Well, Luther's reading could still be there. It's not primary or obvious, which is what one might expect as it was developed 1500 years after the fact. Moreover, based on the archeological evidence, it could be, at best, only a secondary or second-level reading. But that's perhaps not so important from a theologian's standpoint? (I'm relating with Px more on a historical-natural perspective here.) The New Perspectivist, NT Wright's reading of Romans--as Paul's letter addressing the squabbles going on in one of his new movement's 'cells,' in Rome, which it seems was breaking down due to racio-cultural issues--is, for me, more 'natural' to the historical occasion of its composition, and Romans is quite a bit easier to contextualize that way, and it reads more smoothly using that overview. But, really, Luther's reading, with its highly individualistic and personal under-and-over-tones can be quite a lot more compelling and dramatic, and some might even say 'deeper,' in spite of its obvious onto-political applications to Luther's own historical sitch ... so what do you make of that?sgttomas wrote:So met, given that the real historical understanding of the identity of Jesus was not centered on the notion of him literally being God, not a homogenous, or obvious way and neither was the idea of righteousness about imputation through blood sacrifice a literal thing, nor a metaphorical thing, because that wasn’t how righteousness was understood by ANYONE….and therefore the notion of original sin and atonement, etc….it’s all gone by the wayside now for many people who aren’t tethered to certain theological traditions (for …reasons).
"Blood sacrifice?' Yeah. That's such a weird idea! How could you get off for your own crimes by having an innocent person executed in you stead? No-one would say....
... nope, I could never quite figure that one out....Well, I did the murder, but they already hung Joe, so .... NA NA NA!!
http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/i ... ialnetwork
(Reading a book written by this reviewer, right now ... & acquiring some language from her)
ETA: I guess the "Luther' issue is like the Romantic-era musicians rediscovery of Bach. When 19th pianists started playing Johann Sebastian Bach's music with (their typical) thundering crescendos and diminuendos, it was pointed out to them that Bach himself, a Baroque-era musician would not and could not not have done that since he played the harpsichord--an instrument that was not even capable of producing that kind of fluid dynamics since it didn't have touch-sensitive keys--they replied "It's already there, implicit in the music, and we're just playing what it says..."