paolo's old bingo hall with new games

~*~


the very fact
that he supports his view with midrash
indicates his conviction that he stands in continuity with the torah
and not against it

to be sure
from a 'jewish' point of view
this 'continuity' itself constitutes
rejection of the law

the form
of paolo's argument itself
provides then an elegant analogue for his character
in both
we find an entity both inside and outside
of judaism
at the same time

'those who are men of works of law are under a curse'

by contrast
those who are men of works of law
are under a curse

for it is written

"Cursed is everyone
who does not uphold everything that is written
in the book of law
by doing it

[DEUT 27:26]

it is then obvious that NOBODY is justified before 'g*d' by law
because 'the righteous shall live by faith'

[Chavakuk 2:4]

the law is not by faith
but 'he who does them shall live by them'

[LEV 18:5]

(GAL 3:10-12)


~*~


a proper
understanding
of these verses of paul is crucial
for an evaluation of his ideology vis-a-vis the jews
the torah and juadaism
as many currently held readings end up claiming
that paul significantly distorts jewish
doctrine here

HJS largely based his claim
that paul misunderstood/misinterpreted judaism
on this very passage

a reinterpretation of the passage
that will NOT lead to such conclusions is therefore highly important
for OUR general evaluation of paul
on judaism

in establishing
the identity of paul as a jewish cultural critic
it is important to demonstrate that
he writes as a jew

showing the thoroughly
midrashic character of the main arguments of the letter is then
directly relevant to the descriptive project
as a whole

PAUL's argument
is almost prototypical
midrash


~*~


most interpreters
have quite missed the point here
in my view

their interpretations
are dependent on theological presuppositions
about paul's relation to the law as generating SIN
a proposition which seems a priori implausible for paul
to have held

JD has produced up till now
the best arguments against this notion:

B's OWN reconstructions
of Paul's reasoning {the law was given in order to be broken and to generate SIN} is hardly obvious from the text
{even allowing for 3.19}

it would hardly cut much ice with his readers
and on THIS point paul could hardly simply assume
that his readers shared his presuppositions ...

moreover
as H points out
SUCH a theology attributes a very perverse motive on the part of "G*D"
in giving the law

it is hard to think
that paul would be unaware of such corollary
or would willingly
embrace it


~*~


alternatively
interpretations are based on the notion
that one who transgresses even ONE precept of the torah
is irredeemably cursed -
a notion that has no support in jewish texts of either the first
or later centuries

THIS sequence of views
cannot be found in contemporary jewish literature
the sequence of thought SOUNDS plausible
but it does NOT appear to be Paul's
NOR that of any form of
contemporary
judaism

ALL the rabbis
whose views are known to us
took the position that ALL the law
must be accepted ...

NO rabbi
took the position
that obedience MUST BE
perfect

Pharisees
and rabbis of all schools and all periods
strongly believed
in REPENTANCE and other means of atonement
in the case of transgression

the only exception
is perhaps 4 EZRA?

KS pointed out
that this interpretation is implausible on inner pauline grounds
because paul himself in philippians claims to have been
'blameless as to the law'
(3:6)

EPS has further
discredited on exegetical grounds
the interpretation that paul's claim is based on the word "EVERYTING"
in the verse and means that one who does NOT keep
all of the law
is accursed:

THESE
three considerations -
the character of the terminological argument in favor of GENTILES
being righteoused by faith,
which is based on prooftexts;
the fact that paul states in his own words what he takes the prooftexts to mean;
and the subordination of vv. 10-13 to v. 8 -
seem to me to be decisive against the view that the thrust and point
of the argument are directed toward the conclusion
that the law should NOT be accepted because
NO ONE can FULFILL
all of IT

the argument
seems to be clearly wrong that Paul
in GALATIANS 3
holds the view that since the law cannot be entirely fulfilled
therefore
righteousness
is by faith

those [EPS's] arguments
against the standard reading
seem impeccable
to me

his OWN interpretation however
leaves something to be desired in that it makes Paul depend
on a purely associative connection between
'the words NOMOS
and cursed'

S
on the other hand
interprets that Paul's intention is that those who DO the torah
are not fulfilling the torah
and are therefore
accursed

however
since he misses the point of the midrashic form
his interpretation has NOT had the impact it ought to have had
on the commentatorial tradition

D
also
I think
correctly understands the import of the verse
but does not even attempt to interpret
the midrash


~*~


ANYWAY:
de tuin heeft genoeg water gehad voor het moment?
ALLERLEI planten groeien en bloeien EN ik heb wat onkruid ertussenuit
gehaald: tijd voor een kop koffie, de ochtendkrant, en
all these old & new considerations will ALSO
take care of themselves!


WEES gegroet
and have a nice day!
TAKE IT EASY: 'the world' might be CRAZY, but
we CAN 'prevail' ...



at
least
as far as
I know


~~