Corpus-Paul

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

>Dear Mark, you wrote:
>>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.

>Well-taken. I liked the new perspective proposed by Sanders. But I liked
Dunn's version better because his treatment of Paul's negative treatments
of the Law made more sense to me. I know that it might have been because
of my own world-view.  Do you think Dunn is still under the spell of
the traditional Lutheran understanding of the Law, even though he
adopted the new perspective?

Dunn is brilliant and appears to have been responsible in an article of the
same name for applying the phrase new perspective on Paul to Sander's (and
other's) changing views of first century Judaism. Although not essential to
your point, it is interesting to note that the (implied) "old" perspective
is hung on the Lutherans (I labeled the phenomenon of inconsistency
"Luther's trap," since I started the discussion of the interpretation of
the weak in Romans 14 with a quote of Luther), although Dunn is himself
Scottish Presbyterian (if I remember right Jimmy!). It might be more
accurately described as the Reformation perspective except many elements
are already present in the Church Fathers and Catholic theology. But I am
no specialist on Christian traditions, and will return to your question.

I think Dunn is inconsistent on this point. On the one hand he observes
what Judaism is not like, but then via the voice of Paul, which he takes in
certain ways to be against Judaism (i.e., Jewish identity and behavior as
acts of faithfulness to God) he returns to the "traditional" paradigm. For
example, while handling Jewish matters in a new perspective way in his
Comm. on Romans, pp. 810-12, he just pages before this (798) can still say
that Paul's criticism of Jewish people's views in Romans 14 is that they
"fail to trust God completely and without qualification," and then state:
"In this case the weakness is trust in God 'plus' dietary and festival
laws, trust in God 'dependent' on observance of such practices, a trust in
God which 'leans on the crutches' of 'particular' customs and 'not on God
alone,' 'as though' they were an integral part of that trust" (' added for
emphasis). In other words these are mistaken views of Jews and Judaism (for
Jewish believers in Christ, of whom he is specifically speaking, "as
though," that is, implying that they are not still to regard themselves as
Jews, which was the later "Christian" view), not the gift or instruction of
God, as is Christ and the way of Paul. You will find full discussion of
this particular example in Dunn and other important voices is in ch. 3 of
my Mystery of Romans. On this matter I think Dunn joins many others in
investing Paul by way of Paulinism with a later gentile Christian's
ideological view of the world. The interesting thing is that this Paul then
is subjected to criticism and found, by the measures granted to his
contemporary Jews, an apostate, or something similar.
>
>You do not think that Paul did NOT criticise Judaism. I understand this
>position is stronger than  Sanders'. As far as I can read, Sanders
>thinks Paul critised Judaism, that is, its "convenatal nomism". Cf.
>Rom 10:3: Being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to
>establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
>This says that the adherence to covenantal nomism somehow prevented
>Jews from accepting Christ, i.e. submitting to God's righteousness.
>Isn't this a criticism of Judaism? Is it just an in-house argument
>where comments on neighbors are made somewhat carelessly?

I do not understand your first sentence: actually I wrote that I do not
think Paul criticized Judaism. The discussion in Romans 9--11 explains why
Paul understands many of his fellow-Jews to disagree at the moment about
what Jesus Christ means for themselves or the claims of this coalition
about what he means for the inclusion of gentiles, as thought the end of
the ages has already dawned. It is not Torah or Israelite identity that he
names, but a difference of view about what time it is and thus what should
be believed, and he hangs this inexplicable "gap" in his brethren's
perception upon God's inscrutable ways of accomplishing his purpose "for"
and not against Israel and "also" all of the other nations, in the end
anyway. Paul understands Jesus Christ to demonstrate precisely what the
Torah should make one expect both of him, and by way of the empirical
evidence of gentiles behaving in the way expected of the age to come. Why
cannot everyone else see this? is Paul's dilemma. But remember, left alone
to the "proofs" to which Paul later appeals, he did not come to this view
himself without "divine" intervention. Perhaps if everyone else was
privileged with his (Damascus) revelation, and not limited to believing
what is not necessarily empirically evident or his exegesis of Scripture,
he would not have been so puzzled by the dissonance of his moment. Maybe
that is what he is granting in 11:25-26. Anyway, I do not see that
Israelite identity or the privileged possession of Torah (see his 9:1-5!)
were in the way, but actually helped one see Christ, from Paul's
perspective anyway (if gentiles can see this, then surely Israelites can!
3:2; 11:11-15); and that is his point against those who do not see things
as he does at the moment he is writing, which circumstance he even
understands to be divinely guided in some inexplicable way.
>
>What about Rom 9:32: Why? Because they did not persue it by faith,
>but as if it were by works (hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL WS EX ERGWN)?

What is your question? It seems to me that Paul is explaining the response
to gentile inclusion, will it be by works (i.e., proselyte conversion, not
the doing of Law by Jewish people) or by miraculous inclusion by faith
of/in Christ? Those of Israel who "stumble" over this fail to see that the
inclusion of gentiles now being demonstrated by God's Spirit is empirical
evidence that the age to come has dawned, an age which Paul understands
Torah to indicate will no longer include converting those of the nations
into Israelites, but rather the worshiping together of Israel and the
nations as one the One God of all humankind. Although different in some
ways from my view, I recommend L. Gaston's Paul and the Torah and R. Hay's
Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul for framing the context of this
entire section.
>
>It seems to say that somehow their adherence to covenantal nomism,
>represented by their identity markers, circumcision and food regulation,
> made them away from the way of faith.  Sanders has a great difficulty
>with this verse, because he thinks that Judaism or covenantal nomism
>is nothing wrong in itself, and Paul's criticism is only that
>the Jews rejected Christ.  Dunn handles this negative verse,
>by connecting their adherence to covenantal nomism to their rejection
>of Christ. How do you say about Dunn's treatment of this verse?

It seems to me that Sanders has overall gotten Judaism right (not that I am
adequate to measure Sanders on this topic), and in this case (as you state
his view) I think he is right about what Paul finds wrong with some other
Jewish people at the moment, that is, that they do not share his faith in
Christ (remember, Paul sees his brethren as stumbling in the present, not
as fallen). But Sander's is puzzled at times when he does not re-exegete
Paul in view of this finding, instead working with the "prevailing" views
of what Paul seems to say. (It may be helpful to note here that Paul is
actually engaged in rhetoric not to criticize even those Jewish people who
do not "get it" at the moment, but the gentiles to whom he writes for their
not "getting it," for whom these Jewish people serve as example of their
own present misinterpretation of current events, which is why, in the end
of ch. 11, he throws up his hands).

Sander's conundrum, to the degree that he admits of seemingly inscrutable
statements by Paul, is indicative of the need for a paradigm shift not only
on Judaism but on Paul. I think Dunn is inconsistent here. In spite of the
many advances he has made, I suggest that he is still profoundly influenced
by the ("Christian" and particularly "reformer") Paul of paradigms he has
himself found deficient for understanding or articulating the historical
Paul's voice. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but offer the metaphor as
applicable, in fact as no doubt true of all of us (mere humans) engaged in
the interpretive task, and thus why we need to consider the views of each
other even when we disagree, for all too often, without realizing this to
be the case, we put new wine in old wineskins, and thus gain less than the
desired results. In Dunn's recent response to two reviews of his new
Theology of Paul one may find him him articulating such an objection when
his own work is measured by standards other than the ones to which he
ascribes (JSNT current).

Again, that is why interaction with Dunn is so useful for advancing this
paradigm shift. Yet if one already knows (limits) the answers (conclusions
for what Paul must have believed) in Christian terms based upon other
paradigms for understanding his historical voice (earlier than now, yet
historically later than Paul), the questions that frame the possibilities
of exegesis will not really be asked anew from a different perspective. Or
to put this differently: If Judaisms are now recognized by Christian
interpreters as different than Christian interpretation has in the past
characterized them to be, would not a "Jewish" Paul be different too?

Regards,
Mark Nanos

Businessman, author, postgraduate student,
University of St. Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri