Corpus-Paul

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

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