Actually, yes, it is very easy to make such a case. Utilizing just the few word re-interpretations I've utilized here provides consistent results throughout the corpus of *genuine* Pauline literature.
Not all of Paul's scripture readily yields itself to such liberal interpretation. For example there is a particularly odious passage in Romans, chapter 1. There is a Gnostic treatment on this -- see this post I made on 10-22-02 dealing with the classical Gnostic exegesis of Romans 1:26-27.
In that post I was quoting from a book by Elaine Pagels titled The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters which presents a reconstruction of the classical Gnostic interpretation of Paul's literature, pieced together bit by bit from quoted excerpts preserved by the heresiologists, and supported with passages from the Nag Hammadi texts.
The classical Gnostic commentary on Romans 10 is interesting. I happen to have the Pagels book with me today, so if I have time I will quote from it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-01-22 05:13 am (UTC)Not all of Paul's scripture readily yields itself to such liberal interpretation. For example there is a particularly odious passage in Romans, chapter 1. There is a Gnostic treatment on this -- see this post I made on 10-22-02 dealing with the classical Gnostic exegesis of Romans 1:26-27.
In that post I was quoting from a book by Elaine Pagels titled The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters which presents a reconstruction of the classical Gnostic interpretation of Paul's literature, pieced together bit by bit from quoted excerpts preserved by the heresiologists, and supported with passages from the Nag Hammadi texts.
The classical Gnostic commentary on Romans 10 is interesting. I happen to have the Pagels book with me today, so if I have time I will quote from it.