Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

on 7/9/03 2:14 PM, Given, Mark Douglas at mdg421f AT smsu.edu wrote:
 
> The problem for me is that in the preceding verses, 4:1-7, the Law IS
> the issue, and in those verses Paul equates being under the Law with
> being slaves to the stoicheia (cf. v. 9):
> 
> "So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the stoicheia of
> the universe.  But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son,
> born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the
> law, so that we might receive adoption as sons" (vv. 3-5).

OK Mark,
First this, then the rest of your post. But of course your reading involves
several interpretive decisions. As long as it is recognized that what you
conclude, no matter that it is traditional, is not stated explicitly, but
the result of several decisions about what Paul meant here and then there.
That is normal, of course, but I think is so important to bring to the front
when challenging a reading thought to be beyond dispute, because no one has
been disputing it--until now. Anyway, I know you will agree (with this
concern), just as I was confident that Don would when noting it to him.

I read this to mean that the Law is/was the issue for a Jew such as Paul, by
which he relates the similarity that they (Jew as well as the Gentile
addressee) were under conventions that constrained them before the
proclamation of Christ, both Jew (formerly under Israelite convention/Law
awaiting Christ) and non-Jew (formerly under pagan conventions/idolatry
awaiting Christ). In that sense there is a similarity.

I take it that for your (traditional) interpretation to work, the "we/us"
must include non-Jews under the Law as well as Jews. Right? I do not think
that is what is going on here, and the changes of person can be read to
maintain a distinction between the author, representing Jews/Law-people and
the addressees, who were non-Jews/idol-people. I won't try to elaborate the
details here (I am giving away more than I should about present research).
But, assuming your interest in exploring alternative interpretations, see if
you can read this with Paul pointing to himself (as Jew/Law-person), them
(as non-Jews/pagans), and then all of them together as Christ-believers.
Just as Jews have received the sonship awaited in Christ, so too have
non-Jews, so it would be mistaken to revert to the way "you" were
previously, i.e., idolaters (vv. 7-10).

The way this is read depends so much on what the addressees knew about their
situation and Paul's views that we are now guessing about. How you
hypothesize the situation in this case determines what you think is logical
to suppose Paul meant.

I take stoicheia to refer to conventions, norms, etc., the kinds of things
to which people can be said to be slaves by those seeking a new course that
is not widely approved.

> 
> And when 8-10 are read with 1-7, it seems the observance of days,
> months, seasons and years is most clearly an allusion to Law observance.
> I put it that way because it does seem likely to me that he is also
> hinting that this would be no different than returning to a pagan
> calendar as discussed in Don's previous posts.

Not, as I hope you can see, on my reading of 1-7 or 8-10. I think that
Paul's argument here and throughout implies that they have already adopted a
Jewish calendar (among many other features of Jewish life, like looking to
Jewish Scripture as authoritative) on Paul's teaching, as would be expected
of members of a Jewish group. If so, then they (the addressees) would not
draw the inference that interpreter's do who assume Paul no longer keeps a
Jewish calendar and would reject it for his converts, but quite the
opposite, as do I.

I don't expect to convince you here, but perhaps deny some certainty in the
traditional view? Your (the traditional) reading requires a Paul against
Jewish calendar observance, which implies much more too about a post- or
even anti-Jewish observance position for Paul, and the addressees' knowledge
of that opposition. Are you sure that you know this to be the case?

On a lighter note, since we are addressing three Marks today, I share this
"joke" I heard from someone who thought it was pretty funny to call me
"mark, mark": "What does a hair-lip dog say?" Anyway...

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Co-Moderator
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/nanosmd/