Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terence Donaldson <terry.donaldson AT utoronto.ca>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 14:53:37 -0400


Karl,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you are right in
objecting to the use of "Lutheran" and "Reformational" as a label for
critics of the "new perspective" (yet another label!). Perhaps it would
be better to use Paul's own terminology: the issue as I see it has to do
with the relationship between two sets of binary terms -- works/faith
and law/Christ -- and, more specifically, which of them gets us closer
to the heart of Paul's own convictions and of his critique of Judaism.
(Pace Gaston, Gager, Stowers, et al, I believe that Romans and Galatians
contain a critique of Paul's "former life in Judaism," and not simply of
Jews' rejection of his gospel for the Gentiles).

I concede that Paul sometimes presents arguments that seem to indicate
that works/faith is his fundamental set of opposites (Gal 3:11-12; Rom
4:2-5). I grant also that 4QMMT uses Gen 15:6 and the reckoning of
righteousness "in a diametrically opposed way than Paul does in Romans
and Galatians." But my position is that one needs to look at the larger
shape of Paul's arguments and to differentiate between his fundamental
convictions and the arguments he uses to defend them. Such a reading of
Paul leaves me unconvinced that what he sees as wrong in Judaism and as
right in Christ is that the one is based on works and the other on
faith. (This may not be a fair representation of your position, Karl; I
use it here simply as a foil for stating my own.)

Several observations: (1) As I argued in my previous post, "works" is
not a fundamental theme for Paul. It does not seem to be the case that
circumcision triggered a more fundamental insight into the error of a
religiosity based on doing (rather than on faith). The only times he
uses the works/faith contrast is when the issue has to do with the terms
of Gentile admission. (2) Further, "faith," for Paul is always linked
with Christ. Faith is not a stand-alone concept for him, understood
fundamentally as a subjective religious orientation to be set over
against another religious orientation (works). Faith is theological
shorthand for a type of existence that Paul believes has been made
possible by Christ alone (note Gal 3:23, where faith and Christ are
almost synonymous). (3) While a text such as 4QMMT might provide a
parallel to one half of Paul's binary pair (righteousness linked with
works and doing), it does not parallel the other half (such a
righteousness as the binary opposite to God's grace and human faith).
The Qumran text might provide us with a certain parallel to Paul's
language, but it does not provide us with an example of the type of
religiosity that Paul is supposed to be so dead set against (one where
the doing of certain things is set over against grace and faith). Here,
I think, we find Sanders' strongest point. If Paul really thought that
Judaism was a religious system based a concept of "works" defined as the
categorical opposite of God's grace and human faith, then his own
thinking was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Judaism. My
argument, then, is that Paul's works/faith language is an argument that
he develops in certain circumstances to defend a more fundamental set of
categories -- Christ/Torah.

A final point (though one that would open out into a larger discussion).
I agree with you, Karl, that what is involved in this material "is a far
more wide-ranging difference than simply boundary markers between Jews
and Gentiles." The driving force behind Paul's mission and thought is
not simply the inclusion of the Gentiles but the new sphere of life that
he believed to have been opened up by the death and resurrection of
Christ. So while these two categories are related to two different
communities (at least in Paul's view) and thus have boundary marking
functions, I too see the issues as deeper than simply the marking of
boundaries.

Pax,
Terry Donaldson
Wycliffe College
Toronto






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page