Corpus-Paul

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

> I had responded:
> And does
> > not Paul's argument go the opposite way according to my comments?
> > Perhaps Paul is saying "Christ redeemed us (Israel) from the curse of
> > the Law (Deuteronomic covenant with Israel), having become a curse
> > for us (Israel)...that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham
> > (covenant with all nations) might come upon the gentiles/all nations,
> > that
>
> we (all humankind) might receive the Spirit through faith (the
> > faithfulness of Christ and/or the response of faith)." His preceding
> > and following arguments seem to be along this same line.

To which Moon replied:
> Aha, you take the "us" to refer to Israel, and the "we" to all humankind.
> If that is possible, then the conclusion surely proves the verse 2.
> But is that possible grammatically speaking?
> Both "us" and "we" should refer to the same group, it seems.

Dear Moon,
This might be a good question for Greek specialists, such as B-Greek, 
but I doubt it can be resolved grammatically, that it is either 
proven or dismissed as possible. More important is the overall unit 
of discourse in which it functions. It seems possible for me in 
logical communicative terms. First, because it follows the flow of 
his argument, as you note, making sense of v. 2. In my view the 
entire discourse of 3:6--4:7 explains the point made in 3:1-5; or at 
least it was written to do so, so that the interpreter should be 
concerned with making an effort to connect them.

Also, if Paul was speaking instead of writing, in an oral comment it 
is easy enough to use the same word--not restricted to us/we, but to 
just about any word--in different ways in the same sentence or 
statement. One can use their arms, facial expressions, etc., to 
differentiate the us from the us. (When we do this in written 
communication, as we often do for example in the 
marketing/advertising business, there is always the risk of 
miscommunicating; of course, sometimes that is just the ambiguity 
that the double usage is intended to play off).

This may be a case where considering the performance aspects of 
Paul's letters is pertinent. Some have argued that they should be 
considered for their oral characteristics, since they were written 
with respect to their intended delivery. They were to be read aloud, 
even performed when delivered. Hence the messenger was someone sent 
by Paul, perhaps coached as to the meaning he intends to communicate.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City