Corpus-Paul

["Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

I think all this is exactly right!
Liz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy E. Ciampa [mailto:Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 8:41 PM
> To: Corpus-paul
> Subject: RE: Gal 2:16
>
>
> Anders writes:
>
> "In Perelmanian terms we could say that Paul is making a rhetorical
> dissociation.   He creates a distinction in the greater concept
> of "ways of
> obtaining righteousness".  The two terms in the
> distinction might not have a precise parallel in reality.  Would even the
> Qumranites have claimed that they dobtained righteousness by works of the
> law?  Is this not Paul polemical desciption of opponents views?"
>
> I heartily agree that we are dealing with a dissociation of ideas.  As
> Hansen summarizes the approach it "functions argumentatively not only by
> dividing the concept (not that, but this) but also by apportioning the
> divided parts (this belongs to us; that belongs to them).  It is, in fact,
> this apportioning that gives the distributio its argumentative force"
> (Walter Hansen, _Abraham in Galatians_, 85).
>
> In this case what is new in Anders' suggestion is the idea that Paul
> invented a new concept which is then used as a foil to the one he wants to
> promote.  Another perfectly Perelmanian approach to this text (which I,
> among others, have defended elsewhere) would suggest that some people (the
> new teachers in Galatia, for example) had a concept of justification which
> entailed both faith and works of the law together without seeing any
> problem with the two elements, in fact not seeing them as two different
> things but two sides of the same coin.  But Paul divides the concept in
> such a way that suggests that people have to choose between the two things
> that they used to hold together.  According to him it is not "that" (works
> of the law) but "this" (faith) and "this" (faith) belongs to us,
> but "that"
> (works of the law) belongs to them (as though the new teachers did not
> teach the importance of faith in Christ!).  Anders suggests a different
> kind of dissociation of ideas, and an unusual one, I think, in that (if I
> understand him correctly) the concept that Paul wishes to condemn is in
> fact one that he has just invented, rather than one facet of what was once
> a whole concept in the mind of the others.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roy
>
> Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: lizfried AT umich.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>