Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Dear Mark,
thanks for expressing your concern and comments to my post.

>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.... simply offers a different
> inclusive way. ...... 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."
> >

Agreed. But please see below.
 
> >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.
>> 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.
> >
> 


> 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.

Agreed. 

> 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.

Yes, we can say so. That is why I am so curious why Paul fought such 
a fierce fight in Galatians, by using such a strong language.
For example, he said that those who want to be justified by "works of the
law", i.e. by keeping the regulations of the law, or by becoming a Jew,
are cut away from the grace of Christ. He also said that if a man is 
justified by works of the law, Christ died in vain. What would have driven
him to think that way or say that way?

> 
> 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.
> 

In this particular case, which seems to be the most important case, Jews
in general and some Jewish christians did not agree that God is the God 
of Gentiles as well. They said that God becomes the God of Gentiles 
when they become Jew by keeping the regulations of the law of Moses,
in addition to having faith in Christ. That does not sound so bad in 
itself.
But then why was Paul against it so strongly? 


> 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.
> 

Agreed. But Paul did criticise "Judaism", though he did not say that it 
was
necessarily legalistic or works-righteous oriented". E. P. Sanders says
that Paul criticised Judaism simply because it was not Christianity. But
so far the best explanation to me for Paul's criticism of the Law is 
that the life under the law, though it looks innocent, leads people 
eventually to death. That is, Israel in the OT period was in fact under
bondage of the law, and they needed to die to the law in order to bear 
fruits for God. So any attempt to lead people back to the bondage of 
the law would have been resisted. The law was just a temporary measure,
and it was not the best way to relate to God. But
I am very much open to learn why Paul criticised the law so much.

Respectfully,
Moon 

Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University,
Seoul, Korea