my first SBL in 1998 and just as I was finishing my paper, loads of people started arriving so that they could hear Joel Marcus who was up next.

(4) Try not to burn the candle at both ends, socializing until late when you have a breakfast meeting. To be honest, I am talking to myself here. I walk round the SBL perpetually exhausted because I don't have the discipline to go to bed early when I have to be up at 6 for a breakfast meeting. Yet it seems necessary to arrange the breakfast meetings because it's one of the best ways of guaranteeing a slot to arrange a meeting.

(5) Speaking of the breakfasts, here's something I wrote in my blog a little over a year ago:

Talking of breakfast, here's a tip for those at SBL on a budget (as I have often been in the past): get to one of those great American breakfast buffets and eat to your heart's content. Don't be put off by earnest looking professor types who only visit the buffet once. Keep going for as long as you can. Eat so much that you won't want lunch. You can then make it through to the evening when you'll be just peckish enough to enjoy something else. In fact you might even be invited to one of those receptions where there's lots of food in the evening too, and on days like that, you've only bought breakfast and the budget is looking healthier than it might have been.

Birmingham never gave me enough to travel, and so troughing my face at breakfast was my standard survival strategy. And the American breakfast buffets are great, though for Brits it can be a little off-putting to see Americans putting their fruit on the same plate as their sausage and bacon, or worse, putting corn syrup on their scrambled egg.

(6) And speaking of the receptions, they are a great way of meeting people, and can be fun. They are held by publishers, universities and others and are often generous in their invitations, so (once again) be a tart and get yourself invited to a reception.

(7) On the question of reading your paper, I have outspoken views which I have blogged in the past and will no doubt blog again in the future. The gist of my concern is this: far too many people simply read their paper out at SBL sessions, sometimes in the most inarticulate way imaginable. The particular problem is speed-reading. People write their fifteen page screed and decide that they are going to read through the whole lot if it kills them, whether or not it fits into the time. Part of the difficulty here is that sessions are not always well chaired, i.e. they are not always ruthlessly chaired.

Academic strife in the UK

Today's Education Guardian has an interesting and somewhat depressing feature on the morale of British academics:

Two-thirds of academics want to quit, poll shows
Alexandra Smith
Thursday November 2, 2006
EducationGuardian.co.uk

Nearly two-thirds (62%) of UK academics have considered quitting Britain to work overseas or leaving academia altogether for a better job in the private sector, new research reveals.

The biggest gripe among lecturers is bureaucracy, with one in three respondents saying they spent at least 16 hours a week on paperwork, the research by the University and College Union (UCU) shows.

The survey of more than 1,000 lecturers in UK universities also revealed that 47% have suffered ill-health because of their job and 55% would not recommend a career in higher education to their children.

The UCU said the report, released today, was proof that universities needed to act now to ensure that current and future lecturers were not forced out of the sector or put off altogether . . .

I find it quite a depressing read because enough of it rings true from the experience of some I know. Being a professional academic is such a prize because one gets the opportunity to devote one's career to what one loves doing, but the increase of administrative responsibilities for British academics squeezes further and further the amount of time one has for teaching and research. As far as I am concerned, I did not leave the UK because of stress or pressure or unhappiness in my job. Quite the contrary -- I was very happy in Birmingham and miss it very much and would happily have spent many more years there. I left because I had a good offer elsewhere and fancied a challenge and an adventure. Nevertheless, what this report says does to some extent echo my experience of university administration in the UK, which contrasts radically with university administration in the USA (or at Duke, at least). I would spend many hours every week in Birmingham on paper work and administrative jobs that could and should have been done by support staff, but were not because the support staff were overworked (and perhaps underpaid too). To take just one example, I was post-graduate admissions tutor in our department during the last couple of years I was in Birmingham and a large part of that job consisted in circulating the same forms around to different people, filling in those forms and writing many emails. It is not the academic decision-making that I am talking about, which must always involve academics, but the nitty-gritty of repeated form-filling and paper chasing, work that is increasingly getting devolved to academics because of the paucity of support staff to do those tasks.

I think that one of the problems in UK academia goes back to the fact that the computer revolution arrived at the same time that the Thatcher government were making their cuts in higher education. Academics coped with the difficulties by absorbing a lot of the work traditionally done by support staff, now that they had their own desktop computers. What higher education needs is some serious investment in order to free up more time for academics, and at the same time a lessening of the unnecessary elements of bureaucracy that take away some of the joy of working in higher education, a job that really is, on the whole, such a great privilege.

(I should make clear that I am fully aware that my own experience is unusual and skewed by the inevitable differences between working in an excellent British (largely) state-funded university and an excellent US private university.)

Biblical Studies Carnival XI

The latest Biblical Studies Carnival is up:

Biblical Studies Carnival XI

Michael Pahl is the host and he has done an excellent job, drawing together a range of great posts from a variety of blogs, with succinct and stylish comments.

Crossley on Q

In the latest post in a series promoting his forthcoming book, Why Christianity Happened, James Crossley turns to the topic from Jewish sinners to gentile sinners. One of the matters touched on is Q and since I am indirectly mentioned (I think I am implied), I am compelled to comment on the relevant portion:

. . . . And I begin with…Q

Now calm down all Q sceptics for just one moment (and I know there are a few of you out there, including one well known one). I don’t define Q very strongly. In fact I leave much wide open and define what might be necessary for the debate. The debate functions with the loosest definition of Q as a shorthand for pre-Matthean, pre-Lukan sources and nothing more. While I believe in a general Q, I have not been convinced that this was necessarily a collection or a gospel or anything like that. Just sources for now, ok?

With that solved (note the sarcasm, please!), the real function of looking at early pre-gospel sources is that they were transmitted when the general changes I describe were taking place and so potentially back up my case. And surprise, surprise they do! Generally, there is nothing in what is generally labelled Q or earliest gospel tradition that contradicts any biblical law.

The bad news for you, James (good for me) is that in fact you don't believe in Q at all. You are a Q sceptic in all but name. If you are working with the "the loosest definition of Q as a shorthand for pre-Matthean, pre-Lukan sources", then you are not working with Q at all. Everyone accepts that Matthew and Luke had sources, so "pre-Matthean, pre-Lukan sources" do not in any sense constitute what is usually called Q. The point of the Q hypothesis is that it is possible specifically to identify, describe and study one of those sources, which is constituted, in the simplest terms, by the non-Marcan material common to Matthew and Luke.

I think it is important to get one's thinking clear about these issues because they have ramifications for the way that one views Christian origins. Let me illustrate by drawing attention to one of the other alleged "pre-Matthean, pre-Lukan sources", L, the symbol usually given for special Lucan material, material that is distinct from Mark, M and Q. If this material is first or second generation, as people like Streeter, Taylor and Jeremias thought, then one has some vital data for the understanding of the development of the early tradition. Pericopae like the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30) and The Sinning Woman in Simon's House (Luke 7.36-50) would be key in the reconstruction of the way that the first generations of Christians were thinking. If, on the other hand, one is inclined to see such L pericopae as Luke's creative re-writing of material inherited from literary sources like Mark, then clearly they become useful instead for the redaction-critical interpretation of Luke at the end of the first century.

While I am sceptical about our abilities to stratify early Christian traditions in the way that Crossan, for example, wishes, I do think it is important to pay attention to source-critical issues in the discussion of Christian origins lest we simply lump together disparate materials.

These comments are, of course, only based on James's blog entry; it may be that the book goes into greater detail in setting out the case for treating the Synoptic Problem in the way outlined in that post. (And I am looking forward to reading the book. For other posts related to it, see James's Early Christian History).

Recommending resources for NT graduates

On Thursday this week, our New Testament and Judaic Studies Colloquium at Duke, which meets three or four time each term, was devoted to looking at bibliographical and other resources, with an eye specifically on graduate students. Joel Marcus talked about key books, bibliographical resources and the like for the first part of the colloquium, and brought down a large mobile bookcase filled with his special selections including BDAG, Hatch and Redpath, New Testament Abstracts, and loads more, some of which were new to me. Eric Meyers followed up with some recommended resources for the study of early Judaism and Yael Wilfand talked about and demonstrated the remarkable Judaic Responsa, which was completely new to me.

I had been asked to take half an hour to introduce people to some important electronic resources. I took my laptop along and plugged it into the data projector and led people through one or two things that were recent and worthwhile, thinking in particular of things that people might not have known about, or might never have dabbled in. As well as mentioning one or two global things like Firefox (do you have Firefox 2 yet?), I stressed the importance of people coming to terms with unicode, and suggested my Greek New Testament Gateway: Fonts page as a good place to begin. It really is time to drop SPIonic and embrace the unicode revolution. (If only we could persuade more of the publishers of this.)

I pointed people to ATLA as a wonderful bibliographical resource (and more), but added that JSTOR is currently going from strength to strength and often provides a far more user-friendly viewing experience (e.g. PDF downloads) for articles they have available. Where our students were on a Duke computer, or on a Virtual Private Network link up, they can access a world of information on-line through ATLA and JSTOR. I introduced Google Scholar too, which I find myself using ever more frequently, and Google Books, which I have been enjoying a great deal since the recent launch of the "Full view books" capability, with PDF downloads, on old volumes -- and I showed them the first page of Grenfell and Hunt's 1897 LOGIA IHSOU.

Among other recent resources, I had to give priority to Zhubert.com, which I use regularly, and have recently added to the left hand column here, and have promoted to top billing on the Greek New Testament Gateway. I showed how one can click on words, go to word statistics and lexica and so on.

James Barr Times obituary follow-up

There is a brief reaction to The Times Obituary of James Barr. This is from Lives Remembered, Comments, October 26:

M. E. J. Richardson writes: To say of James Barr (obituary, October 18) that “his Hebrew muse seemed to have deserted him” when he took up the Regius Chair of Hebrew fails to take note of the time he invested for the Oxford University Press in preparing material for a new edition of its dictionary of biblical Hebrew. The decision to abandon the project because of lack of funds was a great disappointment to him.

To say that he was “reluctant to engage in serious oral debate and discussion” fails to ring true to many colleagues. An academic discussion at one of his lectures revealed that he had not advanced any thesis without fully considering the merits of the antithesis. When invited to debate publicly with the Professor of Ugaritic at the Pontifical Institute in Rome about the translation of some of the cruces interpretum in the Book of Job, he readily accepted. His opponent, who had not met him before that, was afterwards heard to remark that he had been somewhat surprised to find that their fundamental disagreements could be laid to rest in such a cordial and dignified way . . . .

Color of the Cross first reviews

Matt Page, over on Bible Films
has a summary of the first few reviews of Color of the Cross. So far, pretty negative stuff:

First few reviews for Color of the Cross

Paul's loss of Galatia II

In a previous post, Paul's loss of Galatia I, I began to outline why I think Paul lost the Churches of Galatia, following on from earlier posts that built the foundation for the case (In particular see The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 and The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics).

[In other blogs, see recently Loren Rosson, Why Paul Took Up the Collection (Rom 15:25-32), Phil Harland, Paul, the Galatians, and circumcision (NT 1.6) and Paul and the situation at Galatia — again (NT 2.9). Also browse earlier posts in The Stuff of Earth and Hypotyposeis.]

In this post, I would like to summarise the reasons found in my previous post(s), to add a fresh argument, and to lay the groundwork for a controversial proposal about what actually happened in what were originally Paul's Galatian churches. First, then, a summary of the case that Paul lost the churches of Galatia:

(1) The collection: In Paul's instructions concerning the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, Galatia is initially included (1 Cor. 16.1-4) but has dropped out in subsequent epistles, 2 Corinthians 9.1-4 and Romans 15.24-28. Paul is still on good terms with the Galatians in 1 Corinthians, and has recently given them directions concerning the collection, but by 2 Corinthians and Romans, they are no longer mentioned as participants in the collection. The rupture with the Galatian churches, to which the epistle to the Galatians bears witness, has occurred in between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Paul has lost those churches, and Galatians is his last desperate attempt to win back people he sees as apostate. See further: Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians?, and cf. Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians II and Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians III.

(2) Absence of Travel Plans: There is a striking absence of travel plans in Galatians. Paul always makes travel plans in his epistles, always talks about his next visit; it's a repeated theme. See 1 Thess. 2.17--3.1; 1 Cor. 16.5-10; 2 Cor. 12.14--13.2; Romans 1.9-15 and 15.22-25; Philemon 22; Phil. 1.21-27. Paul is writing to the Galatians already conscious that he has made his last visit to them. See further: Paul's lack of travel plans in Galatians.

(3) The Scarcity of Galatia in Acts: Galatia and the Galatian crisis has been written out of Paul's story in Acts. All that survives of Galatia in Acts are remnants of Paul's itinerary, with no additional detail:

16.6, "They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region . . ."

18.23, "Paul left and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia . . . "

There is no story of the conversion of the Galatians, and still less of the crisis there. This is significant given the fact that Acts does tell the story of the founding of the major centres of Paul's activity as reflected in his other epistles, Philippi in Acts 16, Thessalonica in Acts 17, Corinth in Acts 18 (and of course, Rome is the theme of the end of Acts).

On this latter point, it might, of course, be objected that Acts 13-14 tell the story of Paul's founding mission in Galatia, and that this is the region Paul is writing to in Galatians, the so-called "South Galatian hypothesis". But whatever one thinks of this hypothesis (and I am not persuaded), it is important to remind ourselves of something simple, that Luke himself does not call that region Galatia. When Luke is talking about places like Lystra, Derbe and Iconium, he calls them "cities of Lycaonia" (Acts 14.6; cf. Acts 14.11). The term "Galatia", which Luke knows and uses (Acts 16.6, 18.23) does not refer to this region. In other words, Luke knows of a mission there which he does not narrate. Alongside the other evidence, it seems likely that Luke knew that Paul had been ultimately unsuccessful there.

In my next post in this series, I would like to discuss the situation addressed by Paul in Galatians, and I will suggest that contrary to the usual reconstructions, the process of circumcision was already underway before Paul wrote to them his letter of rebuke.

Review of Biblical Literature latest

Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the New Testament and Early Christianity heading:

Yong-Sung Ahn
The Reign of God and Rome in Luke's Passion Narrative: An East Asian Global Perspective
Reviewed by Darrell L. Bock

Gary A. Long
Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Greek: Learning Biblical Greek Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar
Reviewed by P. J. Jordaan

Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald, with Janet H. Tulloch
A Woman's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity
Reviewed by Laura Nasrallah

Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, ed.
History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday
Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild

Life of Brian: The Musical

It sounds pretty implausible, I know, but it's true -- they are turning The Life of Brian into an oratorio called Not the Messiah. On FilmChat, Peter Chattaway draws attention to this article in Playbill:

Spamalot Creators Handle "Not the Messiah" Take on "Life of Brian" for 2007 Debut
By Ernio Hernandez
16 Oct 2006

Spamalot creators Eric Idle and John Du Prez are mining the Monty Python catalog for more as the duo will present "Not the Messiah," a 50-minute oratorio based on the 1979 film "Life of Brian."

The commissioned work will be a part of 2007's Luminato, the Toronto Festival of Arts Culture and Creativity, at the Toronto Symphony Orchestra on June 1, 2, and 4 (all at 7:30 PM) in 2007, according to a TSO spokesperson.

The world premiere of "Not the Messiah" will be conducted by TSO Music Director Peter Oundjian (who happens to be Idle's cousin). The work — which Idle states "will be funnier than Handel, though not as good" — is to be performed by a narrator, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, with guest soloists and choir . . .

Well, I for one am looking forward to this, on the assumption that it eventually makes it to record and future performances.

Color of the Cross article

Metromix.com (Chicago Tribune) has the following article on the forthcoming film Color of the Cross:

Biblical film portrays Jesus as a man of `Color'
By Ron Grossman
Tribune staff reporter

Hollywood being no place for modesty, Jean Claude LaMarre sees himself enlarging an artistic path blazed by Leonardo da Vinci. In his movie, "Color of the Cross," which opens late October, Jesus is a black man. It's a break with convention bound to stir controversy -- he hopes the kind that produces long lines at the box office, LaMarre freely admits.

He wrote, directed and stars in the low-budget production, upon which he has bet $2.5 million of his own money. The movie asks viewers to take not just one, but two leaps forward in their understanding of the Gospels' ethnic back story . . . .

. . . . In fact, Jesus' ethnicity has been a stumbling block for directors for as long as they've been making biblical films, notes Adele Reinhartz. A biblical scholar turned movie historian, her book "Jesus of Hollywood" will be published early next year. For her research, she watched 40 movies with biblical themes.

"Hollywood wants to have it both ways: to show Jesus in a Jewish context but not make him seem Jewish," said Reinhartz, associate vice president of research at the University of Ottawa . . . .

. . . . LaMarre chose to center his script on the Thursday of Holy Week. He says that the biblical narrative of what transpired on that day prior to Jesus' capture is tantalizingly thin, allowing LaMarre free rein for his imaginative powers. The resulting script emphasizes the social and political setting of Jesus' ministry.

Jesus' final days took place during Passover, a pilgrimage holiday in ancient Judaism's religious calendar. Jews from all over would flock to the Temple, making it a time of anxiety for their Roman masters, who feared that political agitators would stir up the crowds. Security was tight in Jerusalem during the holiday.

"The Jews have always been an uncontrollable people," LaMarre said. "The Romans really didn't know what to do with them."

I don't like that last comment much (imagine if Gibson had said that in the lead up to The Passion of the Christ's release!) but otherwise the article is an interesting one, and it is good to see them consulting experts like Adele Reinhartz for the article.

Journal of Greco Roman Christianity and Judaism latest

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for the note that there is more content available on the Journal of Greco Roman Christianity and Judaism, Volume 3. The articles available for this volume so far are:

Craig Evans, Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity
Richard Van Egmond, The Messianic ‘Son of David’ in Matthew
Ronald Weed, Aristotle on Justice (δικαιοσύνη): Character, Action and Some Pauline Counterparts
Michael Wojciechowski, Paul and Plutarch on Boasting

The first of these is also available on Craig Evans's web page.

James Barr -- Herald Obituary

Today's Herald has an obituary of James Barr:

Rev Professor James Barr
JOHNSTON MACKAY
Theologian and leading Old Testament scholar; Born March 20, 1924; Died October 14, 2006

Tyndale Tech Latest

The latest Tyndale Tech from David Instone Brewer is now on-line and as usual, it is well worth consulting:

Time-Saving Tools for Writing

Of particular interest is the InsertBible tool -- details at the link above.

David Daube book online

ABZU Bibliography Update notes this excellent new contribution to the world of on-line full text free for all books:

David Daube, Appeasement or Resistance and Other Essays on New Testament Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)

Segal becomes a Busybody

Alan Segal's first post over on The Busybody has been posted -- Some Social Dimensions of Life after Death

James Barr: Times Obituary

Today's Times has an obituary of James Barr:

Professor James Barr
March 20, 1924 - October 14, 2006
Distinguished Hebraist and biblical scholar who exposed grave flaws in the traditional approaches to philology and exegesis

Update (13.37): just noticed that Tyler Williams had already mentioned The Times obituary.

Update (Thursday, 18.49): Doug Chaplin comments on the revamped Metacatholic -- James Barr and the slow death of the etymological fallacy.

Update (Friday, 7.24): Jim Davila comments on Paleojudaica and Pete Williams comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism.

Paul's loss of Galatia I

In previous posts, I have suggested that Paul lost the battle in Galatia (see Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians; cf. also Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians II and Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians III; and most recently Paul's lack of travel plans in Galatians). In comments to that most recent post, Simon (no surname given) and Michael Pahl both suggest that Galatians was written shortly before the Jerusalem council and that this explains Paul's "lack of hope or plans". I have laid out why I think that this kind of approach does not work in that, it seems to me, Galatians 2.1-10 is describing the Jerusalem council also narrated by Luke in Acts 15 (The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 and The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics). It may be worth underlining, though, that the Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 11.27-30 view requires Paul to have two splits with Barnabas, in Antioch, both straight after they have visited Jerusalem. Among other difficulties, I can't help thinking that that solution is not parsimonious. But Simon writes:

If Galatians was written as Paul packed for this meeting (metaphorically - I realise he didn't have much to pack!), it could explain the almost complete lack of personal information in the letter.

And Michael Pahl echoes:

Paul is uncertain how the council will go, uncertain how the "pillars" will respond given Peter's and James' apparent reneging on their prior affirmation of Paul's gospel. He is uncertain how the Galatians will respond, uncertain about this whole region he has just recently poured his life and energies into. Paul is certain about his call and his gospel revelation, but he's uncertain about almost everything else related to his personal "mission."

Other than the things already mentioned, I find this suggested scenario implausible given the direct analogy that Romans provides. In that epistle, Paul is about to set off for Jerusalem (15.25-26), and he is anxious about how he will be received (15.30-2), and he has plenty of time to make advanced travel plans. On balance, an alleged Pauline journey to Jerusalem to take place just after the writing of Galatians is not fully persuasive as an explanation for the lack of travel plans in the epistle.

Richard Fellows, also in comments, makes the following suggestion concerning Paul's success in Galatia:

I don't think we can know for sure whether Galatians was successful. The survival of the letter may suggest that it was. It seems that the readers respected the letter sufficiently to preserve it.

For Jimmy Dunn, this is a decisive point in favour of the success of the epistle – it was saved by the Galatians and so it achieved its purpose of persuading them of the proper course of action. Even J. Louis Martyn, who is somewhat less positive about the letter’s success overall, still feels that the existence of the letter provides us with decisive evidence that at least some of the members of the community must have been won over. However, the fact of the existence of the letter tells us nothing about its success or otherwise. It takes only one person to save an epistle, and one person in several churches is some way from success. (And there is only one recipient of Philemon, and that one survived, a letter somewhat less important or impressive than Galatians). But more importantly, both Harry Gamble and David Trobisch have made persuasive cases that Paul himself would have kept copies of his own letters, that he was, effectively, the owner of the first Pauline corpus. A moment's consideration confirms the plausibility of this scenario. You do not go to the trouble of writing letters wrenched from your heart only to trust them to the vagaries of travel, loss, fire, theft, the elements.

The question is, in fact, not why any recipients troubled themselves to save the epistle, but rather whether Paul or his associates would have had any reason to destroy the epistle. Here we enter the realm of the imagination, but I can think of several good reasons why Paul and his companions would have wanted to save this letter for posterity. (a) For Paul himself it provided a useful rough draft for his epistle to the Romans. Of course he does not know that at the time of writing, but perhaps he came to think that there were arguments in Galatians that he could (even should) revise, refine, rework at a later point. The loss of Galatia causes him to think again about key elements in the argument of the epistle, and in the issue his opponents there had spotlighted. (b) For his followers and the earliest collectors and keepers of his letters, the only important thing would have been that Paul himself had written this letter. (c) Though he had lost, Paul no doubt felt that he was still right – he had a basic pride in his argument – and for this reason he and his followers save the letter. It is rather poignant that the letter itself survives long after the communities that rejected it and its writer, so that ultimately it did find its own kind of success, canonised and remembered and in the end able to persuade later generations who had no access to the other side of the argument.