Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Ga; 3:10-13 (People under curse)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Ga; 3:10-13 (People under curse)
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:43:42 -0500


I had responded:
And does
> not Paul's argument go the opposite way according to my comments?
> Perhaps Paul is saying "Christ redeemed us (Israel) from the curse of
> the Law (Deuteronomic covenant with Israel), having become a curse
> for us (Israel)...that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham
> (covenant with all nations) might come upon the gentiles/all nations,
> that

we (all humankind) might receive the Spirit through faith (the
> faithfulness of Christ and/or the response of faith)." His preceding
> and following arguments seem to be along this same line.

To which Moon replied:
Aha, you take the "us" to refer to Israel, and the "we" to all humankind.
If that is possible, then the conclusion surely proves the verse 2.
But is that possible grammatically speaking?
Both "us" and "we" should refer to the same group, it seems.

Dear Moon,
This might be a good question for Greek specialists, such as B-Greek, but I doubt it can be resolved grammatically, that it is either proven or dismissed as possible. More important is the overall unit of discourse in which it functions. It seems possible for me in logical communicative terms. First, because it follows the flow of his argument, as you note, making sense of v. 2. In my view the entire discourse of 3:6--4:7 explains the point made in 3:1-5; or at least it was written to do so, so that the interpreter should be concerned with making an effort to connect them.

Also, if Paul was speaking instead of writing, in an oral comment it is easy enough to use the same word--not restricted to us/we, but to just about any word--in different ways in the same sentence or statement. One can use their arms, facial expressions, etc., to differentiate the us from the us. (When we do this in written communication, as we often do for example in the marketing/advertising business, there is always the risk of miscommunicating; of course, sometimes that is just the ambiguity that the double usage is intended to play off).

This may be a case where considering the performance aspects of Paul's letters is pertinent. Some have argued that they should be considered for their oral characteristics, since they were written with respect to their intended delivery. They were to be read aloud, even performed when delivered. Hence the messenger was someone sent by Paul, perhaps coached as to the meaning he intends to communicate.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page