Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Dear Moon,
I believe that your questions are already answers in the post to which you
replied. But perhaps I can explain them another way in response.

Let me just say again that I believe much of the ostensible problem is
really the result of the process of changing paradigms for understanding
this language, so that remnants of one suggest themselves as live concerns
within the other, instead of taking the other on its own terms and
rereading the texts anew. These two (or more paradigms) for reading Paul
ask and answer different questions, naturally different answers suggest
themselves; or vice-versa, they offer different answers, so they direct the
reader to imagine different questions. Questions and answers are socially
constructed, they are from a point of view which may not be shared by
someone from another culture, for example, or another time. This is in
addition to the more easily recognized issue of differences of language
usage itself.

So in the case of reading Paul, the issue is not that one paradigm is wrong
and another right, better, etc. But rather depends on what one is really
seeking to find. Oversimplified, Luther was asking questions about his own
time, and in his quest for answers he read Catholic where he found Jew in
the Scriptures. To retroject this to a quest to know about first century
Jewish people, or even first century Paul, is obviously anachronistic, but
not necessarily wrong for Luther when speaking of Catholicism of his time
(I do not know enough about this to comment anyway). I say this because,
for example, if one has had their cultural world shaped by Luther's
questions and answers, then this is very real for them, and pursuit in the
same way of "what Paul thought or said" is vital for themselves. But if one
is not, or one does not wish to be shaped by the questions of Luther, for
example, but wants to know more about the historical Paul for another
reason perhaps, then they will need to ask some different questions,
imagine some different ways of framing them and increase the possibilities
for what they might find, and expect the answers to take different routes.
I take it to be the case that the so-called new perspective, which
recognizes that first century Jewish people and religion do not look like
Luther thought, taken on their own terms, offers the possibility to re-read
the texts of Paul. But no one works in a vacuum, so the world-view of the
"older" paradigm will necessarily emerge in questions and answers of the
"new."

This explanation is inadequate, there are other issues to be sure, and this
one could and should be put better, but at least it points to a problem I
see in your response to my response to your post. And explains my
reluctance to go on. We could go on posing problems for each other to
solve, but this is an enormous project if we are going to have to do this
cross-culturally, that is, between two different paradigms. This is one of
the reasons I like to interact with Dunn in my work, because he has called
for a new perspective, helped to shape it, yet carries over questions and
answers from the one he is seeking to move away from in ways that limit the
possibilities of the new one. I assume this is not intentional, but just
part of the process, because the "older" questions and answers shape his
world-view. It is thus useful to point out some of these "inconsistencies"
that are perhaps more apparent to someone who is not as fundamentally
shaped by that world-view (though I am in no way suggesting that my
world-view is more objective in principle or value, just different). I will
insert a comment below your comments and questions to demonstrate.
>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?

I would suggest that Paul's language is not about keeping the Law,
something that gentiles are not a part of anyway, since this way of
demonstrating God's righteousness in the present age is Israel's special
privilege and responsibility. It is the language of identity, Sander's
"getting in." It is not addressed to "every/wo/man," but to gentiles who
undermine their having gotten-in (become righteous ones) by faith in
Christ, if they now seek to get-in (become righteous ones). What could be
the purpose? Lack of belief that what Paul has proclaimed as God's word to
them is really true. When this language is used in dialog with a Jewish
person such as Peter at Antioch, it is likewise his behavior as
hypocritical because of his Christ-faith based identity that is in view,
not his Law-observance. If he believes that God has made gentiles righteous
ones by faith in Christ without becoming proselytes (part of Israel), what
Paul calls the truth of the gospel, then how can he behave in a
discriminate way as though they are not righteous ones, which thus leads
them to conclude that they must become proselytes if they are to gain
equality? The logic of this discrimination compels them to conclude that
they are not righteous ones according to the truth of the gospel. No
criticism of Law-based identity of Israelites is in view. Just the
contradiction for a Law-based Israelite believing in Christ if they now
discriminate against a non-Israelite member of this Israelite subgroup of
believers in Christ.

One of Paul's approaches to articulate the inherent contradiction is to
say, then Christ died in vain (I like "gratuitously" for DWREAN in 2:21).
That is, nothing has changed in this present age, and becoming part of
Israel is the way to become one of the righteous ones, thus awaiting the
age to come before all of creation will be restored to righteousness. But
Paul believes, as do those to whom he writes, that this has changed. But
they fail to demonstrate this in a way that undermines the meaning of
Christ for themselves, as though Christ has not come and changed things
even in the midst of the present age. I suggest that it is Paul's
perspective that giving meaning to the death of Christ does not imply that
Israel's special role is over or anything is wrong with the Law for
Israelites, but that the time has changed so that non-Israelites may "also"
become righteous ones, so that Israel and the nations may worship together
the One God. I take this to mean that Law-observance for Jewish
Christ-believers like Paul (and his family and those he taught) continued,
but they had to work out the social dynamics for how to do this without
discriminating against the gentile members of these subgroups, a process
that the Antioch incident allows us to peek into as it was taking place.
>
>>
>> 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 think this has been answered. The problem posed in your question I
believe is the result of mixing two very different things. Let me point out
again, it is not "keeping the regulation of the Law of Moses" that makes
one an Israelite. The matter of Law-observance is not in view. The question
was does a gentile already in-Christ need to become an Israelite by way of
proselyte conversion; this is not Law-observance for the gentile, strictly
speaking for the purpose of this conversation as it applies to Paul's
rhetoric, as they are not yet a person identified by Law until after the
conversion has been completed.

Why do you assume that acquisition of Law-identity, that is, proselyte
conversion, sounded "so bad in itself" to Paul? I do not. His point is only
made for gentiles in Christ who look to this as a way to become righteous
ones, when they already are, and thus this action would empty of meaning
what they have already gained.
>
>
>> 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.

I do not share your view of how law works psychologically. If you have
children, you might consider how rules and peer influences of rule-keepers
versus those who do not are desirable or not in their development, and what
you do or seek to do about it. Having the Law as God's gift does not make
one want to break it or less able "to bear fruits for God," quite the
opposite is the case. I wonder sometimes what kind of God is imagined to
have given the people Israel the Law as a special gift. You are reading
from Luther's world here, his answers and questions about Catholicism as he
saw it's problems in his time. I suggest it has nothing to do with
historical Israel, Law, or Paul.

As noted, I do not think Paul criticized the Law or Judaism. He criticized
people who held views different from his own when their influence affected
his "converts." His rhetoric was in-house, with the windows closed. He is
dealing with his children, trying to convince them of his view of the
world, and unfortunately, he sometimes does not take into consideration how
this might sound to the neighbor children and parents whom he may describe
negatively in making his case for them. I like to think he would have
written differently if he had known others would later read his mail with
different world-views, questions, assumptions, etc., as do we. But we must,
having overheard the rhetoric not spoken to us, seek to take it in context,
that is, if we want to make any sense of the historical Paul.

I hope it is not inappropriate to suggest reading my The Mystery of Romans:
The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter, Fortress, 1996. While I might not
convince you, at least it might demonstrate that the assumptions in your
questions are themselves questionable, and show you some of the limits and
possibilities in the present paradigm shift on the perspective for reading
Paul, as well as presenting a paradigm shift of its own.

Regards,
Mark Nanos