Corpus-Paul

["Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To: "Corpus Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?


> Tim,
> You begin by stating a view to be mine that I do not hold, and follow with
> several others, so that it is a straw man of your creation. I would expect
> that to be inconsistent. A few comments follow.

Dr Nanos, thanks for your comments. I guess, to be honest, I really am 
having some difficulty tracking exactly what your position is, then. I 
certainly had and have no intention to misrepresent you in any way.

> In short,
> 1) you are dealing with a model of salvation in which to frame my comments
> that I do not believe reflects the first-century context and ideas of Paul
> or of my historical portrait of him. I never proposed that Paul did not 
> hold
> that all humans should confess Jesus as Christ. What that has to do with
> notions of salvation is another matter, but not one I have discussed for 
> you
> to critique as you seem to think you are doing.

Nor have I put forth what I see to be Paul's notion of salvation. Touche.

:)

> 2) you are mixing two different parts of my message:
>    a) an exegetical discussion of the language of the text and
>    b) a hermeneutical challenge to the moral purpose to which one's
> exegetical conclusions are put (in other words, if one believes that the
> historical Paul said that Judaism is now obsolete, but since Judaism is
> still a living religion some two thousand years later, the modern
> interpreter still has a moral obligation to how that is and has been 
> stated
> and used, including consideration of stating disagreement with Paul, or at
> least ways to mitigate the disrespect for the life of Jewish people that 
> it
> has and can lead to. This can include contextualizing Paul's comments 
> within
> the framework of what he apparently thought was developing within his
> lifetime, but did not; that is, there are exegetical alternatives to 
> explore
> in view of present day moral concerns that send one back to the text).

I don't see Paul claiming that (non-Christian) Judaism was going to cease 
being a "living religion." Actually, I presume he thought quite differently, 
based on my reading of Romans 11; from my understanding of him, he thought 
that his kinsmen would retain a coherent identity until the full number of 
the Gentiles (whatever that specifically means) had been brought in, 
following which the great mass of his people would turn to their Messiah, 
and God would accomplish the great eschatological deliverance so long 
awaited (including the resurrection). The historical scenario that would 
falsify my reading of Paul would not be the present one, but one in which 
either the preponderance of Jews converted and otherwise things kept on 
going on as is, or (as so many have attempted) the Jewish people were wiped 
out apart from the promise being fulfilled. But the present state of things 
is not a huge hermeneutical problem.

I'm not, of course, saying that the present state of affairs is not a 
"problem" in other respects. I have come to share a bit of Paul's grief, 
albeit in such small measure, because I think his outline is poignant and 
powerful, and the continuing resistance of Jews to their Messiah is 
profoundly sad.

> > I have selected only a very small sampling of the evidence, because I do 
> > not
> > want to belabour the point here. And I am well aware that it is not 
> > pleasant
> > for a Jew to be told Paul's message, that his salvation is only to be 
> > found
> > through Jesus.
>
> Why do you conclude that? (since that judgment depends upon an assumption 
> of
> that Jewish person's acceptance of the authority of your interpretation, 
> or
> even of Paul's, while at the same time assuming that they have not 
> accepted
> it.)

I of course intended "non-Christian Jew." In fact, I have a number of Jewish 
Christians among my personal friends.

> I do think that your use of Paul's voice (as you interpret it) for today 
> is
> unpleasant, and I do wish you would reconsider that use on moral grounds 
> of
> respecting the other as you would have the other respect the nobility of
> your own faith decisions, since these are faith decisions, and not matters
> of fact that can be empirically proven. We can (should) do that in the 
> 21st
> century. I think that there is a good warrant for doing so, in that Paul
> calls for just that kind of moral behavior on the basis of living in the
> Spirit, even if his rhetoric does not itself always live up to that ideal.

It is precisely in language such as this that I think you are, after all, 
confusing exegesis ("Paul calls for just that kind of moral behavior") and 
hermeneutics. I think you are imposing upon Paul a reading of "moral 
behavior" that he was not promoting. And then, because you have imposed that 
upon Paul, you can say that he didn't always live up to it himself. But what 
if we took Paul's own rhetoric as part of the evidence of what he considered 
walking in the Spirit entailed? What if, rather than suggesting that Paul's 
rhetoric is inconsistent with his "doctrine," we sought to see if in fact 
his rhetoric serves his doctrine, and that Paul does not speak in his 
letters in self-contradiction?

I happen to believe that Paul's rhetoric does live up to his "moral ideals" 
(if that is the best way of describing them). "Respecting the other" is a 
modern catchword, and while in part it gets at something of Paul, what we 
generally mean by "respecting the other" is scarcely what Paul would have 
meant by the term. Respecting the other's faith decisions in Paul's world of 
thought meant, for example, not blaspheming the other's faith (cf the 
witness of Acts that Paul did not blaspheme Artemis). It did not mean 
accepting the other's religion as equally valid, else Paul would never have 
engaged in his missions. While I can appreciate well enough that the 
medieval world (and even the world of more recent times) was extremist in 
how it prosecuted its mission, there is no reason to suppose that the 
opposite extreme is the right one. If you think I am wrong about Jesus of 
Nazareth, I don't want you to tell me that "It's okay, because He's right 
for you." The biblical worldview presupposes the existence of idolatry, and 
while that is politically incorrect today, I see no reason to abandon the 
Bible for the sake of what is politically correct.

> Exegesis of his texts on love of the neighbor can be used to open up,
> instead of close down hermeneutical options.

I agree, but please let's remember that those same texts also define love of 
neighbour. If the texts are to be anything more than a springboard to leap 
to our own preferences, we may not empty the terms of content and pretend 
that "love" necessarily meant for Paul or Jesus what it may mean in our own 
parlance.

> > But if the issue is Pauline exegesis, I think it is only fair
> > that we not denude Paul of what he actually says.
>
> Indeed, and the way you have put this suggests that I think otherwise. We
> can never be entirely objective, but we can try to be. I am comfortable
> stating that I am constructing Paul without needing to find what he says
> agreeable, and that I am perhaps more free to do that than you are! It 
> does
> not bother me to disagree with what I find Paul to say, although it is
> easier to work with him if he says what I like him to say; but how about
> you? Are you free to find him to say say something other than your faith
> position has supposed him to say, when what he was formerly understood to
> say is now found wanting, but forms the basis of that faith position 
> itself?

If the question is: Am I ready to hear Paul saying something other than what 
I have assumed, the answer is: Absolutely.  My reading of Paul has shifted 
dramatically in the past number of years. But unlike you, I am deeply 
committed to agreeing with him. Meaning, it is my thinking that needs to be 
changed in the light of his.

As for "freedom," well, again. . . this can be variously defined. I belong 
to the community of faith which Paul was instrumental in founding, however 
much it has changed, and at times (as I noted earlier) even perverted his 
message (cf Rom 9-11 again). I do not pretend to be a neutral reader, but 
neither are you, as you know. I believe that Paul speaks of the Spirit as 
the Creator of a new community, and a voice within that community. 
Therefore, while I often disagree with that community on various readings of 
Paul (and it has disagreed within itself from the beginning), I do have a 
different starting point; namely that the Spirit has been present in the 
Church through those ages, and therefore I am compelled to give more 
credence to its readings of Paul than I otherwise might. But again - 
particularly as a Protestant - the text remains the ultimate authority and 
must correct the readers. If the text is what I believe it is (inspired and 
infallible), my standpoint of faith is far better than any other. (That 
standpoint, of course, does not guarantee good exegesis, as we all know.)

> > Disagree with him if you
> > will, but please do not say that he simply sweepingly presupposes the
> > salvation of his people apart from Christ.
>
> As I wrote, I think I made a clear move from exegesis to hermeneutics.
> Disagree with (my interpretation of) him if you will, but please do not
> suppose that you speak for him without interpretation.

And as I wrote in my previous note: None of us do. We all speak from within 
presuppositional frameworks. That said, texts are not wax noses.

> Now, in addition to the matter of how Paul's voice has and should be used,
> however it is understood historically, a subject of great interest to me,
> what I was hoping for was some interaction with my exegetical argument 
> about
> the historical meaning of the passages that were being discussed, Rom 10:4
> and Gal 3:24-25.

I assume that thread is still open, and I have made some contribution to it. 
But I won't make further comment in this post.

Thanks for your dialogue. I'm still not entirely clear where you are coming 
from, but I'm sure the interchange helps.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

http://www.timgallant.org
tim | gallant site group