Am I missing something? Moo, Romans

Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
This post has 2 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 498
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Dec 3 2019 6:06 AM

I think this is a typo in Moo's Romans commentary (2nd ed.), but I wanted to check with the sharp Logos forum people first to make sure I wasn't missing something before reporting it as a typo. Commenting on 1:23, Moo states:

"Paul also alludes to OT texts that condemn Israel for idolatry: Ps. 106:20, “and they exchanged their glory for the likeness of a bull that eats grass”; and Jer. 2:11, “has a nation exchanged its gods?… yet my people have exchanged its glory.”[82] These last two texts suggest that we can entirely eliminate Jews from Paul’s polemic in 1:18–32.[83]"

(pp. 119–120). 

Shouldn't the last sentence be "These last two texts suggest that we can not entirely eliminate Jews from Paul’s polemic in 1:18–32"?

The first edition of the commentary doesn't shed light on the issue, as Moo's focus is slightly narrower than in the 2nd edition:

"There are allusions to the creation story in the threefold division of the animal kingdom. Ps. 106:20, which, as we have seen, Paul uses, comments on the “fall” of Israel into idolatry when she constructed the golden calf (Exod. 32). But Paul is not describing either the fall of Israel[84] or the fall of humankind in Adam.[85]"

(p. 109).

Footnote 83 in the 2nd edition also seems to support the "not" reading, at least at first glance. The footnote reads "See, e.g., Lucas, 'Reorienting the Structural Paradigm,' 121–41." This is JBL 131.1. I don't have the time to read the entire article right now, but skimming the first two pages it seems like the Lucas takes the view that there is a subversive hint that Israel is included in Paul's indictment in 1:18ff:

"As we shall see, this allusion [to the golden calf incident] is the likely basis for Paul's indictment of a hypocritical Jewish interlocutor for actions that have their origin in the idolatrous 'change' that occurred with the calf. To understand the socially subversive role of this allusion, however,..." (p. 122).

So... am I misreading here? Or should there be a "not" here? (Also, could anyone confirm that the sentence reads the same in the print edition?)

Posts 49
Darrell Tan | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 3 2019 6:15 AM

FWIW, the Google Books preview has the same phrase.

Posts 498
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 3 2019 6:51 AM

Thanks. Turns out, reading just two sentences further in the book would have helped confirm my suspicion:

"However, we think it more likely that he is using language from both the fall of humankind and Israel’s “fall” to describe the terrible proclivity of all people to corrupt the knowledge of God they possess by making gods of their own." (p. 120).

Tongue Tied

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS