Robert said
Although a minority position, the best understanding of the correct reflexive translation here has been defended by Runar Thorsteinsson and also adopted by Matthew Thiessen and a few others, eg, Rafael Rodriguez, who has an excellent summary of this position in his book, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
In the book, ch1, note, 26, the point is made that the verse here translated, “if you call yourself a Jew” is the one possible exception to the general rule that in every case where Paul explicitly identifies his audience in Romans, this audience is gentile. This translation opens the door to rereading Romans as a letter addressed to an exclusively Gentile audience.
Part of the book description of If You Call Yourself a Jew by Rafael Rodriguez
If You Call Yourself a Jew reads Romans as a dialogue between Paul and a Gentile proselyte to Judaism. This fresh reading brings Romans into focus as Paul’s exposition of the revelation of God’s righteousness–his faithfulness to his covenant promises to Abraham, which climaxed in the announcement that “in you all the tribes of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3). Paul insists that the righteousness of God is revealed, “for the Jew first as well as for the Greek,” not through Torah but through the faith(fullness) of Jesus. Torah and the prophets provide corroborating witness for God’s righteousness, but Gentiles who bend their necks to Torah’s yoke miss the actual mechanism for finding peace with God. Paul found in the story of Jesus the image of complete faith in/faithfulness to God; in Jesus’ resurrection he found the image of God’s complete faithfulness, “for the Jew first as well as for the Greek.” Whereas Torah resulted in curse and death, it also anticipated the unconditional faithfulness of God for both Jew and Gentile. For Paul, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the account of the outworking of God’s faithfulness: the end of Torah’s curses and the fulfillment of its blessings.
“Rodríguez presents a fresh challenge to many stale assumptions about reading Romans. He provides a cogent case that Paul is writing to Gentile Christians, and what is more, that Paul’s imaginary opponent who appears throughout the letter is not a Jew but is in fact a Gentile convert to Judaism. . . . It makes for a stimulating volume on Paul’s most famous letter.”
—Michael F. Bird, Ridley Melbourne Mission and Ministry College, Melbourne, Australia
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Romans is a dialogue between Paul and a Gentile proselyte to Judaism, Bird says. I would be more impressed if Paul was writing to Nero, to the Senate, or citizens of the Roman Empire.
Second, when I see proselyte, I think of Queen Helena. I certainly do not see someone who converted to Pauline Christianity.
= = =
Bird says Genesis 12: 3 was fulfilled through the faithfulness of Jesus. I say, Jesus was not faithful to the end. Jesus did not fight against rejection by his enemies. Jesus did not fight for himself at his trial with its punishment of execution. Jesus did not fight for his life. Jesus, in fact, did the one thing that would sever his relationship with a god who was not faithful. “You’re going to come to my baptism and say this is my son in whom I am well pleased knowing you would hardened the hearts of pharisees, scribes, high priest, and Sanhedrin against me. I defy You. I will have people remember me by partaking my body and blood.” Since people will be remembering Jesus when they are under siege, they have no excuse: the action is unmitigated reason for God to react as promised at Leviticus 17: 10-11.
Bird says
Paul found in the story of Jesus the image of complete faith in/faithfulness to God; in Jesus’ resurrection he found the image of God’s complete faithfulness, “for the Jew first as well as for the Greek.”
How many proselytes resurrected not to live until 70, 80, or what have you, but only for 40 days then to go to Heaven where they might have ended up anyway?
Is that how Paul thinks God has blessed all the nations? God will not get the religious establishment to give Jesus managerial support–just the opposite?
Torah resulted in death but Paul’s result is 40 days as a quasi-zombie followed by leaving Earth.
= = =
Finally, Paul is not supposed to be ministering to Gentiles who want to be Jews, he is supposed to be ministering to Gentiles so they can be members of Pauline Christianity–not to be at risk of desiring to be a Nazarine proselyte like Queen Helena or take proof tests from James as he had to do.
“Building upon the work of Stanley Stowers and Runar Thorsteinsson, Rafael Rodríguez provides a novel reading of Romans: throughout this letter Paul addresses a judaizing Gentile interlocutor. Those looking to move beyond ‘Lutheran’ and ‘New Perspective’ readings of Paul will find in If You Call Yourself a Jew a more historically plausible and theologically fruitful reading of Romans.”
–Matthew Thiessen, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
A novel reading of Romans that is in error.
“Rodríguez joins those Pauline interpreters who have taken seriously Paul’s assertion that he writes specifically to Gentiles. What is significant about his approach is that he provides a careful analysis of the diatribe style questions that feature in significant sections of the letter. His radical thesis that the interlocutor is of Gentile ethnicity but views himself as a Jew, and teaches Gentiles, is provocative and challenging but illustrated with sustained argument. A fine volume to spark interest in Paul’s skillful rhetoric.”
–William S. Campbell, University of Wales Trinity St. David, Lampeter, UK
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
“His radical thesis that the interlocutor is of Gentile ethnicity but views himself as a Jew, and teaches Gentiles, is provocative and challenging but illustrated with sustained argument.” The radical thesis is erroneous.
Robert said
Correct. And their interpretation of this verse as addressed to Judaizing gentiles thus makes the very best sense in my ever so humble opinion. What do you think of this interpretation, Gregory?
I think I don’t get what is at stake. I like Stowers’ book Rereading Romans for many reasons that have little to do with this aspect of his thesis. I have tried to understand why Campbell, after studying Paul’s writings for several years with Stowers’ thesis as a lens finally concluded that Stowers’ rereading was too comprehensive (this is my memory of what Campbell wrote in Deliverance of God).
What is going on in the big picture? Who cares and why? I’m puzzled.
I’d love to have dinner with Stowers, and Harold Attridge, and Campbell and Luke Timothy Johnson over some wine from Stowers’s retirement vineyard, and hear them to speak about it candidly, off the record. And I’d like them each to, to the best of their ability, help me–little me, Gregory– to understand what they really care about when it comes to the question of interpreting “if you call yourself a Jew”.
And then, while we are at it, I’d like to know their thoughts on my current study of James the Lord’s brother in Galatians vis-a-vis Paul’s model of “to the Jews I become as a Jew…” Because I think the two questions are somehow related.
Lionel Windsor, PhD (Theology)
Romans 2: 17
Question the new alternative readings of Romans. Go with the longstanding, traditional readings of Romans.
Paul turns to address a particular person.
“But if you call yourself a Jew”
RSV, NRSV, JB, NIV, CSB, ESV, NET, NASB 2020
“But if you are called a Jew”
NASB 1977 & 1995, NKJV
Steve Campbell, author of the book, Historical Accuracy
I have a preference for the NASB.
The New American Bible (NAB), my Catholic Study Bible,
shows “Now, if you call yourself a Jew…”
The NABRE has the same.
I was going to replace my NAB with an NASB first choice and Catholic Study Bible (NABRE) second.
Lionel Windsor, PhD (Theology)
Reflexive: But if you call yourself a Jew [Invalid translation]
Passive: But if you are called a Jew [Valid translation]
At first glance, if you have nothing else to go on, both translations are correct.
Is Paul talking about one (a Gentile) who wants to be a Jew or is Paul talking about one who is a Jew and is called a Jew?
Steve Campbell, author of the book ,Historical Accuracy
a Gentile who wants to call himself an orthodox Jew
a Gentile who wants to be a follower of the Jerusalem Church
a Jew who brags about being a Jew
a Jew who does not brag about being a Jew but is a Jew and is called a Jew
The Catholic Study Bible (NAB)
Paul writes to introduce himself and his message to the Christians at Rome, seeking to enlist their support for the proposed mission to Spain.
Argumentation Specialist
Paul did not start the church in Rome.
Therefore, it probably is not a Pauline Christian Church.
It might be following a Jerusalem Church tradition.
I do not believe in a Jerusalem Church tradition because Jesus did not exist in the late 20s / early 30s. There probably were some Jews in the first century who were talking up the Son of Man as in The Book of Parables attached to 1 Enoch. A religious sect could have been created around that. The Son of Man could have become a Christ figure. Pilate would not have been able to execute him because Enoch to Son of Man to angel had not been made a character of historical fiction yet.
So, is this Enoch, Son of Man, Angel Jesus’s Son of Man in the third person?
Is Jesus only the historical fiction character of Enoch Son of Man?
And being a back-dated character of historical fiction, there actually was no Jesus to crucify?
That is one way to retain a Jewish Son of Man: use Enoch Son of Man as the cosmic Son of Man.
Argumentation Specialist
Closing my participation in the thread
I disagree with Paul that all nations are blessed by child sacrifice (God sacrificing his child then making him resurrect for 40 days).
Maybe if Jesus lived for 40 years after his resurrection, Paul, then, would have a point.
In the video, 8:00 to 41:36, Lionel Windsor, PhD explains why
the passive, if you are called a Jew, is valid
and the reflexive, if you call yourself a Jew, is invalid.
– dressed vs respected (dressed by yourself vs respected by others)
– normal use
– context
Those using the invalid translation did not pay attention to the way this word was normally used by other ancient Greek speakers.
Mid to late 20th century is when the invalid translation is used.
The Roman community was probably following the tradition of the Jerusalem Church since Paul was not the founder of the Roman community.
The Catholic Study Bible says Paul was attempting to build support for a mission to Spain.
Robert said
I think the major difference from a traditional view such as Windsor’s is that he would presumably see Paul as criticizing Judaism here, whereas those embracing the no longer ‘New Perspective’ on Paul, especially those of us in the ‘Paul within Judaism’ school, and particularly those who adopt this reading of Rom 2,17, would better understand Paul’s many positive statements about the Torah while nonetheless disagreeing with those who think gentile converts had to follow all of the ethnic practices of Jews, ie, being circumcised and following kashrut. For Paul’s apocalyptic view it was important that the gentiles as gentiles were now being grafted onto God’s saving mission to the Jews first and now also to all the nations. Paul fully embraced and exemplified his messianic Jewish mission to the nations.
Thank you! You have given me much to ponder.
Robert
Strike ‘context’ from your list. That is not an argument of Windsor.
Argumentation Specialist
I certainly will not. Windsor does mention, when translating words context helps with translation.
Second, Windsor says, those using the invalid translation did not pay attention to the way this word was normally used by other ancient Greek speakers.
It is not important that Windsor downplays and rejects the arguments from context because the reason for his conclusion is not context. Second, the Vulgate uses the passive version. (The Vulgate is the principal Latin version of the Bible, prepared mainly by St. Jerome in the late 4th century.) Third, Rufinus on Origen uses the Passive (not the reflexive).
I close my participation in this thread. I gave sufficient time to discussions on this topic. There has been sufficient time for people to comment one way or another about this video.
Maybe as this thread continues without me, you, Robert, can persuade other people with your argument against Lionel Windsor, PhD.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)