Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Mark,

Thanks for the lengthy and considered reply.

>I appreciate when you make a distinction between
>what you believe Paul upheld and what is "true"
>independent of his rhetorical interests.

And let me emphasize my approach: to acknowledge the
gulf separating us from ancients like Paul and Jesus,
and only afterwards build bridges. As one who does not
claim the Christian faith, Paul's supersessionism
doesn't particularly bother me (except in terms of how
others abuse it). Isn't appreciating the man's flaws a
step toward genuine understanding and reconciliation?
Isn't reinterpretation (which we all do, believers and
non-believers alike) preferable to revisionism? (Not
that you're necessarily the latter.)

>You write: "What once had glory has lost its glory
>because of the greater glory".
>I would suggest, perhaps, "lost its luster when
>compared to the arrival of
>the awaited glory," to make your point. And yet,
>Paul still upholds that it is "the glory"

But Paul insists that the Mosaic era has "lost its
glory", which is a little stronger than merely "losing
luster". This is what I mean by the past being
denigrated relative to the new age at hand. 

>I was trying to say that the only evidence to judge
>the plight of Judeans prior to Christ is the
Scriptural
>testimony composed by those Judeans (and a
>little common sense).

Yes, I see. But my question is whether or not we can
depend on common sense here. Does Paul in fact appeal
to common sense, or does he have a particular
understanding of faith-righteousness which cuts
against the grain of common sense?

>Since Judean Scriptures includes 
>examples of indescribable joy, faith, and
>righteousness, such as heroes entering the
>afterlife without death,

Good point, but Paul's understanding of
faith-righteousness seems to be more particular. Rom
4:18-25 paints it as involving (indeed requiring) the
belief in God giving life to "death". Those already
living who enter the afterlife appear not to qualify,
in the way that Isaac being born from a dead womb and
Jesus being raised from a dead body do. 

>Paul's comparative
>rhetorical statements cannot be made into absolute
>statements in the way
>that they/you had/have done in that post.

I wonder. :)

>It is shortsighted to read
>the few remnants of rhetorical engagement
>with specific people and situations and
>topics as if we had comprehensive writing
>and eyewitness testimony to the way he
>lived and the contexts he addressed...

Well yes, I agree, but it's also shortsighted to focus
too narrowly on "favored" texts at the expense of
others. You know I think your Mystery of Romans is a
stellar accomplishment. But it's telling that you deal
primarily with Rom 11 and 14-15. What if one wrote a
book giving most weight to Rom 9-10? 

I'm actually in the process -- prodded by recent
threads -- of outlining the entire letter of Romans in
terms of functionality (i.e. who is targetted in each
section; for what reason; etc). I'll try to have it
posted by next week. Believe it or not, Mark, I think
a marriage may be possible between you and P. Esler.
Imagine that?

Thanks again -- 

=====
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 - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail