Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Billy Evans" <bevans AT cinci.rr.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:08:30 -0400


Dear Mark:

A few notes before I deal with verbal aspect.

1). For a Jewish perspective of the Romams 4/Gal 3 argument see Eugene
Mihaly, "A Rabbinic defence of the Election of Israel," 37 HUCA (1964)
103-143. Mihaly attempts to prppose an argument a first century Rabbi would
make: He says "Regardless of the interpretation of Paul's attitude toward
legal prescriptions and toward those who lived under the 'law,' the passages
under Galatians and Romans clearly demonstrate that the election of Abraham
was used as a pivotial argument for the elect status of the Christians.
They were the true heirs of Abraham; the genuine chosen people--a status
achieved by faith in Jesus Christ" (109).

2). If election is the issue, then we are talking about grace and cheap
grace (Bonhoffer) at that. Jews were born into salvation. So why would
they ever think of working their way to heaven. John the Baptist called
certain Jews a brood of snakes only to hear a Jewish claim that hung on
their election through Abraham. The merit of the fathers always provided
their justification; not their own works. The "new perspective" of 1982 by
Dunn's title at the U of Manchester lectures echoes this point.

3). Paul never intends to define the word "work" as something that makes
one sweat, or as a religious catch-all for people destined for hell due to
their wrong Christian soteriology. My thought is that Paul thinks of 'works
of the law' as a kind of work that the particular saving part of the law
did. That is how Paul can say that if one returns to the Law through
circumcision (for salvation--Gal 5:1-6) then that person has severed himself
off from Christ. Very plain don't you think? The issue then is as Oster
explained to me, not 'defect' but 'defection,' or as Sanders states not
getting in but staying in. 4QMMT and 4Q174 support this. The 174 text
needs to be corrected to read 'works of the law' instead of 'works of
thanksgiving'. HUC's Kaufman, Lund, and Ed Cook supported my ammendation
here.

4). Now we can get into aspect. Aspect is almost everything in Hebrew.
How much this influences Greek I'm not sure except for knowing that that is
exactly how we deal with the paradox in I John 1 and the one who sins: we
translate the present tense as the one who CONTINUES TO SIN. Thus...

Galatians 2:14b, "if you, thougth a Jew, CONTINUE TO LIVE like a Gentile and
not like a Jew, how can you CONTINUE TO COMPEL the Gentile sinners

verse 16: dikaioutai PPI3S
episteusamen AAI1P
dikaiothomen APS1P
dikaiothasetai FPI3S
etc....

You can take it from here.

Finally: In the name of R. Akiba, "Everything is foreseen; freedom of
choice is given. And the world is judged by grace, and yet all is according
to the amount of work." This is indeed an unusal reading. But some of the
best mss have the words, "And NOT according to the amount of work." The
difference between the two readings are so enormous that we should expect
from the commentators some long fissertation about the doctrines of
justification by grace and works. BUT, nothing of the sort happens. Why?
Could it be that they fail to realize the import of the difference?

Let me know what you think. It is interesting.

Billy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:13 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective


> on 7/26/01 1:10 PM, Billy Evans at bevans AT cinci.rr.com wrote:
>
> > My own addition to the topic of "works of the law" is this: why haven't
we
> > been discussing aspect especially in Gal 2:14-16. This seems to answer
the
> > question of individual or nationalistic attention via Paul.
>
> Dear Billy,
> I also think this is a key text for the discussion. Please elaborate the
> answer you propose.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT home.com
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: bevans AT cinci.rr.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page