Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-paul] Weak and strong in Romans 14

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-paul] Weak and strong in Romans 14
  • Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:04:48 -0500


Dear Fred,
Delighted to learn that you are reading Mystery of Romans and finding it of
some value. I want to just offer a few words below your comments.

on 9/9/02 5:53 PM, Frich107 AT aol.com at Frich107 AT aol.com wrote:

> I have to say that I found Mark Nanos' comments there, on these motifs,
> extremely helpful and probable. As I read him, he is basically suggesting
> that the 'weak' are the Jewish, Torah observant, Christians, whereas the
> 'strong' are Gentile Christians.

A point of clarification; I do think that those who are "stumbling," usually
translated "weak," are Torah-observant Jews (and would perhaps include
non-Jews within its scope); however, I do not argue that they are
Christians, but against this feature, which is widely held. I think the
"able" to believe (i.e., "strong" ones) are Christ-believers, where the
"stumbling" are not, and it is along this difference that the line is drawn
in Paul's rhetoric.

> This seems to work very well. However, I am
> still a little puzzled by what Paul means in verse 1 of chapter 14, when he
> says 'but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions', as the NRSV
> renders it. My own reading of the Greek here (DIAKRISEIS DIALOGISMWN), leads
> me to think of translating it rather differently - 'but not for the purpose
> of debating disputable things.' The question here, for me, is what are these
> 'disputable things', or 'opinions'? Are they which days are special, and
> what
> is okay to eat? On the other hand, are there matters which are not
> disputable? If so, what are they? I think that Mark doesn't really consider
> these questions in much depth, and so I would be interested to know what he,
> and others, think (apologies if I have missed something as I have been
> reading through 'Mystery of Romans').

Gosh, I do think there is quite a bit of detailed discussion of this matter.
It is a very interesting think to question. Anyway, I will the discussion of
that to you and others, as I have had my turn in Mystery.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page