Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Moon, you wrote:
 
> Gaston identifies THE GENTILES with WE, so that WE
> really
> means WE THE GENTILES.

Yes, Paul meant “we the Gentiles”. In saying that
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law”, Paul
meant “Christ redeemed us Gentiles from the curse of
the law”. I don’t think he meant to say that “Christ
redeemed us Jews and Gentiles from the curse of the
law” (3:13) anymore than he meant to say that “we Jews
and Gentiles were once enslaved to pagan elements”
(4:3). Put simply, neither context refers accurately
to the Jewish people. But both contexts refer VERY
accurately to the Gentile people. (I’m persuaded by
Gaston’s/Gager’s comparison with other Jewish
literature which speaks of the Torah as a blessing for
Jews but a curse for Gentiles.) 

But to me, two caveats are important here:

(1) Paul is -- rhetorically speaking -- including
himself, a Jew (and by implication all Jews), under
BOTH of these descriptions. Rhetorically, he describes
“himself” (and by implication, all Jews) under the
curse of the law and having once been under pagan
deities. Rhetorically and linguistically, the
connection is inevitable. Now, as a novelist, I love
to imagine how the other apostles would have roared
and hooted after hearing this (and I’m sure they did
-- and quickly! -- what with the efficient gossip
mills operating throughout the Mediterranean). Paul,
indeed, would have had some serious explaining to do.

(2) Paul is not really identifying himself “as a
Gentile”. It is true that texts like Philip. 3:7-11
and II Cor. 3:7-11 can be interpreted to mean that
Paul was “writing off his Jewish heritage”, but it
might be more reasonably suggested that what he was
“writing off” were the mandates of the old epoch -- in
light of the new epoch and resurrection of the
Christus -- so that Gentiles can now be included
“without the law”, while Jews should naturally go on
“with the law”. Elsewhere, throughout Paul’s letters
and Acts, the evidence points to Paul as remaining
Torah-observant himself. (Sorry if I committed a
methodological blunder by appealing to Luke. But while
I’m hardly naïve enough to think that Acts tells
straight history, I believe more of a reconciliation
can be made with Paul’s letters than commonly
assumed.)

> Another text Gaston considers for his thesis is Gal
> 4:4-5.
> 
> But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his
> Son, born of
> woman, born under the law, 4:5 to redeem THOSE WHO
> ARE UNDER THE LAW, so
> that WE might receive adoption as sons.
> 
> Again Gaston identifies THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW
> with WE. 
> I simply do not understand what kind of grammar
> supports such an 
> identification. 

I admit this is a big problem. I think it’s probably
analogous to the case of 3:23-29. . . but I will
consider more about this text and respond later.

> Hoping that our discusssion will continue and be
> fruitful.

I hope so too, Moon!

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/