Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: "Luther's Trap" and Augustine

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: "Luther's Trap" and Augustine
  • Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:41:43 -0600

Jeffrey H. Krantz wrote,
In class the other day, we were discussing Paul [actually Mark] Nanos' take on the "weak" and the "strong" in
Romans, and in response to his phrase "Luther's Trap" (Describing Luther's recognition that
Paul does not want the Romans to whom he is writing 'the strong' to be judgemental of the
the opinions of the 'weak'-14:1, while doing that very thing himself, in describing the weak as
those whose faith is weak because they cling to old, unnecessary observances of the Law.)
someone asked if that weren't originally an "Augustinian Trap."

Dear Jeffrey,
I am delighted to learn that you were discussing this matter, and would add that if one was trying to find the first instance of a Christian caught in this kind of trap it would predate Augustine as well. The correspondence between Jerome and Augustine, although not on Romans but rather the Antioch Incident of Galatians, is a great place for seeing this kind of attitude defended. [cf. Jerome, Letter 112.13, in Joseph W. Trigg, "Augustine/Jerome, Correspondence," Biblical Interpretation. Message of the Fathers of the Church; vol. 9. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier. Pp. 250-95]

I suppose I chose Luther to hang this label on because of his importance in the modern debate about Paul, the so-called Lutheran perspective coming under scrutiny with regard to whether it accurately represents Paul's view of Jews and Judaism in Paul's context or not (this is probably unfair to Luther or Lutherans per se, since it represents Christian thought in general over the centuries).

The examples other than Luther will show that I really had in view Dunn, Tomson and other interpreters of the so-called new perspective on Paul, but tried as well to show that it was widely representative of Christian ideological views showing through in the exegesis of this passage. As long as the interpreter "knows" that there is something wrong with Jewish identity and Law-observance for Christ-believers, it is sure to show up somewhere in the view attributed to Paul. When they really accept the view that there is nothing wrong with it, but rather something wonderful (and why not?; not just because Jewish people find it to be so, but also according to the new perspective on first century Judaism of some of these Christian scholars as well), they will be ready to consider this view active for Paul (a first century Jew).

Perhaps the "new-perspective trap" would have been a good choice. For it is the aim of this perspective to challenge the older paradigm that fueled a negative stereotype of Jews and Judaism, but the edge is blunted by the persistent denigration of Jewish identity and piety that bleeds through in just such "traps," although apparently without realizing this is taking place. The goal of delineating such a trap, at least on my part, is not to attack or offend, but to bring into the open what seem to be inconsistencies, so that they can be recognized as such, and then dealt with. I assume that they were unrealized beforehand, for these "new" interpreters have an explicit concern to alter them, as far as I can tell. I respect them for this intention, and hope that I might help them to accomplish this goal, by pointing out things that strike me as inconsistent when they have apparently not yet occurred to them.

I wonder how the students responded to this articulation of "Luther's trap"?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page