tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post5547737438595451175..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Critical Assessment of Rosner's "Paul and the Law", Part 2Michael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-32543379683996045062010-09-13T17:43:24.033-05:002010-09-13T17:43:24.033-05:00Graham:
Thanks for your comments. I hear you agree...Graham:<br />Thanks for your comments. I hear you agreeing with me that it could only really be corroborative evidence, this "implicit evidence". And I'll agree with you on that point. However, I don't think it can have anything more than a complementary role. Furthermore, in view of the fact that with Paul's letters we only have historically contingent documents focused on very specific issues, I don't see how we can make assumptions from silence. And Rosner has chosen what is arguably one of Paul's most rhetorical section in Romans which means it must be handled with the greatest of care.<br /><br /> One last point, I am not sure using "Christian" and "Jew" as categories of identity for Paul is even appropriate. I think it clouds the issue. Or better it makes a cloudy issue (Jewish-Chrisitan identity) seemingly clear and more cut and dried. If Paul distanced himself from some Jews of his day--which he certainly did, it was in fact as a Jew not as a Christian. And he apparently viewed the Messiah as the very extension of the Torah (Rm 10:4-5). So one could argue, from silence that Paul believed a Jew who relied on the Messianic Torah to the Glory of God was in the right. Can we assume that this would be his view of Jewish believers in Jesus? Or, and I'll focus on this in a later post, would a Jewish believer in Jesus have had to conform with this implicit Paul? Or would they follow the explicit Paul? I think that Rosner is indeed on to something when he notes that Paul makes distinctions between a Jews relationship to Torah and another group's, however in my view it is not a difference between Jew and Christian.Joel Willittshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042392686311490603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-55733489043475829892010-09-13T17:06:36.808-05:002010-09-13T17:06:36.808-05:00My point is that it is not *obviously* highly spec...My point is that it is not *obviously* highly speculative. What we fail to say can be highly revealing, and I think that I've given three examples of occasions where other people have, quite justifiably, found significance in what was omitted.<br /><br />I'm also not sure that "historical reconstruction" is the only issue here. The meaning of the text is a different (but related) issue to reconstructing the mind of the apostle, or the state of the Churches in 1st century Rome. <br /><br />Nevertheless, what is omitted can be significant in reconstructing an authors' intentions. Eg. what Josephus *doesn't* say about the Jewish aristocracy; what he *doesn't* say about the Romans. <br /><br />I think that this is very interesting, by the way, and I'm interested to see where this discussion goes....(and I would like to see some criteria laid down as to when and how we can use omissions. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence, sometimes it isn't. But I think that absence of evidence can confirm one hypothesis over another. And wouldn't we expect to see some of this language used by Paul for Christians and the Torah?) <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-1452273091971701932010-09-13T16:45:15.981-05:002010-09-13T16:45:15.981-05:00My point is that this highly speculative and is no...My point is that this highly speculative and is not reliable evidence for historical reconstruction. Furthermore ones wider view of paul shouts in the silence.Joel Willittshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042392686311490603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-27826153452043424162010-09-13T16:11:57.967-05:002010-09-13T16:11:57.967-05:00To clarify the last point - I'm not sure that ...To clarify the last point - I'm not sure that Paul moves between identities all that *easily*Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-23726208646355430022010-09-13T16:08:02.915-05:002010-09-13T16:08:02.915-05:00I'm not so sure. To take a contemporary exampl...I'm not so sure. To take a contemporary example - Many journalists commented on Amanda Knox's oral defence at her trial for the murder of Meredith Kerchner. It was a passionate defence. But never once did Knox say "I did not kill her. I did not participate in her murder." The jury may have found this omission highly significant. <br /><br />A little more mundane - in preaching my views on certain topics have been discerned in the past by what I failed to say. For example, I've failed to stress the imminence of the Parousia, which betrayed to one irritated congregant that I was not a Dispensationalist! (Which reveals quite a lot of information about my theology, if I'm preaching in an Irish Baptist Church).<br /><br />Closer to home - and probably a little more relevant - many commentators have closely scrutinised what Paul left out of his discussion of the Resurrection.<br /><br />It also feels like Paul is putting some distance between himself and "the Jews" at this stage of the argument. When it comes to certain issues, he may feel a degree of alienation from his heritage, and at other times he can feel close to it. <br />We all compartmentalise like this at the end of the day.Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.com