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 10:33:58 -0600


Dear Moon and Mark,
The term PARABATHN in Gal 2:19 is used in Greek literature to mean
transgressor. Liddell & Scott gives several Greek examples that antedate
Paul. Likewise the verb PARABAINW means "transgress" before Paul.

Sincerely,
Harold Holmyard

Dear Harold,
The usage of the verb is clearer than the noun. I have not yet looked most of the references up, but BAGD indicates this was the secular usage, and TDNT 5.740-41 indicates that transgressor is seldom indicated in secular Greek (noting only Macrob. Sat., 5.19.29), but usually "one who stands besides," "companion," "comrade," "helper." A full study of this needs to be done, but it seems an interesting twist on usage that might be worth consideration instead of the translation "transgresser" in Gal. 2:18.

Perhaps I should not do this kind of thinking "out loud," so to speak, while in the process, but I am hoping that it will be productive, and perhaps that some other list members will be able to help work this out.

The phrasing of Paul's is not that if I am destroying (pres.) these things again I built-up (aor.), then I am proving myself to be a PARABATHN (one who crosses a boundary), but the opposite: if what I destroyed (aor), these things again I am building-up (pres), then I am making myself to be a PARABATHN. One who transgresses, i.e., crosses a boundary one should not cross, is awkward for describing one in the process of building-up. The question is what is indicated by the building-up in the present, and the past aspect of destroying, and then by the present identity as a PARABATHN that results. And what is this reference to "again"?

If the building up is again, then it is not the building-up of a division, since that is something being done the first time by Peter's withdrawal. Or is it a reference to returning to the traditional interpretation of a barrior, as in Eph.? But they (Paul and Peter) have not built this up in the first place, God has, for the present age, nor have they destroyed it, Christ has, for the age to come. If building-up again is a reference to indiscriminate fellowship, which Peter had been engaged in previously (cf. v. 12), then destroying is a reference to Peter's withdrawal. If he returns to building-up does he make himself a PARABATHN, i.e., a stand-in for Christ in the process of building-up this indiscriminate table-fellowship? This seems to be a line of argument that follows: no longer I am living, but Christ is living in me, and what I now am living.... Or, is the referent a transgressor (according to the norms of the ones for circumcision?)? How is that translation indicated in the following argument?

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page