Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

> [Loren]
> > As I stated earlier, it is neither far-fetched nor
> > unprecedented to lump "Gentiles and the Torah"
> > together, given an adequate context. That's why I
> > think the "we" is rhetorical.
> > 
> [Moon]
> Please clarify what you mean by "rhetorical"?
> If "we" is rhetorical, is "you" rhetorical as well?
> So, "we" refers to the same people as "you" in the
> sections
> where "we" and "you" occur, e.g. chapter 3 and 4?
> 

“Rhetorical”, meaning that Paul really isn’t aiming to
include himself (or any Christian Jew) in the
discussion, whether in 3:10-14, 3:23-29, or 4:1-10.
Note that in 4:3, Paul says “'we' were enslaved to the
elemental spirits of the world”. This reference to
pagan existence (so Mark Nanos, in previous
discussions) hardly describes Paul or any Jew, so the
“we” can’t be taken too literally here. But I don't
think it can be taken literally even in the other
texts. In describing the law as a “curse”, it is
highly doubtful that Paul viewed it this way for the
Jewish people (even in light of the new age). Rather,
it is a curse for Gentiles in light of the new age.
With these “we”’s and “us”’, Paul includes himself
with his Gentile converts for the sake of rhetoric and
solidarity. Is this clearer?

As I said before, Moon, your own reading would follow
as a logical implication of sorts. Imagine James
getting hold of Paul’s letter and confronting him
about the nasty implications in 3:10-14 and 3:23-29.
Paul would have had some explaining to do, and I
imagine he would have defended himself by insisting
that “I was really talking about Gentiles”. Wouldn’t
this explain why he tread more carefully in Romans,
some five years later, where his audience was both Jew
and Gentile?

Best,

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/