Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:15:52 -0600


Dear Moon,
You wrote,
All comments you said about my proposal are accepted. Then the gist of
Paul's
argument would be: what we do with gentiles in view of the change of
time is appropriate according to the intention of the Law. So we are not
volating the Law! We are not sinners!

By the way, what do you mean by "substitution" in your post?

I mean that it seems that the question posed in v. 17 to expose the logical fallacy of Peter's withdrawal, (then is Christ a servant/agent of sin), seems to be worked with in v. 18 in the use of PARABATHN, one whose role is to run alongside until the horserider or charioteer needs to be replaced because they have fallen in battle (it does not seem to be about transgression in the usage among Greeks, except for when translators get to Paul, but more like a general sense of referring to someone as a corporal, sergeant, PARABATHN, by their type of role in a group's action), followed by the language of dying in v. 19, and of dying/no longer living/yet living in terms of human reputation in v. 20, and Christ would have died gratuitously of v. 21. There is a theme of substitution here, but it is a puzzling picture. Who is filling-in for whom, how and why? Both the filling-in of Christ is indicated (v. 20) and the filling-in of Paul (v. 18), but what role does the ironic through law to law to serve God in v. 19 play in this? Both the dying of Paul (vv. 18, 20) and the dying of Christ (vv. 20-21) are indicated, so who was/is on the chariot or alongside? It seems to be used both ways, a real brain twister.


Also, are you suggesting the following translation or are you
simply saying that my proposal, with modifications you suggested,
comes down to the following transation?


> So would you translate this along this line?: "through the Law (of
> Christ) to the Law (of the present age) I died, that I may live to
> God [as is appropriate now on this matter of table-fellowship]."

This seems to be what you/we are arguing toward, and while different than I argued in Mystery, it is sympathetic with the argument I was making there overall. I would modify this a bit more to try to ensure that it does not take the common Paul against Jewish Law route:
"through the Law (as modified by the meaning of Christ's death bringing the dawning of the age to come, i.e., the law of Christ) to the Law (as interpreted by the traditional agents of the Law in the present age apart who view the issue apart from the meaning of Christ's death) I died, that I might live to God (as is appropriate now on this matter of table-fellowship).

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page