Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Bob,
Thanks for the catches and comments. Mine below.

on 5/12/05 9:02 PM, Bob MacDonald at bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca wrote:

> 1. verse 38 of Romans 11 does not exist (page 40) - citation
> should be 28 - the NRSV translation is astonishing to me.
> Adding 'of God' when it is not in the Greek! Is there a
> textual variant here?

(Thanks, will fix that.) No! Just an interpretative history certain that in
Paul's view the Jewish people are enemies of God.

> 2. ... Such hard work reading, I had to pause every few
> paragraphs!

In what way is it hard work reading? I want to make this piece accessible to
the informed non-specialist. Is it the subject matter, reading against the
grain, or the communication style itself?

> 
> 3. He who keeps the day keeps it to the Lord, who keeps it
> not keeps it not unto the Lord (Romans 14.6) is not a verse
> Mark dealt with. This verse does not seem to me to be
> related to teaching Gentiles to mark time according to the
> Jewish calendar as Mark implies Paul might have done in
> Corinth - but perhaps it can be put down to Sabbath or
> Festival observances - that Gentiles would not observe but
> Christ-believing or not, Jews would continue to observe.

I don't understand what problem you see here to Paul and his groups
observing a Jewish calendar. In this case, the audience of the letter is not
his group, but I still suppose that they meet within Jewish social space and
thus according to a Jewish calendar. They also live and die to the Lord--and
thus are the Lord's (v. 7). What is that teaching Gentiles not to observe?

> 
> 4. It appears that the implications of Mark's argument for
> Christ-believing Jews of the time was that there would be no
> more proselytising of Gentiles to increase the ranks of the
> Jews.

Interesting way to view the implication. I do not suppose that increasing
the ranks was in general something about which Jews of Paul's time were
concerned any more than now, perhaps even less then, since as minority
communities they would have had scarce resources as it was, and also it
would have been quite a job to inculturate idol worshippers from birth. I
don't mean to imply that there was no interest by anyone or group, but just
to point out a different valuation of this matter probably at work. Perhaps
this is one of the reasons reading my work is difficult for you? since we
use similar language, but often with very different assumptions about the
imagined reality we are trying to describe.

> Christ is the circumcision for all who are outside
> Israel of the flesh (Colossians 2:11). This metaphor is rare
> in the NT and only explicit here.

That is not a text or letter with which I am very familiar, but I don't
think it is precisely what I was trying to communicate. Not sure what it
means, actually, but you have aroused my curiosity.

> What then for circumcision
> within the covenant? Mark's argument based on 1 Corinthians
> 7 implies that Christ-believing Jews would continue to
> circumcise their children - but this is the very accusation
> that is brought against Paul in Acts 21.21. Sure they cannot
> prove he said or meant this (24.13) but even Jews seem to
> have taken the inference that he might feel this way
> (according to Luke).

Yet Luke uses it to communicate that this rumor was mistaken, which is known
to James and the leadership, and which Paul's Nazarite vow in the Temple,
which involves a burnt-offering(!), makes plain to be a mistaken rumor. It
is not hard to imagine how Paul's nuanced teaching could be easily
misunderstood in this way, especially by those who might want to discredit
him; it has been (mis)understood (in my view) in this way by those who
regard his letters to be sacred.

> 
> 5. Keeping/guarding the whole Law - Mark reverses the
> responsibility.

I don't understand what that means. I am trying to communicate that Paul
upholds this as a shared responsibility of Jews, especially those involved
with conducting non-Jews into or through proselyte conversion and the issues
that arise. It is thus a topic that Paul can introduce to undermine the
intentions of other Jews with whom he disagrees by trying to show that they
do not have the interests of Torah in view (in their appeal to Torah as the
basis for "compelling" proselyte conversion if Christ-believing non-Jews are
to gain that which they seek to claim to have already gained without it, and
at the same time not carefully warn these non-Jews of the weighty decision
at hand). In other words, Paul focuses on the good news proposition of the
other influencers of these non-Jews, with proselyte conversion's ostensible
promise of resolving their social marginalization in a way the good news
proposition of Paul does not appear to offer, in order to show that the
alternative also does not offer unequivocal good news, and that anyone
suggesting that it does is misleading, and thus, ironically, not discharging
their responsibility to Torah, although appealing to Torah (and presumably,
arguing in response that these non-Jews' [and thus Paul's] position is
against Torah teaching).

> His reading is that the influencers are
> being duplicitous and not therefore not keeping the whole
> law but that the addresses will in fact keep the whole Law
> by being in Christ and would fail to keep it by being
> circumcised - it being of the essence of the Law as a whole
> that Jew and Gentile worship together in the faith of
> Abraham without conformity to the circumcision of Abraham
> which again is accomplished in Christ for the uncircumcised.
> Did I understand correctly?

I am not sure I follow your way of putting the matter. Perhaps in this case
it is the spirit of the Torah that is at issue, but as already noted above,
I do not think I mean the same thing as Colossians, upon which your
construal depends.

> This item goes with 4 in
> separating Jew from Gentile - making a distinction.  In
> marginalizing the Gentiles such, it is no wonder they might
> want to escape the pressure Mark implies to conform to the
> cult of Caesar - Paul's call seems to be a recipe for
> trouble for them.

Yes. Paul's approach creates new marginal space for non-Jews who join these
Jewish groups of Christ-believers, and it is his need to help them negotiate
the implications that gave rise to his letters, in my view.

> 
> Mark achieves the status of one who can 'Kosher the Reptile'
> (BT Sanhedrin 17a, JT Sanhedrin 4.22a).

... just a few short of the seventy language requirement for a Sanhedrin
seat. But I do think that the point that Paul works from the authority of
Scripture is telling, and has implications for Rom 14, which you brought up.
Paul seems to me to be agreeing with those rabbis who recognize that ritual
impurity is not inherent, but imputed by divine word; the difference is I
think Paul still upholds ritual purity laws for Jews ("it is unclean for any
one who thinks it unclean"), for that reason, but not for non-Jews ("nothing
is unclean in itself"), at least not in the same way (14:14). For them it is
a matter of respect toward those who would otherwise stumble over these
non-Jews faith claims (vv. 13-19).

> He makes us
> reconsider every phrase. The momentum of history is a hard
> stone to push uphill. Dogma seems to trump thoughtfulness
> much of the time, but maybe the contract is no trump. I am
> very grateful to you, Mark, and others for challenging our
> prejudice and helping us see possibilities more clearly.

Thanks Bob--I take that as encouragement.

Take care,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/