Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: DIKAIOSUNH and Jews-Gentile Relations

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: DIKAIOSUNH and Jews-Gentile Relations
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:08:10 -0500 (CDT)


Dear list participants,
I appreciate the concern raised in a recent post, and respect the
evaluation of several passages that indicate the social nature of
justification by faith language. I am not sure the bifurcation of salvation
or human relations is necessary, but more the result of the many threads
that are left hanging in the midst of a paradigm shift as is occurring on
this topic. But I would like to address briefly the comments below which
are woven, I believe, with some of these dangling threads in a way that
might be altered by taking the "new" paradigm on its own terms. Please
realize that I respectfully note that the contributor is not responsible
for this language, but since they have employed it, innocently I presume, I
hope to make a point for the benefit (from my point of view anyway) of all.
As a Jewish person now involved in the study of Paul, I hope that all can
appreciate how common this language is, and perhaps how it comes across.
Since I assume that all on this list appreciate the power of language
(intentional or not), and are engaged in the enterprise of seeking to
inform their opinions and language usage in helpful and productive ways,
for various reasons, by the study of Paul, I hope you will indulge my
concern in setting out this matter, from one perspective anyway.

>So, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Jewish exclusivism and
>the language of DIKAIOSUNE co-occurs, and these two are closely
>related.

For example, with all respect to Dunn--who had just been sighted, and who
has been brilliant and instrumental in shaping this new paradigm--I find
this identification of the issues as Jewish "exclusivism" problematic. (Let
me add that I have regrettably used this language in order to make a point
in The Mystery of Romans, to describe Paul's view as I interacted with and
sought to challenge Dunn's views! This usage was pointed out by Neil
Elliott in his review of the book, and when we first met. Neil was right, I
thereby allowed a premise that I do not share to be perpetuated,
ironically, in a book that seeks to challenge just such premises.) I
suggest rather that the "normative" Jewish view that gentiles seeking
righteous identity should complete the ritual conversion process and become
proselytes is not "exclusive." It is ethnocentric, as it is based upon an
ethnically defined group's boundary concerns (per Fredrik Barth), but it
offers a way to negotiate the boundary of the ethnos so that an outsider
may become an insider, and is thus inclusive (and it is thus clearly not
racial). One might argue that Paul's gospel, in opposing this inclusive
way, is exclusive, or one might argue that his simply offers a different
inclusive way. Paul's language in Galatians is both offered to, and further
develops, an in-group, an ethnocentrically defined group. On this
definition of ethnocentricity all groups, such as the various Christian as
well as Jewish groups, are indicated. That is, there is nothing
particularly Jewish about this identity concern or boundary maintenance, it
is a normal part of the social phenomenon one refers to as, e.g., "group."
>
>BUT still Rom 1:17 - 3:31 indicates that the righteousness of God,
>is a very good and important thing which Jews wanted to have an
>exclusive right for because they had the law of God.
>It seems to be fundamental to the relationship between God and people. Paul
>wanted Gentiles to share this good and important thing,
>by saying that it is revealed and manifested
>apart from the law because God is also the God of Gentiles.
>If something is a very good thing Paul wanted both Jews and Gentiles
>to share and their not sharing it means God is only the God of Jews,
>is that thing fundamental to salvation and to Paul's theology?

While perhaps not addressing the question raised per se, I would like to
note that again an unnecessarily negative view of Jewish people and
perspectives is involved in this language, and that I do not think it is
helpful, or correct, or that Paul must be read in this way. As I see it,
Paul's good news for the nations is rooted in a Jewish perspective on their
particular relationship with the holy and righteous God that was/is in the
eventual service of all of humankind, all of creation. A difference of
opinion about an innovative message among some Jewish people such as Paul
need not indicate anything more in terms of this impulse toward humankind
than a difference of opinion about what time it is (upon which these groups
takes their stance) that is, what the events of Christ's life and death
mean (or not), and thus what kind of social identification for the gentiles
who are "coming in" is (now) appropriate.

Paul argues, e.g., in the passages cited (like Rom. 3:29-30), the logical
deduction of his view that if God is One, then God is God of gentiles as
well as Jews, because this is a salient argument according to Jewish
sensibilities. He offers a way to understand Israelites' confession of the
Shema--Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. He takes this
to mean that the Lord of Israel is also the Creator God of all humankind,
and thus that the restoration of a particular people Israel is in the
service of the universal restoration of all humankind. But Paul seems to
assume that this develops a shared premise with other Jewish people and
belief systems, even if not applied to the situation at hand in the same
way by them. The difference is how the current situation does or does not
indicate this to be the case, according to the expectations he seeks to
demonstrate from shared premises, i.e., Scripture and the expectation of
God's work on behalf of Israel and all of creation.

I believe that if the insights of the so-called new perspective on Paul,
which are really in many ways a realization that first century and later
Judaisms which do not share the views of the Christ-believers are not
necessarily legalistic or works-righteous oriented (that this polemic was
the view of reformers towards their contemporary Catholic establishment,
retrojected to Jewish people they met in the polemical ["ethnocentrically"
interested] language of the NT), then this insight should begin to alter
the way the faith systems of "Christianity" and "Judaism" are presented;
and why not start with Paul?! One system need not demean the actions or
intentions of the other in order to make itself understood.

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page