Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark Given" <mdg421f AT smsu.edu>
  • To: "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)
  • Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:19:14 -0500

Ryan,

I certainly take you at your word that your intentions were noble and that
you were simply toying with a possible thesis. However, I hope you realize
that you're walking through an interpretive minefield. After bringing up
the possibility of reading Rom 14-15 in a "super-Lutheran" way, you said,
"This may be de-contextualizing the Letter as theological rather than
situational, but it seems to be consistent with Paul's gospel of faith." In
light of that sentence, I can see why Mark Nanos assumed you might be
interested in perpetuating a way of reading Paul that, well-intentioned or
not, tends to reproduce the ill effects he spoke of. Paul scholarship has
worked so hard to read Romans and Galatians contextually-situationally, and
that effort has revolutionized our understanding of him to greater and
lesser degrees in the various permutations of the "new perspective."
Indeed, I recently ran into a paper posted on the WWW by a fundamentalist
Baptist scholar lamenting the fact that even most evangelical Paul scholars
now mostly agree with many features of the new perspective. So even toying
with an interpretation that would represent a return to reading Romans as a
theological treatise is going to be met with severe criticism from many
quarters. It doesn't mean you're not free to do it, here or anywhere else.
I'm just saying you'll have to expect to take some heat. (-;

You said something in your response that I found intriguing:

"My personal motives should have nothing to do with the interpretation of
the inspired Word. This works both ways. First, as mentioned, I am not
trying to interpret the text as an extension of my personal convictions.
Second, I am not trying to interpret the text with the goal of popularity or
men pleasing."

I think most members of this list would applaud your two goals here. Let
Paul be Paul and let the chips fall where they may! But what I find
intriguing is that, regardless of personal motives, the first sentence
suggests that you have a profound personal conviction that Romans is part of
"the inspired Word." So, already, I suspect that your personal convictions
may actually have everything to do with how you interpret Romans. It makes
me wonder, e.g., if this conviction made you expect to find Paul being
consistent with Galatians, as traditionally interpreted, by attacking law
observance in Rom 14-15 instead of appearing to be accepting and
non-judgmental about it. I recognize, of course, that your use of the
phrase "the inspired Word" does not tell me that much about your doctrine of
inspiration, so please excuse me if I am barking up the wrong tree. I do
realize that some doctrines of inspiration do not require Paul to be
consistent or never to have changed his opinion to some extent from letter
to letter. But I usually tend suspect that when someone uses the phrase
"the inspired Word," that they expect consistency across the canon.

My own personal convictions lead me not to approach Romans or any other NT
document as "the inspired Word" at all. I approach Romans as the opinions
of one of several leaders of a new Jewish messianic party that, like some
other parties, tended to think that they were the Jews most in tune with
God's plans for Israel and the world. All of these leaders thought of
themselves as Spirit led in forming their opinions, but there is
overwhelming evidence that not all of them agreed all of the time on what
the Spirit would have them think or do with regard to certain issues and in
certain situations, especially ones pertaining to Law observance. For that
reason alone--though for many others as well--I don't read Romans or the NT
canon as "the inspired Word." I read it as a fascinating window into an
enormous debate within Judaism about God's will for Israel and humanity, a
debate that spawned a new Jewish party that from day one, not only debated
with other parties, but debated--sometimes fiercely--within its own ranks.
Rom 14-15 for me is a product of, and possibly for Paul a new stage in those
debates. I am in print arguing for the possibility that Paul is in some
measure sophistically deceptive in the way he handles the issue of the Law
in Romans and at one point I use reader-response criticism to imagine a
reading of Rom 14-15 from the perspective of an imaginary "strong" reader
who is puzzled by Paul's new found tolerant attitude and concludes that he
is just being his usual chameleon-like self; that he will subtly try to
reform the "weak" when he arrives in Rome. However, I ultimately conclude
that I find it impossible to be sure whether this is right or if Paul had
really reached a new thoroughly tolerant position on the issue. Other
scholars--Mark Nanos has become one the most prolific--argue that all of
this is on the wrong track since Paul's bad reputation on the subject of Law
observance was indeed mostly undeserved and that a more careful reading of
Galatians shows that he never intended to disparage continued Law observance
for Jews. I'm still wrestling with that and am not yet convinced, but I'm
sure enjoying the arguments and learning a lot from them.

I'm sorry this went a little long, Ryan. I did, however, want to give you a
little more of a sense of where I'm coming from. I'm sorry if it seemed
like you were being "hazed"! And don't pass on the favor to other
bright-eyed young Christian victim! (-;

Regards,

Mark Given


> -----Original Message-----
> From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:corpus-paul-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Brandon Mannix
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 4:54 PM
> To: Corpus-Paul
> Subject: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)
>
> I would first like to thank those who took the time to respond to my
> post. It has helped me clarify where (and where not) I will direct my
> thought.
>
> The most powerful argument (or the best communicated to me) against my
> proposed reading was that "the text won't function that way,
> because Paul...makes no warning here
> that there be no "works-righteous" attitude on the part of the people
> he
> calls the weak." Thank you for this insight.
>
> Other individuals, though mentioning "many reasons" for not
> interpreting the passage the way I had proposed, focused on questioning
> my motives for interpreting it in that manner. I was asked "Why would
> you want to promote that hypothesis for a reading of this material?"--
> My initial response would be that I did not come to my study with an
> agenda to prove, but with a sincere and open mind to inquire into what
> God communicated through Paul in this letter. My personal motives
> should have nothing to do with the interpretation of the inspired Word.
> This works both ways. First, as mentioned, I am not trying to
> interpret the text as an extension of my personal convictions. Second,
> I am not trying to interpret the text with the goal of popularity or
> men pleasing.
>
> That said, it did not go unnoticed that I was rhetorically "goaded"
> from a perspective of apparently manufactured humility: "Is it
> necessary to suppose that such demeaning of the faith convictions of
> the "other" in Paul's voice? Why not just do it in one's own voice, if
> that is what one believes?"
>
> I believe that I have been criticized for an implication in my proposed
> interpretation that sprung from the mind of the inquisitor himself. The
> statement was made that viewing the eating and not eating as an example
> of any works one does to achieve right standing with God "makes central
> the denigration of the motives and actions of others who choose to
> express their faith in a way different than the reader who proposes the
> reading you suggest to propose, denying to them the claim to act nobly
> in faith, while reserving only for that reader such nobility."
>
> This I do not agree with. Because there was no explanation from whence
> this apparently implied central argument originated I really have no
> thing to defend or argue against. I do agree with the another post,
> who though he ironically "resonated" with the earlier criticism, found
> "it difficult not to hear his [Paul's] advice as filled with a spirit
> of tolerance towards believers who differed from himself, a tolerance
> he wants to persuade "strong" believers in Rome to practice." This is
> absolutely true and I fail to see how the proposed interpretation takes
> this away to "make central" the denigration of the motives and actions
> of others (again ironic given the questioning of my motives). Rather,
> I would see that the goal of the tolerance of the "weaker" brother is
> to assure (or at least not weaken) the full persuasion of his mind that
> gives birth to a steadfast and unwavering faith. This would point to
> the solidity of faith exemplified by Abraham mentioned in ch 4. This
> also seems consistent with ch 14:22-23. There is no denigration in a
> Love directed towards a tolerance with the goal of upholding (or at
> least not battering) the faith of another believer. I suppose I was
> reaching for a Lutheran interpretation without the Lutheran intolerance
> (that was assumed without my intention). And I do admit that I was
> "reaching"-- I was not posting my thesis!
>
> I realize that I may be over-reacting (laying bare my pride and
> intellectual vanity) to what may have been no more than standard
> scholarly bravado or the customary hazing of this theological
> community, which some day I will perpetrate on some other bright eyed
> young Christian. If this is the case I do apologize. And if anyone
> was offended or made weak by my proposed interpretation (which i had
> merely pondered and brought forth for discussion), I do apologize.
>
> Ryan Mannix
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page