Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Jacob and Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Myers <mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Jacob and Paul
  • Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:20:53 -0800


J. Gibson:

"I wonder here whether there is still too much of a western
individualistic perspective? Salvific in what sense? Well, this
depends largely not only on who you see is getting "saved"
(individual or community) and from what (consequences of individual
sins or from the great Sin of national faithlessness as this gets
exemplified not only in the militant Zeal for the Law which
engendered Paul's persecution of the "church" but also in the
imperialistic values of the Pax Romana and the Imperial cult)?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Paul, doesn't SWTHRIA manifest at both levels? In Romans 11:26
for ex. salvation is national, or pan-tribal, but isn't discourse on
salvation more frequently oriented to the individual in Paul?
Nevertheless your point is a good one: Paul may be saying that sin
works itself out on the macro level too -- zeal for the letter of
Torah at the expense of the Spirit in the case of Judah, and the
arrogance of Romanitas and the Imperial cult among Romans.

I find the Eastern Orthodox extension of this discourse to be far
more meaningful and rich than the normative Western one. The Eastern
version is more "holistic", less analyzed and fragmented. QEOSIS is
a very evocative theme in Eastern mystical reflections on salvation.
These Eastern heights of speculation on the goal of salvation have
almost no counterpart in the West.

J. Gibson:

"And not to slight or circumvent this discussion here -- or even to
suggest that Xtalk is not the place for it -- but I wonder why this
whole thread on James v. Paul isn't being carried out also on Corpus
Paulinum? But I'm hardly a disinterested party when it comes to
suggesting this :)."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It had occurred to me that C-P would be a more appropriate venue.
Done!

Mike

------------------------
From: Mike Myers <mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jacob and Paul
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:35:32 -0800
To: crosstalk2 AT egroups.com


J. Gibson:

"I wonder how much the alleged contradiction between James and
Paul disappears when we take into account the claims made by a
variety of Pauline scholars that PISTIS in Paul means "Faithfulness"
and that justification by PISTIS actually involves an idea of the
willingness to imitate a pattern of faithfulness exemplified in
(what Paul perceives as) Jesus' normative pattern of servanthood.
On this ground, James might be viewed as one who supports the
historical Paul against what might -- at the risk of committing a
grave anachronism -- be called early Lutheranism."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, this is an interesting perspective. On this ground, then, could
we say analytically that, to Paul, a believer first recognizes this
faithfulness in Jesus, 1a) believes such faithfulness is pleasing to
God, 2) accepts Paul's gospel that this recognition and belief is
ITSELF salvific and opens one to reception of the Holy Spirit, and
3) demonstrates 'orthodox' faith by imitatio? Sanders made the
point in his book on Paul that the apostle to the Gentiles had to
learn over time, however, that the imitation didn't always follow
like magic from the faith. Sanders claimed that Paul was initially
naive about that, but outgrew this naivete.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
09/18/1999
12:20:53



  • Re: Jacob and Paul, Mike Myers, 09/18/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page