doing "IT" & 'the curse': true & false trials ...


~*~


PAUL
following
a very standard
midrashic move:

REREADS
{REWRITES}
the verse
so that
ALL
of its ELEMENTS
will ADD to
the
MEANING!



HE DOES SO, in
fact,
by taking the "by doing it"
as modifying the entire phrase
"everyone who does not uphold everything
that is written in the book
of the Law."



WE COULD
REWRITE the verse,
then,
as:
"EVERYONE,
who [precisely] by doing it
does not uphold ALL that is written
in the book of the Law,
is under a curse";
i.e., by doing IT,
by physical performance,
works of the Law,
one is not upholding all that which is written
in the book of the Law,
and that is the curse,
because "all that is written"
implies MUCH MORE
than
mere doing!



~*~



The
hermeneutical move
that Paul makes here
is quite similar (although not identical)
to that of the Rabbis in the Talmud on Exodus 23:2,
who interpreted "AFTER the majority you must not incline to do evil,
and you shall not bear witness in a suit
to incline after the majority"
as meaning that one must follow the
majority.



~*~



AS SW has concluded
in general,
"What is crucial
to note
is that Paul
consistently distinguishes
between the 'doing' of the law's
commands
required of those subject
to IT
and
the 'fulfilling' of the law
by Christians!"



~*~



NOTICE,
however,
the difference between
my way of turning this interpretation
and that of others
who hold this
view?

SW
seems to regard
this usage
as a way of deflecting objections
to Paul's position
by exploiting the "ambiguity"
of the term
"FULFILL."
THIS is referred to
explicitly as
"looseness of
speech."



B.
ALSO ends up
with this sort of
explanation:
"GIVEN the GALATIANS' attraction to the law,
it would have been dangerous to dismiss the significance of the law
altogether,
but the positive statements Paul makes here about the law
are hedged about with sufficient ambiguity
to prevent the impression
of reinstating
the law."



I would
phrase this
entirely differently:
GIVEN the fact
that Paul believes that the Torah
was given 'by "G*D"',
it would have been impossible for him
to dismiss it altogether,
and the positive statements that he makes
are the essence of his hermeneutical
theology by which Christianity
fulfills
and does not abrogate
Judaism.



T., on the other hand,
writes,
"Paul, on this view,
is not suddenly saying that the law has a place in Christian ethics
(he has after all just forbidden the Galatians from practising circumcision),
BUT THAT Christian ethics overwhelm and,
by overwhelming,
supercede
the Jewish law."



According to my interpretation,
for Paul
"Christian ethics" IS simply
the TRUE INTERPRETATION of "Jewish Law"
and always HAS
BEEN.



As I have
argued before,
this IS
supersessionist
from the point of view of Jewish hermeneutics
BUT NOT
from Paul's point
of view.



~verliefd~
engel



23 jun 2005 - bewerkt op 05 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende