Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz AT sbcglobal.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:41:01 -0800 (PST)

--- "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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page