KAHL’S INTRODUCTION
Kahl mentions a “68 C.E.” rebellion in the Roman Province of Galatia, conducted by the Roman-appointed governor, Gaius Julius Vindex. Kahl states (p 1) that this episode is “directly relevant to interpretation” because the Roman-occupied areas, Gaul and Galatia “were more closely linked in the first century, C.E. mind, than we realize.”
The Apostle Paul was dead (according to well accepted tradition) by the time of the Gaius Julius Vindex rebellion.
The likelihood of Paul’s death has to mean that whatever association is to be made between the rebellion and the Apostle, is made without reference to any comment or thought Paul might have had about the rebellion, because Paul could have had none.
Similarly, there is no mention by Kahl that the rebel governor, Gaius Julius Vindex had known Paul, known of Paul or had been influenced by Paul in any way.
These discontinuities are not issues for Kahl. Why not?
Note that Kahl has stated that her purpose in mentioning the 68 C.E. rebellion is to draw the readers attention to the “mind” of the first century, C.E.
The “mind” of an era is a large item. I am hoping that Professor Kahl will clarify what might be the specific features of this “mind” and how it can inform the reader’s understanding.
It appears that the introductory mention of the rebellion in Galatia is an occasion for Kahl to emphasize that the two Roman-governed regions (Gall and Galatia) ought to be seen as more closely linked “than we realize.”
I don’t know why Kahl thinks her readers do not already link Gaul and Galatia. Both areas were populated by clans of “Gauls” prior to their defeat in war by Roman legions, centuries before. Both retained similar if not identical languages, which Jerome noted and which many Galatians commentaries have pointed out. Today, one area, Gaul, is France. The other, Galatia, is a portion of southern Turkey.
Intending to link the two areas quite closely for her readers, Kahl adds, surprisingly, “From a strictly lexical perspective, the whole letter that Paul addresses to the “assemblies of Galatia” [. . .] could as well have been directed to the Roman province(s) of Gallia, contemporary France [. . .].” (pp 1-2)
From a “strictly lexical perspective” Lincoln’s Gettysburg address could have been addressed to British subjects deported to Australia, or to English-speaking Canadians or to the British Parliament. But none of these were the intended audience of the Address – and for vastly more important reasons than that dissimilar audiences spoke/speak the same language.
This hyperbole is a bit discouraging in an Introduction. You hate to see a writer, at the outset, overreach to this degree.
Patience. We are only to page two. Top of.
