Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

>Roy writes:
>
>First, regarding 4QMMT, Jerry suggests "It is a rather large leap from a
>use of a somewhat similar expression in a different language in _one_
>document of a quite sectarian group to the idea
>that this expression was current in the vernacular of the larger population
>and has moved to Greek-speaking Jews AND that whatever they meant is what
>Paul meant."
>
>I find it curious that people scoured the Rabbinic literature in search of
>this precise expression (the one they used to translate the Greek into
>Hebrew) and when it is found in a context that just HAPPENS to discuss
>JUSTIFICATION by means of these works of the law someone (you Jerry!) could
>suggest that it is a "large leap" to consider it relevant.  I point out
>that 4QMMT was not meant primarily for internal consumption within the
>Qumran community, but appears to be a document prepared to persuade people
>outside the community of the correctness of their views.  In that context
>it describes its contents as "works of the law" as though the reader(s)
>(outside the community) will know what they mean by that expression.
>
>Jerry re-replies:
>Roy makes an interesting point about 4QMMT being intended for external
>consumption.  But there, as in Paul, the document may define what the
>expression means.  I am not one of those who have scoured other literature
>for a precise verbal parallel, but I think having can be a good thing.
> These parallels are interesting and _sometimes_ informative, but not
>necessarily relevant.  Finding verbal similarity or correspondence is just
>the beginning step of identifying a good parallel.  See S. Sandmel's,
>"Parallelomania,: _JBL_ 81(1962):1-13 or J. Barr's _Semantics of Biblical
>Language_, pp. 233ff; 245-6; 269-72; from a different ideological camp,
>D.A. Carson, _Exegetical Fallacies_, 43ff. OR  my own _Identifying Paul's
>Opponents_ 89-94 (where I talk about how to identify parallels).  These
>references do not discuss Gal 2, but how to identify valid parallels.
>
>Again part of the reason I doubt that this expression means the same thing
>in both documents/contexts is the very different rhetorical function the
>expression has in the differing documents.
>
I agree with Jerry Sumney on the question of this particular ostensible
parallel. The question in Galatians is not about the observance of Torah in
a particular way, i.e., halakhah per se. Why? Because the implied issue of
the addressees' concern is with whether or not to become proselytes, and
thus Paul himself explores a possible shortcoming of their present concern
with identity in 5:3 that suggests they are not focused upon the question
of observance at present.

Since there is no reason to believe that those not under the Torah would be
involved in sectarian debates about interpreting halakhic details, but
rather with the question of whether they should now choose to become people
of the Torah by way of proselyte conversion, the question of the relevance
of Paul's usage of the phrase works of law is contextualized differently
than in the 4QMMT instance. That a similar or even the same phrase might be
used by different groups in different way does not strike me as unusual, as
any student who has had to learn the varieties of meaning of a particular
word used differently in theological, historical, rhetorical, sociological,
philosophical or other such areas to represent different things (especially
by different schools of thought) can readily confirm (ever discussed
"holiness"?).

In the case of Galatians the phrase seems to describe something especially
applicable to the question of whether gentiles already in-Christ need to
become proselytes. It thus refers to a phenomenon that does not arise among
Jewish people with regard to Torah, except as it may relate to their
position on this matter of gentile status as fully righteous ones or not in
the context of Paul's groups. In other words, it does not seem to be about
whether Jewish people observe Torah or why, or about gentile people
observing Torah, but about gentile people whom God "already knows" by way
of the gospel of Christ thinking that they need to become Israelites in
order for God to know them, thus undermining the legitimacy of what they
have already believed accomplished in Christ. It is a peculiar phrase
adopted if not invented by Paul for this particular anomaly which would
perhaps only arise within a Christ-believing group and not among other
Jewish groups, unless they also maintained on some basis that gentiles were
equal co-participants in the present age without conversion.

Works of law for Paul in Galatians = proselyte conversion for gentiles
already fully aggregated by faith in/of Christ into the people of God, and
thus ironically undermining the basis of that faith/fulness.

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos

Kansas City and
Postgraduate student, University of St. Andrews