Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Dear Mark,

you wrote:
**I hope it is not inappropriate to suggest reading my The Mystery of 
Romans:
The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter, Fortress, 1996.

Thank you for the book. I ordered it to Amazon.

**In a response to a review by
Elizabeth Elliott that appears in the 98 Critical Reviews of Books in
Religion I have elaborated on this theme as well. Philip Esler, a lawyer
himself, has a brief but helpful discussion in his new book, Galatians,
Routledge, 1998.

Could you tell me where I can find these two writings? I could not locate
them in Amazon.

**As noted, I do not think Paul criticized the Law or Judaism. He 
criticized
people who held views different from his own when their influence affected
his "converts." His rhetoric was in-house, with the windows closed. He is
dealing with his children, trying to convince them of his view of the
world, and unfortunately, he sometimes does not take into consideration 
how
this might sound to the neighbor children and parents whom he may describe
negatively in making his case for them. I like to think he would have
written differently if he had known others would later read his mail with
different world-views, questions, assumptions, etc., as do we. But we 
must,
having overheard the rhetoric not spoken to us, seek to take it in 
context,
that is, if we want to make any sense of the historical Paul.

Well-taken. I liked the new perspective proposed by Sanders. But I liked
Dunn's version better because his treatment of Paul's negative treatments
of the Law made more sense to me. I know that it might have been because 
of
my own world-view. Do you think Dunn is still under the spell of 
the traditional Lutheran understanding of the Law, even though he
adopted the new perspective?  

You do not think that Paul did NOT criticise Judaism. I understand this 
position is stronger than  Sanders'. As far as I can read, Sanders 
thinks Paul critised Judaism, that is, its "convenatal nomism". Cf.
Rom 10:3: Being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to 
establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 
This says that the adherence to covenantal nomism somehow prevented
Jews from accepting Christ, i.e. submitting to God's righteousness. 
Isn't this a criticism of Judaism? Is it just an in-house argument
where comments on neighbors are made somewhat carelessly?

What about Rom 9:32: Why? Because they did not persue it by faith,
but as if it were by works (hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL WS EX ERGWN)?

It seems to say that somehow their adherence to covenantal nomism,
represented by their identity markers, circumcision and food regulation,
 made them away from the way of faith.  Sanders has a great difficulty
with this verse, because he thinks that Judaism or covenantal nomism
is nothing wrong in itself, and Paul's criticism is only that 
the Jews rejected Christ.  Dunn handles this negative verse,
by connecting their adherence to covenantal nomism to their rejection
of Christ. How do you say about Dunn's treatment of this verse?

Maybe you might have explained all in your book. But it will take more than 
two seeks to get the book. I can't wait for it:-) Also your insight might 
have been
increased since you wrote the book. So, would you explain the
two Romans verses from your paradigm?

Respectfully,
Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University,
Seoul, Korea