[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: What was Paul's main point anyway?
>David John Marotta writes:
>
>> Paul is doing more than teaching retoric, he is trying to prove a point
>> objectively from the Hebrew Scriptures.
>
Paul J. Bodin replies
>This is precisely the point at which I believe we part company. I
>agree that Paul is not teaching rhetoric, but what does it mean to say
>that he is "trying to prove a point objectively from the Hebrew
>Scriptures." Paul might be trying very hard to demonstrate his point
>from Hebrew scriptures and still not conform to our canons of
>legitimate objective argumentation and exegesis. Indeed it would be
>unlikely that he would do so, for these canons were very different
>in his world than they are in ours.
This seems to match up well with the impression I had gained of
what constitued valid exegesis in Paul's world. Since God inspired
the Hebrew bible, anything he could glean from it by processes
from straight translation through to what we would now regard as
word-games would provide a divine seal of approval on the point
he was trying to make. In this world-view, it isn't that important
that one even make all one's arguments from the same text consistent
(as we would understand that) since if God left open the option
of interpreting a phrase in more than one way, he must have
intended that.
Indeed, similar types of argument are attributed to Jesus
in the gospels, unless my memory fails me; I'm thinking of the
"you are gods" quotation from the Psalms, but can't recall
off-hand where the passage occurs.
---
Robert Low email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry University,
Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.