Corpus-Paul

[Edgar Krentz <ekrentz AT sbcglobal.net>]

--- "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net> wrote:

> Jim,
> I will be surprised if Edgar is confused by my argument that the observation
> depends upon circularity. Edgar? What you propose does make sense as one
> hypothesis, but no more than that. There are many interesting features to
> consider; let me note a few.

Mark, 

as usual, you make sharp comments. I would respond that your position is also 
based on
a circular argument, going from letters later than 1 Thessalonians back to 
it. My
position is that I account  for each document on the basis of what is in it. 
Hence my
comments on 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. I do not argue that 
Paul
disregards the Torah as an authority, bukt that he does not use it in those 
three
letters. Clearly Paul in 1 Thessalonians regards himself as having apostolic 
aukthority
[what ever that means!], but says he will not use it as an arguementative 
warrant.
 
> You ask a good question that bears some consideration: "How will OT texts be
> any more authoritative for non [J]ews than would Homer or Socrates?" (some
> might wonder why one capitalizes Homer and Socrates and not Jews, so I have
> provided that in the citation and marked it with [].) Indeed, it would imply
> something in the direction you apparently wish to go if in the ones where he
> does not quote Scripture he made a lot of citations of Homer or other
> normative Greek thinkers; but he does not. Curious, really. It does seem
> that it would have been effective to work with citations of Stoics, Cynics,
> and so on, when dealing with Hellenes. Many interpreters of Paul certainly
> find it useful. But for a couple of maxims, he is silent. Why?
> 
> It is certainly not clear that when Paul does not cite Scripture that there
> is "no point in it." Could be the case. Maybe these letters are from later
> in the development of the communities, and thus there own language has begun
> to emerge. 

1 Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul's letter. No Maybe about it. 
Philippians is
dated by many earlier than Galatians and Romans, possibvly later than 1 & 2
Coreinthians [if Paul wrote it from an Ephesian imprisonment]. Or it is later 
if from
an imprisonment in Caesarea or Rome. 

<Maybe his own authorial voice is sufficient to make the points he
> wishes to make. Perhaps his authority is not in question. Romans is a case
> where he wrote to a community or communities he did not found and had not
> visited. Galatians was written to communities in turmoil about becoming
> Jewish proselytes, so the use of Scripture would make sense, even if not
> addressed to Jews, because addressed to a Jewish exigence. Maybe these other
> cases without citation do not have those features, and thus, the need for
> citation is not the same. Citations do take up space, so why use them unless
> the point requires an authoritative voice in addition to the author's own?
> 
> But there is another interesting issue to raise. Perhaps the reason Paul
> cites Scripture in certain cases and not others is because he is the one
> socializing certain non-Jews into Jewish cultural norms. Perhaps he views
> these communities as expressions of Judaism. Or perhaps in some cases they
> have been so socialized into Judaism prior to Paul's involvement, and not in
> others. Or perhaps in some cases they are subgroups of Jewish communities
> and in others they are not, perhaps because there are no Jewish communities
> there? And so on.

No one can aregue against a "perhaps," as you state it above; but one can 
also state
that "perhaps" he does not! A perhaps is not a conclusive proof.
> 
> I think my point still stands: we do not know from the use of Scripture or
> not whether there were Jews within the target audiences or not. But we do
> know that in the cases where he did cite Scripture to authorize his views,
> that this implies that the role of Torah has not ended in an absolute sense
> for Paul or for his addressees after the coming of Christ, which undermines
> the way many read Paul's language in Rom 10:4 and Gal 3:24-25, so that the
> sense in which Torah has been fulfilled in Christ must be sorted out.

> Regards,
> Mark
> -- 
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> Rockhurst University

No disagreement here at all, Mark. In fact, there is surprisingly little 
disagreement
between the two of us.

Peace, Ed Krentz
> Co-Moderator
> http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/
> 
> 
> on 1/18/05 9:04 AM, Jim West at jwest AT highland.net wrote:
> 
> > Mark D Nanos wrote:
> > 
> >> So Romans aside, how does one know that there are not Jews in the mix in 
> >> the
> >> letters where no Scripture is quoted, but only in the ones where it is,
> >> except on the basis that Scripture is quoted or not?
> >>  
> >> 
> > Your answer here seems to suggest something that doesn't quite wash:
> > 
> >> What do we know? No doubt he chooses to use Scripture because he 
> >> believes it
> >> is compelling, authoritative for his audience of non-Jews,
> >> 
> > How will OT texts be any more authoritative for non jews than would
> > Homer or Socrates?  It makes perfect sense to suggest that Paul doesn't
> > use OT texts with non Jews because there is no point in it- just as it
> > makes perfect sense to suggest he uses OT texts for Jewish audiences
> > precisely because they will "get it".  Gentiles won't "get it" so theres
> > no point in using it.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
> 


=====
Edgar and Becky Krentz
Christ Seminary Seminex Prof. of NT Emeritus
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 E. 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615

ekrentz AT sbcglobal.net