Corpus-Paul

[<stephen.finlan AT durham.ac.uk>]

[Dr Krentz:]
> But Paul is in each case citing traditions. Rom 5:9 is an 
> Old Testament citation. 

Even the phrase "justified by his blood"?

> Rom 3:25, 1 Cor 10, 11, 15  each cite a tradition. 

Which Paul CHOOSES to cite. He is under no compulsion
to agree with particular traditions.

> When Paul interprets the tradition he makes no use of
> the blood or sacrificial imagery. 

I wouldn't say NO use, but I agree that his extended argu-
ments go a different direction and have a different stress.
His use of --
> the paschal reference in 1 Cor 5:7 

--when his argument is about something other than 
sacrificial theology, shows that he uses cultic 
references when he doesn't have to.
   He applies cultic metaphors to himself in 
1 Cor 4:13 (PERIKATHARMA and PERIPSEMA are 
terms for the PHARMAKOS, or human scapegoats of Greek
religion), in Phil 2:17, in Rom 15:16.

> And redemption in Gal 3:13 uses the language of 
> manumission,not of sacrifice. 

Right, but I think it combines manumission with a 
scapegoat image.  Scapegoat is not sacrifice, but it
is cultic.  It is an expulsion ritual

Curse is associated with scapegoat or expulsion ritual 
in many cultures.  The Deuteronomic covenant curse (which
IS clearly intended in Gal 3:10) never redounds for good,
whereas curse-bearing (scapegoat) does.  Paul starts out
with one curse (Deuteronomic) but switches over to a 
curse that his central Anatolian audience will recognize
(here I lean on Susan Elliott's disserration).
   There is no OT text that I know of where someone 
saves the community by taking on the Deuteronomic curse.
   That is a reversal ritual.  Expulsion rituals are the
premier reversal ritual, where the ill community projects
its curse/sin/illness onto a healthy victim.  The victim
becomes an object of loathing and impurity and is driven
out.  The sacrifice is not an object of loathing or
impurity, but the scapegoat is abused, stabbed, its
hair pulled, and it cannot remain in the sacred
precincts, but must be driven out to the wilderness.
   It is the opposite of a sacrifice in many ways.  It 
is offered to a wilderness demon, not to Yahweh.  It 
is impure (after the curse transmission) not pure.

> Col. 1:20 is deutero-Pauline, in spite 
> of Jimmy Dunn's attempt to argue for Pauline authorship.

Actually, he argues for Timothean authorship.  I see several
things in Colossians that I don't see in the Pastorals,
for instance, a very intense PARTICIPATIONISM, which is
characteristic of Romans, particularly, and which is
nowhere in the Pastorals.

> So have at it--and refute the above suggestions.

I have limited time to do so, especially since I want to
agree with much of what you say.  But I do see a lot of
sacrificial language in Paul.  The problem is that it
is not sustained over long arguments, as is his judicial
language and even his manumission metaphor.  Nevertheless,
it is there, often in non-soteriological and (brief)
soteriological passages.
  It makes little difference to me that he is probably 
using tradition; he uses it precisely to nail down his 
argument.  His long lecture on Spirit and Flesh in 
Romans 8, for instance, is pinned down at both ends 
with formulas - a surrender formula in 8:32, and a 
3-metaphor formula in 8:3, combining sacrifice (PERI
HAMARTIAS) with judicial (KATAKRINW, condemn) with 
expulsion imagery (condemning sin in a particular
piece of flesh).

Thanks,

Finlan
Durham