Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Dualisms in Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ray Pickett" <rpickett AT lsps.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Dualisms in Paul
  • Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:04:47 -0500


There is an excellent discussion of this in an article by Henrik Tronier:
"The Corinthian Correspondence between Philosophical Idealism and
Apocalypticism". It is among the essays in PAUL BEYOND THE
JUDAISM/HELLENISTISM DIVIDE ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (WJK, 2001).

Ray Pickett

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Tilling [mailto:christilling AT ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:09 AM
To: Corpus-paul
Subject: [corpus-paul] Dualisms in Paul


At the moment I'm working through pauline dualisms. So, firstly, can
anyone recommend me a reading list?

The only book loosely related that I've come across is that by B. D.
Ingraffia "Postmodern Theory & Biblical Theology". He maintains that
applying postmodern deconstructive methods to the biblical dualistic texts
(particularly Paul) falters on the assumption that the Spirit/letter,
flesh etc. dualisms are metaphysical, in the order of what J. Derrida
would call "the history of western metaphysics". Instead, such biblical
dualisms are not about absolute metaphysical distinctions at all.
Certainly few Pauline dualisms are "absolute" but, I think however that it
is difficult to maintain a total distinction between Paul and the rest of
western metaphysics in the light of some Pauline passages that display all
the classic dualism of inward/outward, visible/invisible,
temporary/eternal. e.g.

(2 Cor 4:16-18 NRSV) So we do not lose heart. Even though our <i>outer</>
nature is wasting away, our <i>inner</> nature is being renewed day by day.
For
this slight <i>momentary</> affliction is preparing us for an <i>eternal</>
weight of
glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what <i>can be seen</> but
at
what <i>cannot be seen</>; for what <i>can be seen is temporary</>, but what
<i>cannot be
seen is eternal</>.

Am I just anachronistically reading a modern dualistic worldview back into
Paul? And, I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks if the study of such
dualisms in Paul doesn't helps us to be more sensitive Pauline
interpreters.

Thanks,
Chris Tilling

---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: rpickett AT lsps.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page