Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sacred cows

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: Sacred cows
  • Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:40:30 -0500

Debbie Herring wrote:

Is there anything in the Pauline corpus which is a "sacred cow" in terms
of interpretation? Are there any things which are beyond question or
debate - and if there are, what are they and why? If replies are likely
to wander into more general theology, it may be better to reply
off-list...

Such questions are not as simple as they might seem! By sacred cow I suppose you mean beyond criticism. If asking about the corpus itself, do you mean accepted as from Paul without questioning this? That is a valid concern; although some have questioned the authenticity of every document, most Pauline scholars work on the assumption that many of the letters ascribed to Paul are actually from Paul, and this could be described for those who do not argue this decision as a sacred cow. J.C. O'Neill's commentary on Galatians (The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians) has a nice survey of this issue concerning that letter. But since you ask in terms of interpretation, I suppose you mean not the corpus but the interpretive tradition concerning the meaning of what Paul writes in those letters. Yet if an idea is recognized as having been beyond criticism, is it then any longer so, that is, from that point on, at least for some critics, if not for others?

But leaving these and many more interesting methodological matters your questions raise aside, if I get your meaning, I would suggest the following four candidates are frequently stated or assumed in Pauline scholarship, that is, often appealed to without argumentation in arriving at conclusions on any number of matters, and thus "sacred cows" for most interpreters of Paul, although I criticize each of them:

1. Paul proclaimed a "Law-free" gospel.

2. Paul did not abide by the dietary laws of Jewish life (such as were observed by observant non-Christ-believing Jewish people and Christ-believers such as James), regarding such food laws as "adiaphora" (viewing such matters with indifference).

3. The exception (to 2 above) would be when he deemed it expedient to eat in a Jewish manner in order to win other Jews to his faith in Christ (i.e., Paul was a chameleon who put successful missionary results above such matters, again appealing to his supposed indifference).

4. Paul was in conflict with James and other Jewish Christ-believers (e.g., James Dunn stated at a distinguished 1994 conference of Pauline scholars on Paul and the Mosaic Law: "The common ground we seek, therefore, is not first and foremost agreement among ourselves, but some measure of consensus on the common ground between Paul and his fellow Christian Jews with whom he was in dispute." [emphasis mine]).

Regards,
Mark Nanos


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page