Chapter Eleven: Feet of Clay
S.1. Preamble
Romans 1-4 does not support JT (p338); textual under determinations and over determinations.
S.2. Textual Under determinations
2.1 Textual Under determinations: Romans 1.18-3.20 (p339): (1) The scene-setting strategy: Paul never sets out his purpose, so it must be grasped retrospectively )p340); Paul apparently never preached this way; and the best that can be said is that JT is the best we can do. (2) The Key premises in relation to humanity and God (p341): Paul never commits to the underlying metaphors of philosophical man and retributive justice. (3) The identification of the critical judge in 2.1-5 as the Jew (p342): in 2.1-5 the hypocritical judge will be judged by desert; the figure in 2.1 is the mirror of 1.18-32; this judge has been hoisted by his own petard (p343); this rhetorical judge figure features as far as 3.19-20 (p344); the same figure in 3.1-9 (p345); as well as being a hypocritical Jewish judger this person might be a Christian as well cf Galatians 2.4. The text never unambiguously refers to the "everyman Jew"; Paul's abandonment of law in R 5-8 is Christological not anticipatory in terms of JT (p346); at the very least the idea of universal Jewry including Paul is under-determined. (4) The implicit perfectionist axiom: JT P1 requirement for perfectionism, 2.5b-6 weak (p347); Paul seems not to call for perfectionism or damnation on the basis of a minor infraction. Still JT might hold but: unfair to hold people to a standard they cannot keep; the anthropological problem of depravity (p348); how can and why should the depraved negotiate JT? Jewish depravity unsustainable; but corruption can only be inferred from revelation not cosmological J P1 (p349); the depravity theory is no better for JT than perfectionism.
2.2 Textual Under-Determinations: Romans 1.16-17 and 3.21-31: (5) The supposed theses are not controlling of the text (p350). (6) The meaning of "justification" in 1.17, 3.5 &c not clear. )(7) The purpose of "faith" not explicit (p351). The J reading of "faith" can only be inferred; it is not explicit. (8) Christ as the definitive atonement: Anselm's view is critical (p252( but the text does not support it. (9) Christ's atonement in propitiatory terms assumed in 3.21-26 but not explicit.
2.3 Textual Under determinations - Romans 4.1-25: (10) Abraham's exemplary function (p353), never explicit, closest in 3.28 but "the assertion of an analogy is not quite the same thing as the announcement of a programmatic paradigm". (11) Abraham's progression from works/Law to faith is not specified as the transition from J P1 to P2 requires. Abraham lacks P1 (p354).
S.3. Textual Over determinations
Over determinations more useful (p355).
3.1 Textual Over determinations - Romans 1.18-3.20: (1) Style: (i) R 18-32 a text within itself (p356) (ii) astonishing incidence of Alpha privatives (iii) and third person plurals; (iv) word play (p357) (v) vice list. Quite clearly distinctive. Why? (2) Temporal clash between 1.18 (present and 1.19-32 (future) (p358). (3) 1.18-32 decline and fall (p359) endangers fairness. (4) Wisdom of Solomon: (p360-61); why does Paul undermine Wisdom more than he leans on it? (5) The argumentative "turn" in R 2.1 (p362) Is Paul attacking a coterie at Rome or The Jew (p363)? Neither (p364).
Excursus: The Later Function of the "Stupid Judge"
Paul and judge agree except latter excludes himself; it explains the validity of the past but the reason for apostasy (p365). This reading should be superseded if possible.
(6) The premature location of repentance in 2.4b-5a: repentance possible in J P1 (p366), saved, including Jews with their penitential tradition, independent of Christ. (7) Two pristine categories in 2.6-10 of the saved and damned (p367) is untrue and a theory of salvation ought to be truthful. (7) Judgment of Christ accords with "my" gospel R 2.16b (p368): except here Christ absent from r 1.18-3.20; if this claim is true then the surrounding argument is not Paul's (p369) no evidence of Christ in P1 (p37)); alternative reading needed. (9) Crudeness of 2.21-22: either crude support for J or plain nasty (p371). (10) The strange anomaly of righteous pagans saved by works (p372-5). (11) Wrong re-definition of circumcision and Judaism R 2.25-29 (p376).
3.2 Textual Over determinations - Romans 1.16-17 and 3.21-31: (12) (p377-78) J expects the thesis paragraphs to be read in terms of sola fide but faith is not moving from the unknown to the known but affirms something known which is how it should function in JT, so Paul must be thinking of something else (p379). (13) Syntactic problems in R 3.23-26 (p380).
3.3 Textual Over determinations - Romans 4.1-25: (14) The scriptural overruling of boasting (p381) irrelevant to Abraham who did not go through J P1 (p382). (15) The overruling of circumcision and Mosaic Law ruled out on temporal not scriptural grounds (p383).
Excursus: a Contextual Clarification - The Possible Meaning of Greek Pisteuo and Pistis
Trust is an inter-personal sub-set of belief (p384). Thus the noun "faith" is ambiguous as to belief and trust; and between faith and faithfulness (p385). JT requires impersonal belief but Abraham personally trusts in God (p386); he does not only believe certain things but trusts in God (p387).
(16) The Distinctive epistemological mode of Abraham's attestation (18) and its incoherence: Abraham learned nothing from scripture (p388) and responded to divine disclosure; but the experience so described is at odds with JT. (19) Abraham's 14 flawless years of trust over-riding P1 that law observance is too difficult (p389); but the J bar is too high; if Abraham cannot be saved, who can? (20) The object of Abraham's 'belief' or 'faith' is God (p390); R 4 is therefore theocentric not Christocentric which does not satisfy JT. (21) Abraham's trust BC (p391) only works if he is the only faithful Jew or if he had special pre-knowledge of Christ. (22) Paul's concern with Abraham’s physical fatherhood (p292), Concerned with Abraham’s "fidelity" (p393) has nothing to do with the spiritual but purely the physical (p394). (23) The Resurrection in R 4.25 vindicates those of fidelity (p395). (24) Paul's narrow and aggressive exegesis in Genesis 15.6 )p396) overloads the text.
S.4 Summary and Implications
4.1 Summary of Textual Under- and Over determinations (p397-8).
4.2 Intrinsic, Systematic , Empirical and Proximate Difficulties Revisited: Abstract JT is directly relevant to the exegesis of R 1-4. Summary: the seven intrinsic difficulties in Ch2 surface here (p399-401). Summary of systematic difficulties in Ch3 become proximate problems (p402-06).
Excursus: Explanations of the Shift at the Proximate Frame (p406): Moo, Jewett &c problems reconciling 1-4 with 5-8 (p407-9). Re-summarised problem of 'unreal' Judaism (p409) and conversion.
4.3 Implications (p410): 21 intrinsic, systematic and empirical, add 35 exegetical problems. J is vulnerable but no better reading (p411).