Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Bob wrote:

>On page 145 he says he has argued (elsewhere)
>that in 1:18-32 Paul is referring only to Judeans
>contemporary with him.

Esler may yet write in to clarify, but in his absence
I'll guess that the above statement is either a typo
or a confusing allusion to 1:18(-32?) as somehow to be
distinguished from 1:19-32. For Esler says:

"The blanket combination of 1:18 covers Judeans and
well as non-Judeans." (145), presumably referring to
"the Judean and also the Greek" from what precedes in
1:16-17. "The stinging attack on non-Judeans" is the
focus of 1:19-32 (and 2:1-6). 

Note that the target(s) of 1:19-32 depend on whether
or not Adam is in view. If he is, then it's Judeans
and Greeks (Hooker, Wedderburn, Barrett, Dunn); if not
then it's primarily Greeks. Fitzmyer, Martin, Stowers,
Esler have refuted the Adam readings in different
ways, Esler persuasively arguing that the Sodom legend
is in view (pp 149-150). I think he's right; I can't
see Adam invoked here.

So 1:19-32 "concerns the godless and vicious character
of the idolatry typical of non-Judeans" (151), and the
individual of 2:1-6 "engages in the same practices,
which can only mean idolatry (1:19-23) and the vices
listed (1:26-31), while hypocritically passing
judgment on others to do the same" (ibid). In 2:17
will Paul bring Judeans in his sights on the hypocrisy
charge, but not here. 

> This leads Esler to the conclusion that Paul's heart
> is not in his indictment of all (Jew and Gentile,
> Greek and Barbarian) in sin...the conclusion that
> Paul's 'heart is not in the production of such a
> list' for Judeans p 153, undermines the power of
> the epistle to the point that one might wonder why 
> it had any effect in Rome, let alone in history.

Well Bob, we should certainly appreciate the "comic
nature" (as Esler puts it) of Paul's disparity. On the
one hand the Gentiles are idolatrous, God-hating,
lustful, greedy, wicked, envious, murderous,
malicious, treacherous, violent, merciless, and
senseless (1:19-2:6) while the Judeans commit
adultery, steal and rob temples (2:17-24)! "The signs
of Paul's straining to produce a Judean analogy to
non-Judean sinfulness for the purpose of his argument
is quite visible." (153) Stuff like this is amusing,
if you have a perverse sense of humor as I do. Whether
or not Paul's "heart was in the matter" is another
question. I tend to be of the mind, against Esler,
that Paul's heart was perhaps too much in these
matters.

But intent and effect often have little to do with
each other. Paul's rhetoric (however construed in
terms of original intent) continued having, and
continues to have, dramatic effect on interpreters.

> I think Esler's structure is inadequate (p144 - a
> 1:18-2:5, b 2:6-16, c 2:17-29, d 3:1-8,
> and e 3:9-20) but I am
> wondering if there is a good argument for
> ending the first major component of the
> structure at 2:29 as I have done.
> Perhaps Romans is a symphony in one movement :)

I like Esler's divisions (his interpretation of Rom 2
is one of the chief strengths of the book). The
concerns of 3:1-8 would seem to rise naturally out of
the recategorization set forth in 2:25-29.

But like you, I'm puzzled by the statement in the
first paragraph on p 145.

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the 
social sciences he is remembered for his worst."


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250