Corpus-Paul

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

Jim,
I thought your first question about Philemon was interesting, and the reply
pertaining to that.

But this way of stating things (in the post copied here responding to Lee,
which engages a discussion already under way from the topic of Philemon)
will no doubt result in posts about soteriology, which will likely make the
same unrecognized?] move, since you "introduce" the question of "a [J]ewish
'way to' [G]od and a gentile 'way'" when beginning with a different topic,
having to do with "observing the law [Torah]" (brackets my adjustments).

But you have made a shift here that requires an argument you do not make;
namely, that the observing of law has something to do with "getting in,"
instead of being the covenant obligation of those who are "already in" by
the gracious act of God's election of someone who trusted God (i.e.,
Abraham), and the people who have descended from him (Israel), keeping that
trust, and thus those covenant obligations (which are not for the other
nations, since they are not in that covenant). Hence you set the argument up
in the same old categories that were designed to set the reformers apart
from the Catholic church to which they objected; but these have nothing to
do with the categories of Paul's Jewish/non-Jewish context (in my view).

Thus, I won't be surprised to see the same old arguments paraded as if
disclosing something new (already begun, I see), with folks proof-texting
what they already know to be the truth about Paul's view, and sometimes
making plain what is ideologically at stake for them when that view is
challenged.

I am very interested in the global discussion of whether Paul thought Jews
should observe the Law, and whether he did, but it does seem to me to
undermine any kind of specific discussion if every time a specific topic
arises this global question must control what the text can or cannot mean in
that case, and the same old verses are thrown out, as if their meaning is
self-evident in the one way that the user uses it (certainly aware that
there are alternative views; no?). Why not try out several hypothesis for
that text, based on the global assumption that Paul either upheld Torah or
did not, and see how each plays out in each case (in this case, on the topic
in Philemon)? Maybe we could add something new to the discussion!

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


on 1/12/05 12:42 PM, Jim West at jwest AT highland.net wrote:

> At 01:05 PM 1/12/2005, you wrote:
>> So, I don't see Paul doing away with the law entirely; rather, he seems to
>> be saying that Gentiles are legit without having to follow the law, while
>> seldom (I would say never) addressing the issue as regards Jews.
>> 
>> Lee
> 
> Excellent points.  So in essence Jews have to do by observing the law what
> gentiles don't have to bother with?  Seems a tad unfair to me.  But is that
> really what Paul thought?  Would Paul accept the notion that there is a
> jewish way to god and a gentile way?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> 
> http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com  Biblical Theology Weblog
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul