Sinners, Works of Law, and Transgression in Gal 2:14b-21

Name: Sinners, Works of Law, and Transgression in Gal 2:14b-21 | A Study in Paul's Line of Thought
Brand: Mohr Siebeck
Price: 129.0 EUR
Availability: OnlineOnly

A Study in Paul's Line of Thought

Nicolai Techow(Autor*in)

Mohr Siebeck (Verlag)

1. Auflage

Erschienen am 31. Januar 2024

XVI, 508 Seiten

E-Book

PDF mit Adobe-DRM

Systemvoraussetzungen

978-3-16-161213-8 (ISBN)

129,00 €inkl. 7% MwSt.

Systemvoraussetzungen

für PDF mit Adobe-DRM

E-Book Einzellizenz

Als Download verfügbar

Kundeninformation

Beschreibung

Weitere Details

Weitere Ausgaben

Person

Inhalt

Cover
Title
Preface
Table of Contents
I Introduction
1. The textual and thematic focus of the present study
2. Social-ethnic readings of justification in Paul
3. Gal 2:16 and e?´??a ??´µ?? in context
4. Thesis
II Recent interpretation - scholarly main lines and key individuals
1. The flow of thought in Gal 2:14b-21 - a map of recent main lines of interpretation
1.1. "Sinners" and the Antioch Incident in the flow of the argument
1.1.1. How and why are gentiles thought to be "sinners" in 2:15?
1.1.2. Are gentile Christians implicitly referred to by the expression "sinners of gentiles" in 2:15?
1.1.3. Does 2:15 represent Paul's view?
1.2. "Our" knowledge and "our" coming to faith in Christ
1.3. "Sinners" and coming to faith in the flow of the argument
1.3.1. In what sense have "even/also we ourselves" been found as "sinners"?
1.3.2. Does Paul agree to the negative evaluation of "us" contained in the protasis in 2:17a?
1.4. The continuation of Paul's flow of thought in 2:18-20
1.4.1. What do ? and ta??ta refer to?
1.4.2. What does the transgressor transgress?
1.4.3. The function of 2:18 and the challenge of e?? ???
1.5. What is the logic in 2:21b-c?
2. The flow of thought in 2:14b-21 - key individual examples
2.1. E. P. Sanders
2.2. J. D. G. Dunn
2.3. H. Räisänen
2.4. N. T. Wright
2.5. J. L. Martyn
2.6. M. de Boer
2.7. D. A. Campbell
2.8. S. Cummins
2.9. J. M. G. Barclay
2.10. B. W. Longenecker
2.11. M. Nanos and the "Paul within Judaism" Perspective
2.12. R. Schäfer
2.13. M. Bachmann
2.14. H.-J. Eckstein
2.15. J. Lambrecht
2.16. V. M. Smiles
2.17. R. N. Longenecker
2.18. T. R. Schreiner
2.19. D. J. Moo
2.20. A. A. Das
III On occasion, date, opponents, and issues
1. Introduction
2. The occasion of the letter, the agitators, their identity, and message
2.1. The identity of the agitators and their relation to Jerusalem
2.2. Excursus: Matters of chronology
2.2.1. The standpoint of the present author on matters of date and chronology
2.2.2. The limited dependence of my thesis on these answers
2.3. What did the agitators concretely require of the Galatians?
2.4. What was the overarching category of the concrete requirements of the agitators?
2.5. Requirements for what?
2.5.1. The moral deficit of the Galatians
2.5.2. The more fundamental motivation
2.6. Conclusion
IV Structural and functional matters and matters of basic referents
1. On the function, character, and structure of Gal 2:14b/15-21 in the letter as a whole
2. A survey of the structural flow of the letter
2.1. Gal 1:1-5
2.2. Gal 1:6-12
2.3. Gal 1:13-2:21
2.4. Gal 3:1-4:31
2.5. Gal 5:1-12
2.6. Gal 5:13-6:10
2.7. Gal 6:11-18
2.8. A schematic representation of the structure of the letter as a whole
3. The basic character and function of 2:14b/15-21 in relation to its context
3.1. Is 2:15-21 a propositio?
3.2. Is 2:15-21 a new paragraph or a continuation?
3.3. The double function of 2:14b/15-21
3.4. 2:14b/15-21 in the thematic structure of Galatians
4. Preliminaries on basic referents within and the internal structure of 2:14b-21
4.1. Who are "we"?
4.2. Is 2:15 Paul's view, and does it refer to the gentile Christians at Antioch?
4.3. On the syntactic and semantic/pragmatic main structure of 2:15-16
4.3.1. Model I
4.3.2. Model II
4.3.3. Model III
4.3.4. Evaluation
5. On the main structure of 2:14b-21 as a whole
6. Conclusion
V "We" Jewish Christians and the "sinners of gentiles"
1. Introduction and thesis
2. "Sinners of gentiles" and the Jewish background
2.1. Surveying the texts
2.1.1. Jewish texts specifically connecting gentiles with sin
2.1.2. NT texts
2.1.3. Jewish texts calling other Jews "sinners"
2.1.4. NT texts
2.2. Observations
2.3. Preliminary conclusions
3. Purity, Jewish amixia, "sinners of gentiles," and the food laws
3.1. Status level is not purity level
3.2. Moral impurity is not ritual impurity
3.3. Gentile impurity is moral, not ritual
3.4. Jewish social amixia is primarily concerned with moral impurity
3.5. Not eating with gentiles, purity, the food laws, and Antioch
4. Peter's withdrawal and ????da?¨´?e??
4.1. Hypocrisy in what sense?
4.1.1. Requiring of others what he does not require of himself/the "diachronic" understanding problematized
4.1.2. The a fortiori ethnic force
4.1.3. Pretending against his own knowledge
4.1.4. What does Peter pretend against his knowledge?
4.2. Being a Jew, living ????da?¨????, and ????da?¨´?e??
4.2.1. Other occurrences and the issue of reference
4.2.2. The issue is meaning, force, and significance rather than reference
4.2.3. The significance is religious
4.2.4. The perspective is elitist and prescriptive rather than descriptive
4.2.5. The Mosaic covenant is implied as prescriptive canon
4.2.6. The eschatological perspective
4.3. Summary
4.4. a??a????e?? in what sense?
4.4.1. Not Peter's explicit demand but the gentiles' necessary inference
4.4.2. Peter's intentions directed elsewhere
4.4.3. The identity and concerns of ??? e?? pe??t?µ??? behind Peter's withdrawal
4.4.4. The necessary inference of the gentile believers
5. "Sinners of gentiles" and Antioch
5.1. The pre-conversion reference and its significance
5.2. Two matters of clarification
5.2.1. The probable presence of identity markers and the significance thereof
5.2.2. The possible presence of another view being implicitly opposed
6. Conclusion
VI "Even we ourselves" being found as "sinners"
1. Introduction and thesis
2. The character of Paul's denial in 2:17
2.1. Defining the question
2.2. Against the "Paul disagrees" camp
2.3. Against the "Paul agrees partly, but ultimately disagrees" camp
2.4. Conclusion
3. In what sense have "even we ourselves" been found as "sinners"? The options
3.1. The occasional/particular line of interpretation (I)
3.1.1. The "food" interpretation (I.a)
3.1.2. The "association" interpretation (I.b)
3.1.3. The options and their significance
3.1.4. Critique of the occasional/particular line's interpretation of 2:15-17a
3.2. The general line of interpretation (II)
3.2.1. The "abandoning law reliance" interpretation (II.a)
3.2.2. The "new definition of covenant boundaries" interpretation (II.b)
3.2.3. The "backward inference" interpretation (II.c)
3.2.4. The "justification through judgment" interpretation (II.d)
4. The "positive" argument for the "justification through judgment" interpretation
4.1. The cross of Christ
4.1.1. The centrality of the cross in the letter generally and in 2:14b-21
4.1.2. The cross as central argument against the requirements of the agitators
4.1.3. The cross as salvation historical center and inbreaking of the aeon to come
4.1.4. The cross as intersection of salvation and individual history and thus encountered in conversion
4.1.5. The cross as fulfillment of Scripture
4.2. The ??´t? clause of 2:16a
4.2.1. The linguistic arguments for the exclusive reading
4.2.2. The linguistic arguments for the complementary or ambiguous reading
4.2.3. Evaluation of the linguistic arguments
4.2.4. The contextual argument for and against the exclusive and complementary/ambiguous readings
4.2.5. Evaluation of the contextual arguments
4.2.6. Another suggestion solving the problems
4.3. The semantic and structural relationships between the elements of 2:16b-17a
4.4. The relation between the participial clause in 2:16a and the following
4.4.1. The post-conversion interpretation
4.4.2. The "not particularly Christian" interpretation
4.4.3. The pre-conversion interpretation
4.4.4. The conversion/faith interpretation
5. How does "our" being found as "sinners" invite the inference that Christ is a servant of sin?
6. Pulling central threads together
7. Conclusion
VII Tearing down, building up, dying, living, and not annulling the grace of God
1. Introduction and thesis
2. How does 2:18 function? The challenge of ???
2.1. Indications from Paul's use of µ?' ?e´???t?
2.2. e?? ??? as introducing a simple condition ("for if")
2.2.1. 2:18 as parenthetical explanation of the evaluation in 2:17a
2.2.2. 2:18 as support for an implied middle step between 2:17c and 2:18
2.2.3. The "myself, not Christ" interpretation
2.3. e?? ??? as introducing a "necessary" condition ("for only if")
2.4. e?? ??? as introducing a "correcting" conditional argument
2.5. e?? ??? as introducing an e contrario conditional argument ("on the contrary, (for) (only) if")
2.6. e?? ??? as non-explanatory
2.6.1. e?? ??? as slightly adversative after a "caesura"
2.6.2. ??? as a marker of inference
2.7. Conclusion
3. Why the shift to the singular? The challenge of the "I"
4. Transgressor of what? - and how?
4.1. The "concrete commandments" interpretation (I)
4.1.1. The "past transgression" variant (I.a)
4.1.2. The "future transgression" variant (I.b)
4.2. Critique of the "concrete commandments" interpretation
4.2.1. General problems
4.2.2. Specific problems with the "past transgression" variant (I.a)
4.2.3. Specific problems with the "future transgression" variant (I.b)
4.3. The "transgression at a deeper level" interpretations (II)
4.3.1. The "Paul (at least ultimately) disagrees" camps
4.3.2. The "Paul agrees" camp
4.4. Evaluation
4.5. Conclusion
5. An alternative suggestion
5.1. Excursus: Breaking/tearing down vs. building in the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, and the NT
5.2. The mandating paradigm: Lethal destruction
6. Not annulling the grace of God
6.1. The relation between 2:21 and 2:17-18 in terms of argumentative structure
6.2. The relation of 2:21b to the agitators and the consequences thereof
6.3. The connection to 2:19-20
6.3.1. The intentional aspect of 2:21a
6.3.2. The argumentative structure
6.3.3. The decisive theme of death
6.3.4. Excursus: A note on d??e??
7. Conclusion
VIII Conclusion
IX Appendices
1. Appendix A: "Breaking down" vs. "building up" in (almost) the same verse in the MT and LXX
2. Appendix B: "Breaking/tearing down" in the MT and LXX
3. Appendix C: "Building" in the MT and LXX
4. Appendix D: "Breaking down" vs. "building up" in (almost) the same verse in the NT
5. Appendix E: "Breaking down" in the NT
6. Appendix F: "Building" in the NT
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Systemvoraussetzungen

Als PDF speichern Als Link merken