Mark D. Nanos (Ph.D. University of St. Andrews), is a Jewish scholar who specializes on reading the Apostle Paul from within Judaism, an approach that offers new ways to conceptualize Paul’s teaching and communities as well as the potential for more promising Christian-Jewish relations. Many papers and reviews are available at his web site: www.marknanos.com.
Publications include The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Fortress, 1996); The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Fortress, 2001); and “A Jewish View,” in Four Views of Paul (Zondervan, 2012), and many essays.
To read the article please click here.
Where can I find the article on ———-The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context —-That I find reference to?
I believe it is a book and it can be purchased in a book store. You should also visit Dr. Nanos site I am sure he has info about it. Dr. Eli
I’ve enjoyed the interaction as I’ve read both texts by Dr. Nanos: The Irony of Galatians and Romans. Such simplicity, yet he demonstrates depth of scholarship as one who interprets Paul from a “face-value” of the text. Nanos perspective is valuable.
For Jewish folk to remain Jewish and not to “convert” is not an idea that most Christians today can fathom. As a son of Israel Paul never converted because his relationship with God was based on faith in the God of Israel fulfilled in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. This did not and does not negate the importance of Israel’s calling to be a holy kingdom of priests for the entire world (Ex. 19:6). That is irrevocable as can be seen (Rom. 11:29).
To see Jesus as the ultimate Jew, who lived and died as a Jew in fulfilled mediation for the world (Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5), confirmed the foundational Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 22) of which both Jew and Gentile, who are in Israel’s new covenant by faith (Jer. 31:31-37), are apart. Since there is no other mediator or means to God, whether Jew or Gentile, other than Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Paul’s understanding of the distinctions and the mystery of unity can be quite challenging still today (Rom. 11:25; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26-27). If Peter thought Paul was difficult comprehend (2 Pet. 3:16), certainly it is no different today.
Jay, great input. thanks. Dr. Eli
I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither Angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any power, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to, separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our LORD
This is an excellent study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and also an adventurous and fruitful proposition of exegesis on the same. To dare to make this on Romans is portentous by itself for Romans is one of the most powerful religious documents by anybody on any Christian theme, let all by Paul himself. Entire doctorates can be exposed on Romans alone thus I thankj the author and Dr. Eli for bringing scholarship to this level in this forum.
We must remember that Romans is a self presentation of Paul to the citizens he plans to visit and he recognizes that they see themselves as living in the center of the world. So this letter was not “a letter” but “the letter” and that is part of the issue. Romans is product of years of preaching, praying and reflection by Paul. Dr. Nanos is right in giving each phrase the weight he suggests for indeed each sentence was carefully laid out in this letter bu Paul.
It follows then that just by challenging editing decisions by diverse publishers, Dr. Nanos is calling into question Romans in its entirety as we think we know it. And this, by itself is an enormous contribution to study of Christian thought. If something as central as Romans can be claimed succesfully to be suffering from editors misjudgements or even wrong translations what can we think of the state of preaching and study right now?
I generally agree with Dr. Nano’s claims but that has to be commented in another post for its sufficient in this one to only thank Dr. Nanos for daring to open our judgement to a sensible and for me very correct claim. Paul meant something else in Romans. What he meant is fascinatingly new and very clearly laid out with a correct study and translation of his own writing.
I agree with you Ramon, thank you for your comment! Dr. Eli