Comments on: Hagner's Response to Nanos' Critique http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/ a blog exploring biblical studies and the journey through academia Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:26:37 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Book Review: Jewish Believers in Jesus, Pt. 1 « kata ta biblia http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-493 Book Review: Jewish Believers in Jesus, Pt. 1 « kata ta biblia Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:42:14 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-493 [...] as is a PDF of Nanos’ paper (which was not read in its entirety), and I have transcribed Don Hagner’s response to Nanos here. My friend Matt Barnes also did a few blog posts about the Nanos paper. Having said that, my [...] [...] as is a PDF of Nanos’ paper (which was not read in its entirety), and I have transcribed Don Hagner’s response to Nanos here. My friend Matt Barnes also did a few blog posts about the Nanos paper. Having said that, my [...]

]]> By: derek4messiah http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-492 derek4messiah Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:34:44 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-492 Patrick: Regarding Galatians 3:23-26, I believe the pedagogue was one who taught manners and ensured the boys went to school. He was able to apply discipline to get the boys to behave. Paul's point about the law here is true for Jews and Gentiles. We are not under the pedagogue. Even for Jews something changed about the law. It is no longer a condemning code. It no longer disciplines with the curses of the law (Deut 28-29). However, though we are not under the pedagogue's cane anymore, that does not mean we forget the manners he taught. Derek Leman <a href="http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">derek4messiah.wordpress.com</a> Patrick:

Regarding Galatians 3:23-26, I believe the pedagogue was one who taught manners and ensured the boys went to school. He was able to apply discipline to get the boys to behave.

Paul’s point about the law here is true for Jews and Gentiles. We are not under the pedagogue. Even for Jews something changed about the law. It is no longer a condemning code. It no longer disciplines with the curses of the law (Deut 28-29).

However, though we are not under the pedagogue’s cane anymore, that does not mean we forget the manners he taught.

Derek Leman
derek4messiah.wordpress.com

]]> By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-491 Patrick George McCullough Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:05:45 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-491 Thanks for your comment, Derek. Glad to have a Messianic Jewish perspective on the blog. It sounds like you would agree with the interpretations of the New Perspective on Paul (especially given your mention of "identity badges"). I lean more in that direction myself. But I have to admit that it is a very complicated topic. I'd be interested to hear how you interpret, for example, Paul's use of παιδαγωγός in Galatians 3:23:-26. Thanks for your comment, Derek. Glad to have a Messianic Jewish perspective on the blog. It sounds like you would agree with the interpretations of the New Perspective on Paul (especially given your mention of “identity badges”). I lean more in that direction myself. But I have to admit that it is a very complicated topic. I’d be interested to hear how you interpret, for example, Paul’s use of παιδαγωγός in Galatians 3:23:-26.

]]> By: derek4messiah http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-490 derek4messiah Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:52:08 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-490 Pat: About Hagner's axiom, "First, that Christians are no longer under the law," it seems that Hagner is unwilling to consider another reading. That reading would say that, writing to non-Jews, Paul emphasized freedom from the identity badges of Torah. Paul wrote no letters to Jewish communities in the Jesus-movement. If he had, there is reason to think he would have assumed continuing Torah observance. I contend it is hard to read Acts 15 and not see that Jews were assumed to be in continuing observance of Moses. Derek Leman <a href="http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">derek4messiah.wordpress.com</a> Pat:

About Hagner’s axiom, “First, that Christians are no longer under the law,” it seems that Hagner is unwilling to consider another reading. That reading would say that, writing to non-Jews, Paul emphasized freedom from the identity badges of Torah. Paul wrote no letters to Jewish communities in the Jesus-movement. If he had, there is reason to think he would have assumed continuing Torah observance. I contend it is hard to read Acts 15 and not see that Jews were assumed to be in continuing observance of Moses.

Derek Leman
derek4messiah.wordpress.com

]]> By: Jay Matthew Barnes http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-489 Jay Matthew Barnes Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:49:14 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-489 Pat and Pete: the hyperbole is certainly there. The word for "worthless" is skubalon which (to put it kindly) means "crap." Clearly Paul was overstating his case to make his rhetoric strong. The fact that he could make his rhetoric THAT strong is indicative of the radical nature of new religious experience as a believer in Jesus. Therein lies the problem, was his new religious experience radical enough to cause some sort of separation with what came before or was it not quite that radical? I have mused a bit more on this Nanos/Hagner stuff at my blog as well. Here's the latest: <a href="http://inthecornerwithmatt.blogspot.com/2007/12/hagner-on-nanos-on-hagner.html" rel="nofollow">http://inthecornerwithmatt.blogspot.com/2007/12/hagner-on-nanos-on-hagner.html</a>. Pat and Pete: the hyperbole is certainly there. The word for “worthless” is skubalon which (to put it kindly) means “crap.” Clearly Paul was overstating his case to make his rhetoric strong. The fact that he could make his rhetoric THAT strong is indicative of the radical nature of new religious experience as a believer in Jesus. Therein lies the problem, was his new religious experience radical enough to cause some sort of separation with what came before or was it not quite that radical?

I have mused a bit more on this Nanos/Hagner stuff at my blog as well. Here’s the latest: http://inthecornerwithmatt.blogspot.com/2007/12/hagner-on-nanos-on-hagner.html.

]]> By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-488 Patrick George McCullough Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:10:51 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-488 You're welcome, y'all. I look forward to reading your thoughts, Matt. I agree with you about the hyperbole, Pistol. I'd also like to read what Matt says about hyperbole and Philippians 3, since he's working on that passage for his dissertation (under Hagner, I should add). Hagner's comments are not as well organized as his chapter in <i>Jewish Believers in Jesus</i> and I think they should probably be considered together. It seems like Hagner does want to affirm tensions and nuances, the "both/and" as he says, but he is responding to what he feels is a "trend" to see Paul as <i>simply</i> and <i>only</i> Jewish. The emphasis of his argument makes him seem like he is in the "discontinuity" camp, but I think he is just trying to (as he sees it) balance the argument. On the other hand, it would be helpful if he would be a little more clear on the nuance and balance when he mentioned the specific Pauline passages. You’re welcome, y’all. I look forward to reading your thoughts, Matt.

I agree with you about the hyperbole, Pistol. I’d also like to read what Matt says about hyperbole and Philippians 3, since he’s working on that passage for his dissertation (under Hagner, I should add).

Hagner’s comments are not as well organized as his chapter in Jewish Believers in Jesus and I think they should probably be considered together. It seems like Hagner does want to affirm tensions and nuances, the “both/and” as he says, but he is responding to what he feels is a “trend” to see Paul as simply and only Jewish. The emphasis of his argument makes him seem like he is in the “discontinuity” camp, but I think he is just trying to (as he sees it) balance the argument.

On the other hand, it would be helpful if he would be a little more clear on the nuance and balance when he mentioned the specific Pauline passages.

]]> By: Jay Matthew Barnes http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-487 Jay Matthew Barnes Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:31:36 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-487 Thanks Pat for the post and the link! Hagner's comments are interesting and I hope to post about them on my blog in the future. Thanks Pat for the post and the link!

Hagner’s comments are interesting and I hope to post about them on my blog in the future.

]]> By: pistolpete http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-486 pistolpete Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:37:40 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-486 Because the Bible comes to us as a written text and not a spoken word, it's easy to miss such nuances as hyperbole. When Paul writes that he counts his former "Jewishness" worthless, I think he's just trying to highlight the comparative value of his new life in Christ with his former life. No way was Paul's training as a Pharisee actually worthless. I doubt he would have come to Christ otherwise. He certainly would not have been as effective an apostle as he would become. I would say the same for former fundamentalists like you and I. I could say those days were "worthless" when compared to my relationship with Christ now, but the Scriptural training and commitment to prayer I learned then are invaluable now. Because the Bible comes to us as a written text and not a spoken word, it’s easy to miss such nuances as hyperbole. When Paul writes that he counts his former “Jewishness” worthless, I think he’s just trying to highlight the comparative value of his new life in Christ with his former life. No way was Paul’s training as a Pharisee actually worthless. I doubt he would have come to Christ otherwise. He certainly would not have been as effective an apostle as he would become.

I would say the same for former fundamentalists like you and I. I could say those days were “worthless” when compared to my relationship with Christ now, but the Scriptural training and commitment to prayer I learned then are invaluable now.

]]> By: Matthew D. Montonini http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Matthew D. Montonini Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:44:55 +0000 http://patmccullough.com/2007/12/29/hagners-response-to-nanos-critique/#comment-485 Patrick, Thanks for the heads up and the audio transcriptions! Patrick,

Thanks for the heads up and the audio transcriptions!

]]>