Corpus-Paul

[Moises Mayordomo <moises.mayordomo AT theol.unibe.ch>]

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