Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:20:00 -0500


on 7/22/01 5:10 AM, Fabrizio Palestini at fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it wrote:

[to my earlier post:
>> ...This approach is filled with as many questionable historical and
> rhetorical
>> and sociological and philological presuppositions as the traditional
>> approaches it seeks to challenge...

Fabrizio writes:
> I understand your opinion, but in this case the differences in "consensus"
> between the two positions is explicable only through prejudice, isn't it?
> The rigorous methodology proposed by Darrell Doughty in "Pauline Paradigme
> etc." and "Luke's Story of Paul in Corinth" (historical criticism contra
> apologetic historicizating) deserves the greatest attention, in my opinion.
>
> I'd like to know what is your position on this matter.

I am afraid I don't understand your first question regarding prejudice. I
hope this makes sense anyway apart from your specific question, if I have
misread it.

What strikes me is that the methodologies are not as rigorous as should be
required today to substantiate such arguments, and are as rifled with
ideological assumptions (is this what you mean by prejudice?) as are the
traditional approaches they seek to challenge. They begin with a portrait of
Paul that is anachronistic, in my view, basically built upon the traditional
portrait of Paul (the supersessionist ex-Jew with a Law-free gospel
beginning Gentile Christianity, to which Jews can enter, as long as they
give up the value and life-style of Jews!), and then find the texts
anachronistic for the historical Paul of the traditional view. Can that Paul
be anything else?

In other words, the argument does not impress me methodologically when it is
undone by its own failure to begin by testing the hypotheses for the
historical Paul, instead of assuming the traditional constructions for Paul
as the basis of their critique of whether this could be the historical Paul.
But it is very interesting to read and think through their arguments, in
their context.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page