Corpus-Paul

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

Jeffrey,
Before responding precisely to the question you pose, I think you will agree
about a methodological issue that arises in the way the alternatives are
posed. As you know, the way questions are asked has much to do with the
tracks that the answers will usually follow.

Methodology: The point I want to make is that whether or not Paul is
attempting to define what gospel is as stated in your first paragraph, a
negative answer to this does not imply that Paul is therefore responding to
a challenge about his claim to define the gospel in a certain way.

Rhetorical arguments can be stimulated by many different things. The matter
to which he responds is first filtered through his own learning of the state
of things and his perception of what is at stake (not to mention the
perceptions and presentations of those from whom he has learned of the
matters). That does not mean it is what those involved in the matter in
Rome, assuming that he has the facts straight (in the same way that they
would state them, let's say), would assess that what was at stake was the
definition of the gospel. That could be Paul's own deduction, and thus that
which he seeks to address, but not what they would have expected him to
address, if expecting him to address the matters at issue among them.

For example, it is not uncommon for a parent to address an issue of
character or family loyalty (or unfinished homework and chores) when a child
thought the issue at hand was a a different and much simpler matter, like
whether they could participate in a particular activity with their peers (go
out to play).

So I think, if you wish to pose the question, that it is important to open
up the discussion to any reason (rhetorical as well as historical) that can
be argued to be probable for why Paul made this statement and proceeded to
write the discourse we have preserved in this letter.

Now, to the question: I do not see any grammatical detail that confines
Paul's usage here to either alternative posed. Perhaps someone can find a
formal epistolary or rhetorical feature that helps determine the
alternatives. That could be interesting and useful. E.g., how was an "I am
not ashamed" declaration used in letters, esp. openings and transitions to
body. Even then, it will require analysis about the situation that I doubt
can be answered by this phrase itself to know if it was a definition or
defense rather than an offensive or anticipatory usage here. You are better
off seeking a functional reason.

I think it is more likely that Paul is taking the rhetorical initiative to
approach what he perceives the exigence in Rome to be in this way, confined
to the sending of a letter to articulate his position until he can arrange
to get there and straighten things out as he sees fit. There may have been a
question posed by them or someone else about a similar development, or there
may have been a challenge to what had been heard was being said about his
position, but I think it just as likely that they thought the matter was
something other than how the gospel was defined per se.

Whatever the provocation, I think Paul is expressing certainty that the
situation is not as it might appear on the ground to be, for God is up to
things in unexpected ways, and those who have the eyes to see matters from
God's perspective, with Paul, will realize now when they read this letter
how they should assess those things properly, and behave accordingly. In
this case, with him, realizing that the news of Christ will ultimately be
effective with Jew and Gentile, even it does not appear to be the case
presently (cf. chs 9-11 and then start of ch 12).

Hope this helps.

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


on 10/10/03 10:25 AM, Jeffrey B. Gibson at jgibson000 AT comcast.net 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