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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 04:51:48 -0600


Dear Antonio,
I think it may be time to delete most the the text of former comments. As far as I can see my challenge to the idea of spiritual "proselytes" (spiritual Israel or Israelites) in Paul's language has not been met. You may find them and such ideas in later Christian writings and think this expresses Paul's ideology, but that is not the same as finding them explicit in Paul's argument, of which you have presented no evidence. Ambiguous references (e.g., Gal. 6:16) do not carry your argument very far, can be easily argued to the opposite conclusion. As far as I can see the theme to which you appeal is not implicit throughout Paul's argumentation, as would be required for the thesis to stand, but actually the opposite theme appears to be implicit throughout. Terry has written to me off-list to note that he is unable to contribute further the conversation presently. Perhaps we will hear from him later. If you wish to make arguments from his work that is fine, but I do not think that this is required of me, since I disagree on this point, and I am familiar with what he has written. I suggest that you reconsider that he has set out several eschatological models from which a person or group might assess the "present" situation in view of expectations for the "awaited" age to come; we have found Paul to work within different models. Argument about this issue might be productive.

On my reading of Paul, and after consideration of many arguments by other interpreters, Paul writes to and of gentiles, i.e., representatives of Nations other than Israel, who have joined with Israelites in the worship of the One God of Israel as the One God of all humankind to form a new community of Israel and the Nations. Paul argues for this as appropriate on the basis of the meaning of the actions of God in Christ, which have brought the dawn of the age Israelites await of serving as a light to the Nations. Some Israelites (the remnant) are engaging in this task, such as Paul, on behalf of all Israelites, not against them, and eventually all of them will realize their present error of judgment and join with the remnant. Somehow gentiles are also now a part of this task, oddly enough. They should thus think and behave accordingly as righteous gentiles who understand who they are in relation to what God has been seeking to do on behalf of all humankind by way of Israel and her Christ, so that these other Israelites will be moved to reconsider the meaning of Jesus Christ for themselves.

Paul does write things that Jewish people such as myself find offensive (this is surely not a point you need to make for my sake!), especially his curse and castrations wishes in Galatians. But he was not writing to Jewish people who did not share his convictions on the topics. Rather he wrote to non-Jewish people who found themselves marginalized by his teaching that they are to remain gentiles although claim the same rights "as though" proselytes (but not "as" proselytes, since they are not to become such in the age to come according to the eschatological model Paul now understands to shape reality). He was their champion, and his rhetorical interests and the context of his addressees interests must be considered in assessing his comments when engaged in the task of historical criticism.

Paul's letter's exemplify in-house rhetoric directed to Christ-believing gentiles who are suffering for a minority conviction within the Jewish communities, who are themselves minority groups with interests to protect within the Greco-Roman communities of the Diaspora (most letters are to very different groups and situations within this framework). But the mail was delivered to another address, you might say, and we have become aware of a conversation not intended for our consumption that is full of parental persuasive techniques engaged in at our expense. Have you never heard (or can you not imagine) a conversation within the confines of your home in which a parent insulted other children (or parents) appealed to for proving the child's case? This occurs when making a point for his or her child responding to perceived or real pressure to conform his or her behavior with norms that the parent considers much more dangerous for his or herself than the child is apparently able to recognize. Such is the nature of Galatians as I read it. But the window has been left open, you might say, and we have, as the children or parents next door, now heard something that was not intended for our hearing, and is not really about us perhaps, but rather is said in the interest of that parent's child as he or she perceived appropriate for the more important rhetorical task of saving his or her child from self-inflicted yet socially influenced harm.

I will also leave aside replying to your several ad personam comments, which are merely informal fallacies that are not arguments on the topic, except to state the obvious: any argument (e.g., book) should be analyzed by its stated purpose. I would think that you are familiar with the difference between, e.g., a topical study of all of Paul's letters, a commentary on one of them, and a thematic study within a particular letter, although your comments might be taken to suggest otherwise. If it is your purpose to be insulting, then that has been accomplished. If it is to make a case for your position, then it is not a very useful tactic as far as I am concerned, not to mention an invitation to terminate a conversation that is taken up by choice. Perhaps you would like to restate some argument you think useful on the issue, but as presently stated I choose not to reply.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page