Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The purpose of the law in salvation-history

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The purpose of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:39:30 -0500


Loren,
I hope that this post will not inhibit others from engaging your argument as
set out, but since it has been quiet so far, I thought you might like to
know that your post brings to the surface a methodological matter of some
interest to me.

Without wishing to engage at this moment the details of either Sander's or
your proposal, I am struck by the order that emerges in these three points.
It is but one of the many problems I have with the way the modern (and
traditional!) discussion of Paul and the Law is constructed, not least its
supposed centrality.

For example, the ordering (1, 2, 3) of these propositions makes it seem that
the first consideration of God was to give the law in order to consign
humankind to sin, in order that humans would need be saved/rescued from this
plight, on the basis of faith. Perhaps I am mistaken about what the order of
the points is meant to set out, but when I try to conceptualize why (Paul or
anyone would imagine) God going about things in this way I am unable to make
sense of the proposition. Now to my point.

I wonder if both propositions don't suffer from a flaw in terms of
evaluating these documents as though the (assumed) chronology of events that
gave rise to these two letters, or even the order of the argumentation
within each of them, dictates the order of the development of authorial
discovery and way of thinking (I mention assumed, since we don't actually
know that Galatians preceded Romans, among other things, such as whether, if
many years passed between writing them, he then consulted the details of one
text written to one group/s while writing a later one to another
group/s...). It seems to me that this subject-oriented study, which is
essentially a synchronic endeavor (and one that grows perhaps out of later
Christian ideological concerns?), is limited to hypothesizing in a certain
direction as a result of this kind of diachronic methodological assumption.
As noted, we don't even know the order of the letters, much less of the
author's development or thought, since the letters address different people,
times, and situations, and express different rhetorical aims.

Might not the author have thought this through in one direction, or even
somewhat randomly, for any number of reasons, but presented it in different
letters, argued differently? Even, on any given topic, or even in a larger
way, have changed his mind, or developed a different emphasis? Within any
given letter we can deduce some rhetorical frame. When undertaking this kind
of wide-ranging synchronic project, should not all of the available evidence
be considered side by side rather than in sequence, and yet with attention
to the rhetorical context of each comment? In other words, why organize the
argument as though the author had provided a systematic theology in the
first place, or even made an effort to be comprehensive in any way, since
this runs against the grain of the way the information we have is framed,
that is, in situational letters.

I realize that you are merely following Sanders' lead, but he was working
within a framework that was shaped by the way the issues had been approached
in the theological tradition he sought to challenge. We are still in the
early phases of learning to practice historical and rhetorical criticism in
our approach to Paul's texts. Perhaps you are needlessly accepting
limitations of the received way to organize the issue, and thus needlessly
limiting the possibilities? Anyway, the challenge that your post brings to
mind is the need to rethink where to even begin...

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com

on 8/29/01 6:26 AM, Loren Rosson at rossoiii AT yahoo.com wrote:

> I wish to follow up on my previous post by pointing
> out a slight (but significant enough) disagreement
> with Sanders on my part, which relates to certain
> passages in Romans which he believes echoes the
> argument of Gal. 3:19-24.

[snip]

> [Sanders]
>
> 1. Gal. 3:19-24 (echoed in Rom. 3:20, 4:15, 5:20,
> 11:32):
>
> -- God gave the law in order to consign humanity to
> sin so that he may subsequently save on the basis of
> faith.
>
>
> 2. Rom. 7:7-13:
>
> -- God gave the law for obedience and life, but sin
> foiled God's intent by working disobedience and death
> through the law.
>
>
> 3. Rom. 7:14-25:
>
> -- God gave the law for obedience and life, but sin
> foiled God's intent by working disobedience and death
> through human flesh.
>
>
> [Rosson]
>
> As above, only my groupings of the texts would be as
> follows:
>
>
> 1. Gal. 3:19-24 (echoed in Rom. 11:32):
>
> -- God gave the law in order to consign humanity to
> sin so that he might subsequently save on the basis of
> faith.
>
>
> 2. Rom. 7:7-13 (echoed in Rom. 3:20, 4:15, 5:20):
>
> -- God gave the law for obedience and life, but sin
> foiled God's intent by working disobedience and death
> through the law.
>
>
> 3. Rom. 7:14-25:
>
> -- God gave the law for obedience and life, but sin
> foiled God's intent by working disobedience and death
> through human flesh.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page