This public preprint presents a dissertation-length research manuscript arguing that Paul does not oppose Torah as Yehovah’s covenant plumbline. He opposes sin, flesh, condemnation, self-established righteousness, coercive boundary-regimes, inherited father-traditions hardened into pressure-systems, and every social or theological mechanism that turns covenant life into fleshly capital. Methodologically, the study proceeds by pericope-first reading, pair-testing, conflict identification, and active covenant controls. Isa 8:20 functions as a standing control against readings that detach apostolic proclamation from Torah and testimony. Deut 30, Jer 31, and Ezek 36 function as the new-covenant horizon in which the answer to covenant failure is not Torah removed but Torah internalized and walked by Ruach. Within that frame, Romans and Galatians function as the project’s primary motor, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians 3 as internal Pauline controls against torahless readings, and Acts 10–11, 15, and 21 as narrative corroboration rather than the primary engine of the case. The dissertation contends that Rom 10:4 is best read as a righteousness-line statement rather than a cancellation formula; that Gal 2:16 addresses law-language functioning as covenant-standing capital inside the Antioch conflict rather than obedient fidelity as such; that Gal 3 describes a temporary condemnatory and custodial relation over flesh rather than a temporary falsehood in Torah itself; that Gal 5:18 describes a regime-shift out from under condemnation rather than release into normlessness; that 1 Cor 7:19 and 9:21 block anomian constructions of Paul from within the same author; that 2 Cor 3 concerns the surpassing of an externally inscribed, death-bearing relation rather than Torah abolished; and that Acts publicly collapses the rumor that Paul taught apostasy from Moses. This release is intentionally presented as a public working master rather than an institutional dissertation submission. It includes an abstract, seven chapters, Appendix A, and bibliography, and is intended to serve as a stable citable reference point for the argument in its present form. Later versions may refine wording, note apparatus, formatting, historiography, technical appendix work, and chapter-level argumentation, but this version states the project’s central thesis in full and is released for scholarly discussion, citation, and critical engagement.
Ørjan Myhre (Mon,) studied this question.