Pauline Christcentric Hermeneutics (J. Ross Wagner).
I have learned a great deal from this book, especially about the distinctive character of Tannaitic interpretation. With respect to the subject area that I know best, however, I am left with the impression that, despite her careful study, Dr. Fisch has not revealed the heart of Paul’s hermeneutic. In what follows, I offer an all-too-brief justification for this rather bold assertion. My intention is not to foreclose discussion; rather, I hope, in the same spirit of intellectual humility modeled by Fisch, to spark further conversation and debate among scholars of these three significant interpretive traditions.Does Paul Give Preference to an Oral Nomos over the Written Nomos in Romans 10 for the sake of the Gentiles? A Response to Yael Fisch (Isaac Soon).
My response here will focus specifically on the second chapter of Dr. Fisch’s book, her analysis of Romans 10:5–13 through midrash-pesher in conversation with Romans 3. I want to contend with the implication drawn that Paul gives preference to an oral nomos over a written nomos in scripture. In this response, I argue that Paul does not give preference to the oral over the written but emphasizes the oral in his wider argument in Romans 10 about ethnic Jews (Israel) who have not heard the message about Christ (“the word”). According to Romans 10 and 3, following the oral nomos is essential for fulfilling the written nomos.Author Response: Review Forum Yael Fisch's Written for Us (Yael Fisch).
What I certainly did not intend to do was to end the conversation, and this collection of responses proves that I certainly did not. A committed reading of Written for Us generated 4 new papers: Christine Hayes provides a methodological contextualization of the book, asking me to consider different approach to comparative religion; Daniel Picus expands my discussion of reading practices to new avenues that may host both Paul, the Tannaim and other ancient Jewish authors without committing to a narrow (and precarious) social institution of reading; J. Ross Wagner questions my approach to Paul as an exegete and traces some of the books’ shortcomings to a systematic marginalization of Christ; and Isaac Soon offers a new constellation of two Torot in Paul, that thoroughly, though not entirely, differs from my own. In what follows, I will offer some comments and questions on each of these rereadings and departures.I noted the first two essays here and here.
Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.
