Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Law

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 22:23:27 +0100



Terrence Donaldson wrote:

> The phenomenon is perhaps most marked in Romans 4. Here, in making the
> case that Gentiles are part of Abraham's family, Paul asserts that they
> are part of his "sperma" (v. 16; cf. v. 13, 18). The backdrop to the
> language here is Genesis 17, where -- problematic for Paul's argument --
> sperma are defined very precisely in terms of circumcision; one who is
> uncircumcised is "cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant"
> (Gen 17:14). What makes this argument revealing, in my view, is that the
> Abraham narrative provided Paul with a much "softer" option for bringing
> Gentiles into relationship with Abraham: they could simply be seen as
> part of the multitude of nations (Gen 17:5) of which Abraham was father.
> These "nations" are evidently differentiated from the circumcised
> "seed". Thus the passage could easily have been read in a "righteous
> Gentile" kind of way (cf. t. Sanh. 13.2), leading to an argument in
> which the Gentiles are members of Abraham's extended "family of
> nations," without having to become part of the covenantal "seed." Paul's
> citation of this verse from Genesis (Rom 4:17) indicates that he was
> aware of this option. But instead, he wants to use the language of full
> covenant membership to describe "members" who at the same time do not
> bear - and are categorically prohibited from accepting -- the
> scriptural marks of covenant membership.

Dear Terence,
I am pleased to see that you have entered the discussion about this topic.
And I must say that it is quite a coincidence that I happened to see this
message of yours just a few minutes after I had finished reading the
chapter "generic humanity" in your book, where you deal with the problem
of Abraham and his "seed". I thought your line of reasoning was brilliant
and I am increasingly convinced that you have hit the nail right on the head
on most points passage in Romans 4. I also believe that your arguments
about Romans 4, paired with your further argumentation in the chapter
called "Israel" puts almost
insurmountable obstacles for Mark Nanos' thesis that Paul only saw his
gentile-christians as righteous gentiles and not part of the true "spiritual"
Israel that consisted of both gentile-christians and jewish-christians.
I also must commend you for not trying to make Paul logical at almost any
price. Instead you try to show us Paul as he very probably was; a human
being who often tried to accomplish the impossibe - to make a circle into
a quadrant and still call it a circle. Your book doesn't smell the least of
apologetics or political correctness, a thing that I certainly applaud as a
historian.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Göteborg, Sweden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page