Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Romans 1:16

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Moises Mayordomo <moises.mayordomo AT theol.unibe.ch>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Romans 1:16
  • Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:38:38 +0200

Dear Jeffrey,

let me just make two more methodological remarks:

1. What makes a statement B a definition of a term A? Old Aristotle already had quite a lot to say on the subject of "hóros" (I dont have the text at hand but it should be somewhere around Topics Book I). A definition is, most importantly, an interchangeable connection of a term A (to be defined) and a sentence B (who defines A). B can only be seen as definition of A if everything which belongs to B also belongs to A (both are co-extensive) and B gives expression to "what A is" (of course, there is some ontology in that). I dont know if Paul would apply "dunamis qeou" ONLY to euaggelion or if "dunamis qeou" is in fact broader than "euaggelion". If you want to proof "dunamis qeou eis swthrian" to be a strict definition you should show that outside "euaggelion" there is nothing to which Paul would apply the term "dunamis qeou ktl" (first criterion) AND that "dunamis qeou ktl" describes the "essence" (sorry for so much essentialism) of what "euaggelion" is (second criterion). I myself am somewhat reluctant to speak of a "definition" (strictly taken, there may be no definitions at all in Paul!), but more of a "functional description" (not "what it is" but "what it does"; pretty much the same like his "definition" of agaph in 1Cor 13) which aims especially at linking "euaggelion" with "swthria" so that Paul can build up his antithetical argumentation in 1,18ff contraposing "orgh qeou" which ends up in death to life-giving gospel (3,21ff).

2. Why "challenge"? It is an old exegetical tradition to read pauline statements as responses to challenges. This makes Paul look like a pretty angry man always biting back. There is a fine work by Lyons, Pauline Autobiography who makes a good point against the dangers of mirror-reading (applied to Gal 1-2). At least we should bear in mind the possibility that Paul can make a positive statement without being pushed by disputes.

Yours


Moisés


Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN SWTHRIAN

If memory serves (and I don't have the opportunity at the moment to
consult any commentaries) this statement by Paul is usually taken to be
an attempt at offering a definition of what the "gospel" **is** -- as if
somehow this needed clarifying.

But is there anything in the grammar and syntax of the text to give us
reason to believe that what Paul is doing is responding to a challenge?
That is to say, is there any grammatical or syntactical or stylistic
(or, if I might ask, contextual) reason to see that what Paul is up to
here is not answering a question (what is the Gospel?, how do **you**
define it?), but is defending a claim **about** what the (his) Gospel
is **that is in dispute** -- and is in effect saying something along
the lines of "contrary to what has been said about TO EUAGGELION, it
is indeed the power of God for the purpose of Salvation?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Yours,

Jeffrey


--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000 AT comcast.net


_______________________________________________
Corpus-Paul mailing list
Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul


--
--
Dr. theol. Moisés Mayordomo
Evang.-theol. Fakultaet der Universitaet Bern
Laenggassstr. 51/Unitobler, CH-3000 Bern 9
Office Phone: +41 (31) 631 45 28
Office Fax: +41 (31) 631 48 45
mailto: moises.mayordomo AT theol.unibe.ch
Private Address: Flurstr. 17 CH-3014 Bern








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page